Planning and Transportation Committees Approve Mobility Plan 2035

The latest cover of the city of Los Angeles draft Mobility Plan 2035. Image via DCP [PDF]
The city of Los Angeles’ proposed Mobility Plan 2035 was approved by two key council committees yesterday. Image via DCP [PDF]
The city of Los Angeles’ progressive new Mobility Plan was approved by two City Council committees yesterday. The joint meeting of the Los Angeles City Council committees for Transportation and Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) both approved the plan intact, postponing decisions on sabotage attempts by City Councilmbers Paul Koretz and Gil Cedillo.

Streetsblog readers may be familiar with earlier coverage including from when Mobility Plan 2035 passed the city’s Planning Commission in May. If current trends continue, the relatively-multi-modal plan may look archaic by 2035, but it is nonetheless a big step in the right direction today. The Mobility Plan includes Vision Zero, a program to eliminate all traffic fatalities by 2035. In addition, the plan creates a series of network streets prioritizing various modes including walking, driving, transit and bicycling. Once adopted, the new plan would replace the one currently in effect: the 1999 Transportation Element of the city’s General Plan.

The two committees are chaired by arguably the best livability leaders on the City Council. Jose Huizar chairs PLUM, and Mike Bonin chairs Transportation. In his introductory remarks, Councilmember Bonin decried that L.A. has been “too long autocentric” and that this plan helps the city to catch up with multi-modal transportation already increasingly embraced by the public. Staff leadership from the Department of City Planning (DCP) and Department of Transportation (LADOT) then presented the plan as a “balanced approach,” a “policy shift,” and a “recognition that we can’t build our way out of traffic congestion.”

Staff’s presentation was followed by more than fifty public comments. Similar to the Planning Commission hearing, the vast majority of speakers were in favor of adopting the plan as is, while a sizable minority, primarily focused on opposing Westwood Boulevard bike lanes, spoke against. Opponents stated that Westwood bike lanes would be “a disaster” and that the plan would not serve the “85 percent who must drive cars.”

Bonin and Huizar were adept in staving off two councilmembers pushing to undermine the plan’s bikeways. Councilmember Koretz, claiming to be pro-bike based on his late-1990s support of West Hollywood’s Santa Monica Boulevard bike lanes, repeatedly asserted that Westwood Boulevard should be removed from the plan’s bikeway network, and that Westwood Boulevard really needs 16.5 foot wide lanes. Councilmember Cedillo was even more aggressively opposed to bikeway improvements, sending staff to request that the committees remove nearly all of the plan’s designated future bike facilities in his council district: a dozen streets listed here. Reacting to Koretz’s prolonged insistence on eliminating his Westwood facility, Councilmembers Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Felipe Fuentes responded that they’d like to see the opposite – more facilities implemented sooner in their districts.

Ultimately the full plan was passed unanimously by both committees, with both the Koretz and Cedillo motions postponed to be heard later in committees. The approval included a handful of minor amendments, including one from Councilmember Harris-Dawson that equity be a key factor in facility implementation.

The full Mobility Plan is expected to be heard at the full City Council some time next week.

More coverage of yesterday’s plan approval at KPCC.

  • Salts

    Anyone else think it’s weird that Koretz supported bike lanes on Santa Monica Boulevard and yet opposes giving Westwood Boulevard AN IDENTICAL configuration? The streets are almost identical in width and today have many similar characteristics (popular bus routes, pedestrian heavy corridors, planted medians and two lanes in either direction, etc) and the proposed “remove nothing” plan from Ryan Snyder would make the streets look even more similar! Funny? Ironic? Sad? Proof he is following orders of the Westwood NIMBY’s rather making a serious attempt at improving safety on Westwood?

  • MaxUtil

    Cedillo’s letter to the PLUM committee opposing bike lanes states that his office’s views are based on “detailed analyses conducted by my office and grounded in the realities of CD1’s high-density and high traffic volume neighborhoods.”

    I would like to see these “detailed analyses”. Do they have post-it notes?

  • LAifer

    I can’t figure Koretz’s play on this any more. He’s not got long left in office and, unless he has bigger political aspirations, there’s no skin in the game for him to be so cozy with Westside NIMBY $$. I mean, $$$$.

  • dexter

    I’m not sure if this is the same thing, but Gil Cedillo attempted to introduce a motion that would remove designations of bicycle facilities from the plan. The plan underwent extensive public outreach and Gil Cedillo did this without consulting many (or any) stakeholders.

    This is a complete subversion of the public process. I can live with him not implementing the bike plan, as so many other cities and leaders do. But to pull the rug out from under without consultation and bogus or non-existent analysis flies in the face of the community and concerns over safety. We need to get rid of this guy ASAP.

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

  • ed

    what’s next for the plan? how likely is it the councilmembers will still kill it?

  • MaxUtil

    A lot of his letter complains about how tiny the outreach for the mobility plan was. He has a minor point, very few people outside of the staff working on it ever hear about these things.

    But then he pivots to his office’s secret “detailed analyses” that no one has ever seen as justification to rewrite a plan written over years by actual experts and with actual public input.

  • ubrayj02

    Jesus, if someone would just pick up this motion from Cedillo and slap him upside the head with it in 2017 and run against him we might be getting somewhere.

    My prediction on Cedillo and Koretz: spite from check collecting old politicians padding their nests goes a long way; they will have their will done in council. Unless there is something Herb Wesson actually cares about regarding transportation, these two will get their way.

    Cedillo wants to completely gut the bike lanes from the plan – hoping that we will all die or at least go away by the time 2017 rolls around. Dude, we’ve been growing in number and strength with no bike lanes at all. If you want to get rid of us, give us the half-assed 3rd rate bike lanes the LADOT designed for us. DOn’t threaten us with the status quo, it makes you look weak and it makes us look stronger than we actually are. You know what, I take that back. We are strong. Cedillo is weak.

    He’s sold out a lot of his big money backers and his game of symbolic votes on issues going down in flames in the rest of council will not win him electoral success. His field offices are a shambles. Nobody in CD1 thinks highly of his ability to govern.

    The dude is a sitting duck and he’s trying to play politics with the lives of his constituents like he’s asking the Pentagon to bomb a tribesman in the middle east.

    Koretz – does he face an electoral threat? Nah. He should face a tsunami of nastiness that will outweigh the hate and bile coming from these insane HOA people in Westwood. If we spook him enough I am sure he’ll compromise on the god awful disappearing bike lane option.

  • ubrayj02

    Highly likely.

    Super duper likely.

    If they Cedillo kills the bike lanes in CD1 his opponent has to do a minor whistle stop tour across the district to drum up a small army ready to kick his butt out of office. I kind of hope they do get stripped out of the plan. With Gil in office they won’t get done anyway and this only arms the opposition with iron clad proof the guy is an anti-human anti-social creep who would rather see us and our families dead in the streets, harassed into isolation, or simply disengaged from community life and the means to find happiness and health in our daily lives.

  • ubrayj02

    Cedillo’s motion to remove all the bike projects from the Mobility Plan is all WIN for the bike scene in LA.

    Under his rule, we will get nothing. No, we will get worse than nothing. We will get projects like the Zanja Madre bus stop trap door death lanes.

    So, really, his motion wouldn’t take anything away from us. With Gil, it has been off the table from the beginning. He just wanted us kissing his rear end the whole time and since nobody did that he’s trying to punish us.

    It’s like taking a scarf away from a bear – go ahead, the bear won’t freeze as it is used to life without a scarf. All you’ve done is direct its rage towards you. We are here in numbers with or without the bike lanes. All you’ve done is make it crystal clear that you are happy with the dangerous conditions on the streets in your district. Rage puts seats in community meetings. Rage motivates people to get to the polls.

  • ubrayj02

    It has to be a personal promise he’s made someone important. The only motivation that would move him would be to (a) find out what that promise was (if there was one) or (b) scare the crap out of him with a group of people or a single person worth more to him that whomever he made this solemn anti-bike promise to.

  • Joe Linton

    What’s next is an interesting question. It’s possible that Cedillo and Koretz will push their modifications at the full city council meeting next week – and that the council might vote for or against them. It’s possible that the council could approve the plan intact next week, with these councilmembers voting no… not clear.

  • Jonathan Weiss

    Councilmember Koretz has been true to those HOA heads who endorsed him ( and to whom he sent his private kill the Westwood study/bike lanes email.


L.A. City Council Approves New Mobility Plan, Including Vision Zero

After a lengthy and contentious debate, the full Los Angeles City Council approved the city’s new Mobility Plan, the Transportation Element of the city’s General Plan. Mobility Plan 2035 replaces the city’s former transportation plan in effect since 1999. The final vote was 12 in favor, with only Councilmembers Paul Koretz and Gil Cedillo opposing. The approved […]

Mobility Plan Re-Approval Passes Joint Council Committee Meeting

The city of Los Angeles’ progressive Mobility Plan 2035 was re-affirmed yesterday at a joint meeting of the City Council Transportation and Planning Committees. In August, the plan was approved on a 12-2 vote of the L.A. City Council. Under the scrutiny of a lawsuit challenge, the city is in the process of removing some allegedly […]

L.A. City Council Plans Re-Vote on Mobility Plan 2035

Earlier today, Los Angeles City Councilmembers Mike Bonin, Jose Huizar, Felipe Fuentes, and Joe Buscaino put forth the procedural motion 15-0719-s11 [PDF] to rescind and re-approve L.A.’s Mobility Plan 2035. The motion comes in response to a lawsuit claiming, among other things, that plan amendments violated City Council procedures. Councilmember Mike Bonin, a proponent of Mobility Plan 2035 […]

Mobility Plan Modest Amendments Sail Through L.A. Planning Commission

The Los Angeles City Planning Commission approved a series of “modest” amendments to the city’s multi-modal Mobility Plan 2035. Commissioners uniformly praised the plan, calling it “forward-thinking” and “multi-faceted”, before approving it by a 7-0 vote. Mobility Plan 2035 is the transportation element of the City of Los Angeles’ General Plan. Mobility Plan 2035, while […]

Planning Commission Approves L.A. City Mobility Plan, Includes Vision Zero

At its meeting this morning in Van Nuys, the Los Angeles City Planning Commission unanimously approved Mobility Plan 2035. The Mobility Plan is the official transportation policy component of the city’s General Plan. Before taking effect, the new Mobility Plan will need the approval of the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) and Transportation committees […]