Streetsblog Los Angeles

Rock and awe: onlookers take in the rock as it sits in the middle of the road on Figueroa St., just north of Florence.

Like a lot of kids (or maybe not), I had a fascination with rocks when I was younger. That said, I was rather nonplussed by the idea of LACMA spending $10 million to put a granite boulder on its lawn. Thinking perhaps I was too cynical, I headed to Figueroa St., where the rock was parked just north of Florence, to see what everyone else thought about it.

The small crowd that had gathered there Friday afternoon seemed more impressed by the spectacle than the rock. A father that had brought his family from Commerce said he’d been tracking the rock like Santa, and talked excitedly about how this was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. A woman from Inglewood kept shouting, “This is crazy!” as she snapped photos and wanted to know why residents hadn’t thrown a party for the rock like they did in Long Beach. A resident of the area said he didn’t have much choice about coming to see it, being that it was parked in front of his house.

A grandfather from the West Side had brought his grandchildren to see it, feeling that the event was something memorable that they should see together. His 10 year old grandson, however, was more interested in the police car of one of the officers watching over the rock. He wanted to know if the spotlights on the front of the car were the kind that could see through the road and find criminals that were hiding underground.

“He plays a lot of video games,” the grandfather apologized.

“What do you think of the rock?” I asked the kid.

“The truck has 160 wheels!!” he shouted.

Actually, it had 196.

“How much do you think this thing cost?” asked a woman videotaping the rock. “You have to wonder…”

“Mmm hmm,” said another lady. “But I bet it’s really beautiful underneath that shrink wrap.”

I showed her the information card LACMA had given me with a sketch of the boulder.

“Ok, maybe not…But I hear you’ll get to walk under it once they put it up?” she paused. “How much did you say this thing cost?”

In dollar terms, LACMA estimated that the total cost was about $10 million. The tab was picked up by private donors, with the costs of staffing road closures — about $203,400 — picked up by Emmert International.

It also burned a LOT of fuel: according to Zev Yaroslavsky, the rig burned approximately 2,250 gallons of gasoline on its 105-mile journey. Read more…

Why are you using discredited science? asks a member of the Community Advisory Panel of Supervisor Tim Kustic and Chief Deputy Director Jason Marshall, representatives of the Department of Conservation

Last night, representatives from the Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), Plains Exploration & Production (PXP), the oil company in charge of the Baldwin Hill Oil Field, and other officials went head to head with members of the Greater Baldwin Hills Alliance and a highly a skeptical community in a standing-room-only meeting at the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area Community Center.

They were there to talk about fracking — a controversial practice that aims to access hard-to-reach deposits of oil and natural gas by enhanced drilling techniques that inject a mixture of water, sand, and toxic chemicals into the ground — and the steps PXP has taken to increase health and safety protections in the oil field, the largest contiguous urban oil field in the country.

The community has reason to be skeptical. In early 2006, noxious fumes released by PXP’s drilling operations wafted through nearby residential areas. Complaints about the odors came from as far as two miles away, and a number of residents evacuated the area.

Residents were stunned to learn at the time that, although PXP had begun one of the most extensive drilling programs in the state – drilling only hundreds of feet from some residences – there had been no environmental impact review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Moreover, DOGGR, a state agency, had been the one to issue PXP the permits without requiring the CEQA review.

The 2008 lawsuit filed by community members resulted in a settlement whereby PXP agreed to reduce the number of wells drilled, commission additional studies on health and air quality, and determine the effects that fracking could have on the surrounding area.

To study the effects of fracking, however, said the PXP representative, one must actually do some fracking. Read more…

East Los Angeles Community Corporation organizer Jorge Villanueva speaks to more than 36 participants at a Clean Air Boyle Heights Campaign meeting on March 8, 2012. Community organizations are recruiting their community members to participate and give input in shaping the direction of the campaign. Photo by Kris Fortin

(This is the second of a two-part interview. To read the first part, click here)

Yesterday, Eastside Streetsblog published the first of two parts of an interview with KCET’s SoCal Connected Associate Producer Rocio Zamora on her elaborating on her story about Boyle Heights air quality.  In this second part, Zamora talks about stories that didn’t make the aired SoCal Connected report,  the difficulty of pinpointing pollutant sources outside of the neighborhood and importance of knowing what clean air is.

Was there anything in the So Cal Connected report you would have liked to include but couldn’t?

We did. We had a story we were going to focus on at Resurrection Church. It’s very different from Clean Up Green Up, because what Clean Up Green Up’s thing is about not kind of protesting against industry. They’re just like, hey, work with us. We’ll make it easier for you if you go green. We’ll give you like either tax breaks, or we’ll help you go green. We’ll subsidize things here and there. And so they’re trying to work with incoming businesses in Boyle Heights. They don’t want to give up business. And they realize a lot of these mom and pops shops either don’t have the money to go green, so they need a little bit of help, or they don’t know they are doing anything wrong. And so they need to be kind of taught. And that’s what Clean Up Green Up is doing, which I think is great. Read more…

A mariachi walks along Boyle Avenue in Boyle Heights, with the 101 Freeway only a few feet away. Boyle Heights' proximity to freeways, industry, and small polluters like auto repair and tire shops has made air quality one of the worst in the city. Image: Eastsider Writer (www.eastsiderwriter.com)

(Part II coming tomorrow…)

Being surrounded by three major freeways in Los Angeles, and residences living practically next door to industry, it’s pretty obvious Boyle Heights is not the best place to breathe. A couple weeks ago, KCET’s SoCal Connected aired a story about the air quality in Boyle Heights, showing how closely residents, especially children, live to polluters and what the community is doing to fix the current state of air in the neighborhood.

Associate Producer Rocio Zamora talked with Eastside Streetsblog this week to elaborate on the story. There was so much we needed to break it into two parts, so the second part will be published tomorrow. In this first part, Zamora talked about how the story changed her perspective not just as a reporter, but also as a Boyle Heights resident.

(ANNOUNCEMENT: The Clean Air Boyle Heights Campaign will be having a meeting today, March 8 from 5:30-7pm at the Mendez Learning Center. Look to the bottom of the story to download flyers for the event.)

Can you briefly explain what your story was about?

Our story was just basically focusing on air quality in Boyle Heights. I think Boyle Heights is one of those communities where you kind of get hit from by all sides. Boyle Heights, being next door to Vernon, which is very industry heavy, they’re also right near commerce, we having the rail yards, we have the alameda corridor now is kind of near us, and then we have all the smog coming in from the ports, and not to mention we are cut by every major freeway in LA, or most of them. I think Leonardo Vilchis, whose from Union de Vecinos, called it death by 1000 cuts, which is a good way of putting it.

What first attracted you to this story?

What first attracted me to the story was the freeways. (Boyle Heights is) just surrounded by freeways. It’s one of the few neighborhoods that really, we looked at six schools aren’t even 500 feet away from a freeway. Soto St. Elementary, the elementary I went to, there is a playground, there is a fence, and then there is a freeway. Really there is no barrier between the two.

I think what I learned from this story is that it’s not just these big polluters like the freeways and the industry. It’s these little shops, the little auto body repair shops.

I’ve been living here for over 20 years; I never noticed the auto body shops. I never noticed that there was a lot of them near my house. And when we were doing this story, my producer said, Rocio your house is pretty much exhibit A. You turn around 10 feet this way there is an auto body repair shop, 20 feet the other way there’s a tire shop. So like, it’s all very small polluters, but when you put them all together, if there’s like 20 of them in a very enclosed area, then that starts becoming the problem.

What surprised you about your findings? Read more…

From the Center for  Investigative Reporting comes a short film breaking down the true price of a gallon of gasoline purchased and used in Los Angeles.  The easy-to-follow animated film follows oil from underneath the ground of Saudi Arabia, where America gets 12% of its gasoline, across the ocean, through the refinery, to the gas station, into a car and out of the tailpipes.

While car drivers pay an average of roughly $4 per gallon, when you factor in the damage to the air and people’s health caused by the 25 pounds of pollution created by the extraction, refinement, transportation and use of the oil/gasoline, the real cost is closer to $15 per gallon.  The film is a great teaching tool, and apparently one that is sorely needed if you read the comments section on the film’s YouTube page.  Just as weighing a gallon of gasoline doesn’t tell you the weight of the pollution it creates, the cost of gas paid at a station isn’t the true cost of a gallon of unleaded either.

Sounding like a spokesperson for the Republican opposition to the bill, Governor Jerry Brown announced a veto of SB 582, citing the cost to small businesses.  From his veto statement:

While I support the goal of reducing vehicle trips, this bill would impose a new mandate on small business at a time of economic uncertainty.

Governor Brown tosses up an airball. Photo: Office of the Governor via KQED

There’s only one problem with this statement.  SB 582 doesn’t require anything of small business without the action of local government bodies known as Municipal Planning Organizations or Air Quality Districts (MPO’s and AQD’s) and the mandate they could require would barely cost businesses anything.  A coalition of environmental, transportation reform and public health groups supported the legislation as well as some large employers including Facebook and Genetech.

“We’re disappointed that Governor Brown vetoed this bill, which would have saved money for California employers and employees, while improving our air quality,” writes Rebecca Saltzman, a Program Associate with the California League of Conservation Voters.

So what would SB 582 have actually done?  It would have given MPO’s and AQD’s the ability to require businesses with 20 full-time employees (or in some cases 50 depending the transit options and air quality of the area) to provide commuter benefits to employees who commute to and from work without their car.  Despite the Governor’s rhetoric, there was a near-cost-free options to meet this requirement.

• Give employees the option to pay for their transit, vanpooling or bicycling expenses with pre-tax dollars, as currently allowed by federal law;
• Offer employees a transit or vanpool subsidy up to $75 per month;
• Provide employees with a free shuttle or vanpool operated by or for the employer.

The first option basically has employers deduct an amount up to $75 from employees pay checks and provide them with a separate check for that amount to cover commuting expenses.  This allows transit and bike commuters to have a tax-free, or tax reduced if their monthly transit ticket is more than $75.  Read more…

I have written about how amorphous the scoping process for Metro and Caltran’s 710 gap-closure/ big dig project has been.   I’ve now given shape to my own opinions in comments for the scoping phase of their environmental review (which ends on April 14^th). Please submit comments if you are interested in the future of freeways and transportaiton in the region.

Others interested in this project are submitting comments focused on the proper scope of environmental review of a mega tunnel. So I’m focusing on how the agencies should study and fund alternative mobility projects in the project area and remove, rather than expand, a portion of SR-710.

1. Remove the SR-710 freeway between the 10 freeway and Valley blvd by transforming it into a boulevard and/ or a linear park.

2. Expand transit to reduce car traffic and pollution and spur transit-oriented development

3. Create complete, living and green streets that promote safe walking and cycling and create vibrant public spaces.

4. Reduce freight truck traffic and pollution by expanding on dock rail at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

5. Conduct a health impact assessment of all alternatives.

I believe that investing in these alternatives would better meet the goals “to relieve congestion and improve mobility within the project area” than would a freeway tunnel.

Caltrans and Metro have defined the project area as the geography touched by the five fingers of the potential corridor zones chosen for the Tunnel Technical Study. (See Initial Study Area map). It includes the 5 and 2 freeways to the west, the 210 to the north, the 605 to the east, and the 10 to the south. The west San Gabriel Valley, Northeast Los Angeles, Pasadena, Glendale, and other cities and communities along the Arroyo Seco corridor are diverse, with a rich cultural history and important natural landscapes. The opening of the Metro Gold Line has provided a new sense of connection between some of these communities and opportunities for transit-oriented development and more sustainable land use in the region. The zone is also divided and surrounded by numerous freeways, that bring deadly particulate pollution. They promote car-centric land use and mobility, which have contributed to epidemics of obesity and diet-related illness. The construction of these freeways disrupted communities, especially low income communities of color. Read more…

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson doesn't have to worry about getting hamstrung by theatrical House GOP legislating.

With budget talks reaching a critical pass to avert a government shutdown, House Republicans have been busy passing an ideological wishlist, including an attempt to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from “raising taxes.” H.R. 910, which they are calling the “Energy Tax Prevention Act” would undermine the EPA’s ability to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from industrial and manufacturing plants and gut the Clean Air Act.

Democrats offered a few amendments to the bill which made for some good political theater, including a gem from Representative Earl Blumenauer. Stating that “I, too, am opposed to any attempts by the EPA to impose taxes,” Blumenauer offered an amendment that struck the provisions of the bill and replaced them with a measure to “help us find out whether Republicans are truly concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency imposing an energy tax on America.” The amendment text continued: “During its 40 year history, the Clean Air Act has prevented millions of hospital visits, asthma attacks and cases of lung cancer while strengthening our economy. A record like that deserves support, not partisan attacks.”

Blumenauer’s amendment didn’t get far but environmental and public health groups can rest easy, for now. The bill, and a few others attempting to curb the EPA’s regulatory powers, didn’t make it through the Senate. President Obama had also stated that he would veto any bills that did not reflect “scientific consensus on global warming.”

Meanwhile, budget talks have continued behind closed doors. Billions for transit, rail, and green transportation are still at stake in the negotiations. Read more…

In a study that should give pause to anyone proposing a highway expansion project near where people live, A  new study out of the University of Southern California should give them pause.  Research by University Professor and senior author Caleb Finch and Constantinos Sioutas of the USC Viterbi School of Engineering demonstrates a direct correlation between certain types of brain damage and highway pollution.

The report is especially timely as reports out of Washington suggest that Republican leadership is pushing for a transportation reauthorization bill that will expand the nation’s dependency on highway travel and slash funding for other forms of cleaner transportation.

Photo:KQED

The pollutants aren’t caused just by the air pollution created by the internal combustion engine alone, but by a mix of tiny particles from burning of fossil fuel and the weathering of car parts and the freeway itself.  Finch explains that the toxic particulates are roughly one-thousandth the width of a human hair and too small for car filtration systems to trap, so that its not just the people living near highways that are endangering their brain cells, but those driving on the freeway.

Many studies have drawn a link between vehicle pollution and health problems. This is the first to explore the physical effect of freeway pollution on brain cells, Finch said.

The study measured the brain activity and health of mice after exposure to the toxic particulates caused by freeway driving.  In the study, mice were exposed for a relatively short time: 150 hours, spread over 10 weeks, in three sessions per week lasting five hours each.  The results? Read more…

Photo: Thomas Hawk/Flickr

Climate change is a national security risk that will be exacerbated if Californians pass Proposition 23, the voter initiative on the ballot this November that would suspend California’s AB 32 climate change law, say opponents of the measure, such as former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz.

Shultz and financier Thomas Steyer, co-chairs of the No on Propostion 23 campaign, held a media briefing today on what they described as the threats to America’s energy security and economy if California’s landmark 2006 climate change law was suspended.

“The issue of climate, the issue of economics, the issue of national security all point us in the same direction. We need to get control of our use of energy and the way we produce it, the way we use it,” said Shultz, a former marine who fought in World War II and later served as Secretary of State for President Ronald Reagan.

Steyer said Prop 23 would continue to mire America in an unstable energy policy. “Our energy use, our approach to climate, the health of our economy, our ability to develop new technologies and build new businesses, all of these factor into our national security,” he said, adding that “dismantling rules that foster innovation and that make us more energy secure doesn’t make sense.”

Shultz tied American energy policy to the threat of terrorism and rogue states just days before the anniversary of the September 11th terror attacks.

“The security implications of our energy situation are compounded greatly by the fact that the revenues that are generated by our use of oil and that of others go, in part, to countries that don’t wish us well,” said Shultz. “Undoubtedly some of this money is slopping over into the hands of terrorists, the 9/11 people. I think the security side of this is very important to recognize.”

Read more…