Get to Know City Hall

Get to Know City Hall

City of Beverly Hills is a small city relatively accessible to stakeholders. At the same time, department responsibilities are not as clear-cut as in a larger city. A large city may have a Department of Transportation that plans for mobility and engineers facilities, for example, but in Beverly Hills transportation is part of Public Works. Transportation planning plays a very small role.

Yet planning for mobility is a core function for any city. State law requires conformity with road standards and the federal government keep a watchful eye on safety. Those of us who choose to ride a bicycle should ask ourselves why our city is not doing more for everyone who uses our roads – and not just motorists.

We can start by familiarizing ourselves with City Hall. You don’t want to be embarassed by a bunch of boy scouts who know more about Beverly Hills city government than we do, right? So study up! Or consult our handy cheat sheet to reach city officials.

Navigating the Org Chart

Beverly Hills organization chartThe first step is to figure out which department handles the issue that is of concern. Refer to the flow chart (right) to see how our city is organized.

In Beverly Hills the City Manager has responsibility for the day-to-day running of the city. The City Council makes the policy (our five members represent every district in the city in an at-large system) and hires the manager. And our departments implement the policies and programs.

Commissions are merely advisory to City Council (with the exception of the Planning Commission which is a policy-making body).
A rough metaphor is that the Council runs the railroad; the City Manager makes the trains run on time; and the commissions & committees do the engineering. For an issue, one usually begins at the bottom of the org chart with a committee or commission.

Where mobility issues are concerned, for example, the Traffic & Parking Commission is the place to begin. It advises City Council on traffic and parking issues. Have a specific complaint? Introduce yourself to the Commissioners during public comment at the top of the meeting. Describe your issue. And follow up with staff. Ask that a pressing concern be agendized for an upcoming meeting. Traffic & Parking meets once per month on the first Thursday at 9 a.m. with public comment near the beginning.

City Council meets twice monthly in both the afternoon (study session) and in the evening (formal meeting). The city publishes (but does not promote) a Policy and Operations Manual that clarifies how the process works.

School District Issues

Education is different. Due to local control, representatives are elected to the school board, which sets the policy while the superintendent of schools manages day-to-day operations. He works for the board. In a small district like Beverly Hills Unified Schools we have an opportunity to bring bike-friendly facilities to the city beginning with the schools. There’s federal and state grant money available. Contact Beverly Hills Unified at (310) 551-5100 and tell Superintendent Gary Woods (a cyclist!) that safe routes to school for cyclists and walkers matters.

Your Cheat Sheet for Contacting City Officials

  • City Council is the key policy-making body for Beverly Hills. Five Council members represent every district in the city (an at-large system) so you need to talk to more than just one. Reach the City Council at (310) 285-1013 or email Council at mayorandcitycouncil@beverlyhills.org.
  • City Manager Jeff Kolin is hired by the City Council to run the city. He’s a rider himself! Surely he’d like to hear from other riders concerned about safety; reach him at (310) 285-1014 or by email at jkolin@beverlyhills.org
  • Transportation Division (a part of Community Development) oversees programs and infrastructure. It provides staff support to City Council on mobility issues and implements programs and policies at the direction of Council. Reach Transportation at (310) 285-1128 or by email at transportation@beverlyhills.org. Or contact deputy Aaron Kunz at (310) 285-2563 or by email at akunz@beverlyhills.org.
  • Traffic & Parking Commission is advisory to City Council on matters related to traffic, parking, and yes, mobility too. Reach Traffic & Parking Commission staffers at (310) 285-2452 or by email at transportation@beverlyhills.org.
  • Recreation & Parks division (in Community Services) oversees parks, landmarks and recreation programming. Reach the division desk at (310) 285-2537 or drop director Steve Zoet an email at szoet@beverlyhills.org.
  • Recreation & Parks Commission is advisory to City Council on matters of mobility. Policies come here first before reaching Council. Contact the Rec & Parks Commission staff at (310) 285-2536 or by email at iknebel@beverlyhills.org.
  • Planning Division of Community Development implements land use policies, reviews applications, and supports City Council with information regarding development issues. Reach Jon Lait, Deputy Director at (310) 285-1118.
  • Planning Commission is the policy-setting body for land use and planning matters like parking minimums and other project-level mobility requirements (think bike racks and showers). Reach a commission staffer at (310) 285-1124 or by email at dmohan@beverlyhills.org.
  • Beverly Hills Unified School District enjoys significant power as a stand-alone body backed by a fat bond issue. Their facilities master planning process is underway and presents an opportunity to secure bike-friendly improvements. Contact the district at (310) 551-5100.

And a few numbers for Beverly Hills public safety which may come in handy if you’re nailed by a motorist: Police general number (310) 285-2101; Watch Commander: 285-2125; Traffic Division (for collision reports): 285-2196.

We always encourage cyclists to drop in on City Council, commission, and school board meetings in order to learn first-hand with how your city government operates. Join Better Bike in reminding officials that safety matters. Have you called City Hall? Let us know what you found out!

Our Plans: The Policy Context for Making Pro-Bike Change

Recent Posts

NIMBYs Whiffed on Bike Lanes But Killed the Dog Park

Roxbury dog park visualization

This year northside Beverly Hills residents swung for the fences but whiffed when they tried to kill bicycle lanes for North Santa Monica (Council kept lanes on the table). But two years ago, the southwest NIMBYs scored a base by killing off a preliminary proposal for an off-leash dog run for Roxbury Park. And it took only a bunt: just five dog park opponents persuaded City Council to nix the whole idea… even though it came recommended by staff, was endorsed unanimously by the parks commission and was supported by local dog-keepers.

The Backstory

The city had been looking to create a dog park for years. Dogs need outdoor recreation, of course, and every morning dogs of all stripes make the trek to one or another city park. But no Beverly Hills park is a place to run a dog: like every inch of the city, our parks are no-go for off-leash activity; a substantial fine awaits those who flout the law. But an off-leash dog area would give our furry friends a place to roam.

Nearby cities already provide dog parks. Moreover, they provide this amenity for Beverly Hills residents too. Popular dog park destinations for our pooches include Brentwood, Culver City, West Hollywood, and Rancho Park. But none is within walking distance. That makes a dog park a no-brainer, right? City Council even elevated the dog park search to an ‘A’ level priority this year:

City Council dog park priority ABut back in 2012 parks staff had already evaluated local options and recommended a dog park for Roxbury. It is the best choice of the options, staff said. Conveniently, the park’s unused croquet court (below) is not close to any park-adjacent apartments and is buffered from homes to the north by Olympic Boulevard. And like the adjacent unused putting green, this forlorn field cries out for re-purposing.

Roxbury croquet court todayNext, the Recreation and Parks Commission evaluated the Roxbury Park option and the commissioners unanimously agreed. The commission then sent it on to City Council.

But what do dog-keepers think about the idea? Generally, residents support creating an off-leash area by a 4:1 margin, but is Roxbury the right place? When staff held a meeting at Roxbury Park to present it, dog park supporters outnumbered opponents. But when the proposal came back to Council, however, some opponents spoke against it. The theme: Hey, we love dogs but don’t put a dog park in my backyard. Classic NIMBY!

Yet NIMBYs adhered to the usual playbook. They raised parking, public safety, noise and property values concerns. One homeowner worried about new people making our park “a destination.” That would take up precious parking spaces and, as another speaker cautioned, tax our limited police patrols.

Ken Goldman, Southwest Homeowners Association president, said he polled his association and “100% of responses were opposed.” Beverly/Roxbury Homeowners Association president Steve Dahlerbruch chimed in. “We polled our homeowners association and we got the overwhelming response, ‘We don’t want it in our area.'” For good measure Mr. Dahlerbruch added, “I live on Olympic and every day dog owners leave (crap) on my lawn.”

That’s the nimby cry: “We don’t want it in our area.” “Not in my backyard.” And of course the property values argument: “I want to preserve the residential nature of this community,” said homeowner Rochelle Ginsburg. “I will protect what I value.” How many such speakers did it take to put the kibosh on the Roxbury dog park idea? Just five.

But this area of the park is in nobody’s backyard. Nevertheless, after hearing from them our City Council simply nixed the proposal. And ever since, this unused croquet court has withered on the vine (n fact, the entire northern tier of this park is typically underused except by dog walkers).

For just twenty-thousand bucks we could have a dog park (according to staff estimates). Let’s put that in perspective: West Hollywood’s City Council is committed to building its second dog park and is poised to budget $750k for it as part of the West Hollywood Park phase II renovation.

In the meanwhile here in Beverly Hills, the a dog park  option – at a site located in the industrial section of the city, near Maple Drive – inches forward. But slowly: City Council gave the OK to test the environmentally contaminated parcel last summer, but no report has yet come forward. (Construction is expected to be completed by the end of the year, marking three-plus years of talking about a dog park.)
We ask you: would you rather take your dog out to play in a lovely park only a short walk from your home, or drive to run your pooch on an environmentally-remediated parcel to run your dog?

Friends of Roxbury Dog Park

In the weeks leading up to last weekend’s dog-friendly Woofstock event, a campaign coalesced to bring the Roxbury proposal back to City Council. Friends of Roxbury Park agree with staff and the Rec and Parks Commission that Roxbury is the best option for the city’s first dog park. But it need not be the only one: dogs need outdoor recreation whether they reside in the north, southwest or southeast part of the city. A few months ago, at a preliminary meeting for the redesign of La Cienega Park, we suggested the city include a dog area.

Roxbury dog park visualization

Roxbury Park’s croquet court repurposed as an off-leash dog area (illustration courtesy Friends of Roxbury Dog Park)

Letting just five NIMBYs nix a good idea like a dog park for Roxbury should feel like a thorn in the paw for every dog and dog-keeper. Just as we can’t let a few negative voices tank bike lanes for Santa Monica Boulevard, we shouldn’t let a few NIMBYs and homeowner association despots dictate the use of a city park either.

  1. Tracking Hazards and Collisions: Maps and More Maps! Comments Off on Tracking Hazards and Collisions: Maps and More Maps!
  2. Are You a ‘Team Player’? Traffic Commission Has Two Vacancies Comments Off on Are You a ‘Team Player’? Traffic Commission Has Two Vacancies
  3. Our 1977 Bicycle Master Plan: Will It Ever Be Updated? Comments Off on Our 1977 Bicycle Master Plan: Will It Ever Be Updated?
  4. Is a Mandatory Bike Helmet Law the Answer? Comments Off on Is a Mandatory Bike Helmet Law the Answer?
  5. Beverly Hills OKs Bike-share Feasibility Study Comments Off on Beverly Hills OKs Bike-share Feasibility Study
  6. File Under ‘Crap Facilities': Dangerous Crescent Dr. Sharrows [Updated] 3 Replies
  7. Beverly Hills Should Take the Foxx US DOT Challenge Comments Off on Beverly Hills Should Take the Foxx US DOT Challenge
  8. TPC Commissioner Alan Gruschow Passes Comments Off on TPC Commissioner Alan Gruschow Passes
  9. Bike Share for Beverly Hills? Comments Off on Bike Share for Beverly Hills?
  10. Recapping the Recappers: How Local Media Covered SM Blvd 1 Reply
  11. News Flash! City Council Keeps Bike Lanes on the Table 5 Replies
  12. LA Councilman’s Hostility Toward Complete Streets Sounds Familiar 14 Replies
  13. Passing Safely: It’s the Law! 1 Reply