In Friday's CityWatch Stephen Box wrote about the continuing interest and efforts by community members in East Hollywood to transform the Bureau of Street Lighting central yard into a public park. The 4.2 acre maintenance and service yard, located on Santa Monica Boulevard between Madison and Virgil, serves as the headquarters for the Bureau of Street Lighting's Field Operations District.
Community members recently took a tour of the service yard:
Last week, City Council President Eric Garcetti's staff took a couple of dozen community members on a tour of the Street Lighting service yard, offering a backstage view of the very busy service yard.
The invitation referenced the "great deal of interest in locating green space/park space/community space at this site" and promised that Garcetti's office would be working with the CRA "to undertake a study in that direction that looks at creative, collaborative possibilities."
Efforts to transform the Bureau of Street Lighting Service Yard into a park are, I think, a waste of time and energy. This site is more than just a "storage yard." This facility serves an important role in Bureau of Street Lighting operations and critical City services are staged from this yard. Stephen details the various activities and operations that take place at the site:
There's no doubt that the Street Lighting service yard provides an invaluable service.
Approximately 80 Street Lighting trucks call the lot home and every morning, they load up with poles, fixtures and supplies and head to the four corners of the City of Los Angeles, from the Harbor to the Westside to the far reaches of the Valley and to the Eastside, confirming that East Hollywood is indeed the center of Los Angeles.
They repair or replace about 75 light poles each month that are damaged or destroyed by motorists in auto collisions. They replace burned out light bulbs and they conduct routine maintenance in order to keep approximately 5000 miles of LA's streets illuminated for our safety and comfort.
There are approximately 400 different street light fixtures used on the 5000 miles of LA streets that the Street Lighting maintains. They store approximately 200 of those fixtures at the East Hollywood service yard.
Some are rare and historic fixtures that require custom repairs at the welding shop. Some are common such as the cement or aluminum poles. Some are experimental and the light yard is also used to test the new LED lighting, low impact lighting, solar panels and solar wraps, all of which represent some of the changes that are taking place in the Bureau of Street Lighting as new technology drives new solutions to the old public safety commitment of illuminated streets.
Transferring the Bureau of Street Lighting service yard from this site and developing it into a park would be ridiculously expensive and simply is not feasible in the current financial climate. Maybe in the future this idea could work, but not now. That said, a lot of homework needs to be done before the relocation of the Bureau of Street lighting service yard can even be deemed a viable option:
- Feasibility: Can a new site of appropriate size and configuration be found? In what area? For what price? What would be the impacts to the community where the new yard is located?
- Yard Acquisition/Development: How would the acquisition of this new site be funded? What funds would be used to develop the new service yard? When would it open?
- Park Development: How much would it cost to build a new park at the current service yard? Where would the funds come from? When would those funds be available? How long until the park could be built?
There are many issues and unknowns. Transforming the Bureau of Street Lighting service yard into a park is a long-term project which could take a decade or longer. It's a good idea, but its just going to take too long to become a reality.
The East Hollywood community has an undeniable need for parks and open space; as do many communities across the City. The City simply needs more parks and open spaces. However, if community members and local activists really want to make progress in bringing green spaces to their communities the reality is that they should focus their energy on identifying sites which could be transformed into parks space in next 1-2 years, not in the next 10-20.
In fact, there is a great opportunity to add community green space in this area at a site directly across the street from the Bureau of Street Lighting service yard: Lockwood Avenue Elementary School.
6 comments:
Good questions:
As for Feasibility: Can a new site of appropriate size and configuration be found? In what area? For what price? What would be the impacts to the community where the new yard is located?
The City Council established a perimeter within which the new service yard would be established. They located city-owned property that fits the bill. It is already a service yard for the city so the impact of moving there is the same as the impact of not moving there.
As for Yard Acquisition/Development: How would the acquisition of this new site be funded? What funds would be used to develop the new service yard? When would it open?
The City already owns land for the new service yard site, it's already used by the city as a service yard, it's ready to go. (since 2006)
As for Park Development: How much would it cost to build a new park at the current service yard? Where would the funds come from? When would those funds be available? How long until the park could be built?
It would cost millions, the funds would come from Prop K, SNAP and Quimby funding. Major obstacles are political will, not engineering. Could be operational within a couple of years.
Assuming the city-owned property you are referring to is the DWP yard at Clinton and Hoover:
I don't think that site has the size or configuration to replace the existing yard; even if DWP relinquished the entire site to BSL.
Speaking of that, the likelihood of DWP "voluntarily" moving its operations to another site is as close to zero as possible. Council can't force DWP to move its operations. DWP knows that. BSL knows that. Call me cynical but that's probably why the DWP site was suggested. Without, as you said, a lot of political will, it just isn't viable.
To those who say the light yard can't or shouldn't be made into a park, I say: fine -- show me where the park in East Hollywood should be located instead. Lockwood Elementary is not an option, since the kids in East Hollywood already use that location for ... you know ... going to school. To say the idea is unfeasible or ridiculously expensive is to talk about East Hollywood's need for a park as if it were some kind of luxury we can't afford right now. Children cannot live a healthy life in a city without parks. Communities cannot thrive without community space. If the Bureau of Street Lighting says they simply must have this space and no other location will do, they have to answer one question: is the current location of the City light yard more important than the children of East Hollywood's right to grow up healthy? An obese 13-year-old living in East Hollywood will be a diabetic in five years. If the light yard can't be made into a park, then the City needs to find another location in East Hollywood. Show me a location that's more feasible than the light yard, and I'll get behind it in a heartbeat. But until then, I'm going to keep working to get a park in my neighborhood, even if the naysayers say it can never be done.
I'm not saying the Light Yard isn't an option. My point is that it is an option which won't bear fruit anytime in the new future. East Hollywood needs parks now, not 10 years from now. There is no need for the community to focus all their energy on just one site.
Lockwood ES is a viable option. The blacktop area could be transformed into a joint-use school park; which would create more green space both the school and the community could enjoy.
To those who say the light yard can't or shouldn't be made into a park, I say: fine -- show me where the park in East Hollywood should be located instead. Lockwood Elementary is not an option, since the kids in East Hollywood already use that location for ... you know ... going to school. To say the idea is unfeasible or ridiculously expensive is to talk about East Hollywood's need for a park as if it were some kind of luxury we can't afford right now. Children cannot live a healthy life in a city without parks. Communities cannot thrive without community space. If the Bureau of Street Lighting says they simply must have this space and no other location will do, they have to answer one question: is the current location of the City light yard more important than the children of East Hollywood's right to grow up healthy? An obese 13-year-old living in East Hollywood will be a diabetic in five years. If the light yard can't be made into a park, then the City needs to find another location in East Hollywood. Show me a location that's more feasible than the light yard, and I'll get behind it in a heartbeat. But until then, I'm going to keep working to get a park in my neighborhood, even if the naysayers say it can never be done.
Good questions:
As for Feasibility: Can a new site of appropriate size and configuration be found? In what area? For what price? What would be the impacts to the community where the new yard is located?
The City Council established a perimeter within which the new service yard would be established. They located city-owned property that fits the bill. It is already a service yard for the city so the impact of moving there is the same as the impact of not moving there.
As for Yard Acquisition/Development: How would the acquisition of this new site be funded? What funds would be used to develop the new service yard? When would it open?
The City already owns land for the new service yard site, it's already used by the city as a service yard, it's ready to go. (since 2006)
As for Park Development: How much would it cost to build a new park at the current service yard? Where would the funds come from? When would those funds be available? How long until the park could be built?
It would cost millions, the funds would come from Prop K, SNAP and Quimby funding. Major obstacles are political will, not engineering. Could be operational within a couple of years.
Post a Comment
Share your thoughts and post a comment.