Final Report 2015-2016

R18-64

years 65% 93% Over 65 years 12% 3% Race: White 27% 17% Black 8% 18% American Indian 0.2% <1% Asian/Pacific Islander 15% 12% Latino 48% 47% Other 2% 6% Income: Median Household $55,746 $21,980 Income Average Household $83,104 $37,142 Income Source: 2014 American Community Survey (ACS); Metro 186 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Metro’s data, shown in Exhibit 4, also reveals the following: • the overwhelming majority of riders walked to their first bus or rail stop, • an average of 76% report not having a car available for the trip, and • no more than five percent of bus and rail riders drove to a bus or rail stop. EXHIBIT 4: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY RESPONSES, 2011-2015 Car available for trip? How Did You Get Here? Dropped Total Year Yes No Walked Off Drove Biked Other Responses 2011 25% 75% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 14,921 2012 19% 81% 83% 8% 3% 3% 3% 21,873 2013 21% 79% 80% 9% 4% 4% 3% 17,377 2014 31% 69% 84% 6% 3% 3% 4% 21,536 2015 22% 78% 79% 9% 5% 4% 3% 19,793 Average 24% 76% 82% 8% 4% 4% 3% 19,100 Source: Metro However, when the question was rephrased in another survey (the data is presented in Exhibit 5) as to whether riders drove to the first bus or train stop of their trip, an average of 15% responded that they drove to their first stop. EXHIBIT 5: SURVEY RESPONDENTS DRIVING TO THE FIRST BUS/TRAIN OF TRIP SYSTEM- YEAR WIDE RAIL ONLY 2012 3% 15% 2013 4% 17% 2014 3% 15% 2015 5% 12% Average 4% 15% Source: Metro Customer Survey Data E. Planning For Metro Parking Availability In compliance with the National Environmental Quality Act (NEQA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Metro is obligated to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to constructing all light rail lines and stations. Such EIR’s include estimates of on-street parking spaces that will be lost, as well as estimates of the increased demand for parking resulting from a station’s opening. Metro and the construction authorities (public agencies, cities, and private parties) are bound by the 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 187 EIR to construct the number of recommended parking spaces determined during the EIR process to ensure proper compliance with environmental and other concerns. Municipal representatives and members of the public are invited to comment, before final parking-related recommendations are adopted, during multiple public meetings held in a municipality.7 Individual jurisdictions have significant input in the planning process. Different jurisdictions have different assessments of what local parking needs are, what parking requirements should be, and what level of investment of their own resources they are willing to make in providing parking supply.8 Shared parking programs, such as the ones that follow, allow Metro to partner with local jurisdictions or entities in order to provide parking, as shown in the following six cities or agencies (information provided by Metro). The advantage of these agreements is that parking is available to Metro patrons but the agency’s construction, maintenance, and operating costs are mitigated. Arcadia. The 2007 EIR for the Gold Line Foothill Extension projected a demand of 300 parking spaces in Phase I of the Gold Line Development (Pasadena to Azusa), and a demand of up to 800 spaces by 2025 once the line is completed (Azusa to Montclair). The Phase I proposed parking structure design did not allow for future expansion up to 800 parking spaces. The city requested and received a redesign to allow for additional parking decks in the future. The city also converted its previous dial-a-ride transit system to a fixed ride system to coincide with Metro’s opening, making stops at points of interest, such as the race track, shopping mall, and hospital. Culver City. The 600 space parking lot at the Culver City Metro Station lot is heavily utilized. Culver City installed 15 bike racks and 20 bike lockers at the station. The city has scheduled the elimination of the lot in 2017, to make way for a transit-oriented development project. The project will include a six-story 1,500 space parking lot, of which 300 spaces will be reserved for Metro. The city determined that the benefit of the transit-oriented development outweighs the need to meet parking demand. Expo/Crenshaw. This facility has low to moderate parking utilization and is not a high- ridership station. Metro leased 450 spaces from the West Los Angeles Church of God. Because this facility, near the Exposition/Crenshaw station, was poorly patronized with a nine percent utilization rate, Metro reduced the lease to 225 spaces. Utilization continues to be low at 37%, which may be the result of poor signage. Inglewood. The city anticipates the need for additional parking once the planned station becomes operational. The city is exploring opportunities to provide supplemental parking in the area by making existing lots available for a fee. Pierce College. This facility has low to moderate parking utilization and is not a high- ridership station. Metro leases 373 spaces at the Pierce College station on the Orange 7 Audit, p. 10. Audit, p. 13. 188 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and has a 55% utilization rate. The lot is owned by Los Angeles Community College, and was secured through a prepaid lease of $5.3 million. Santa Monica. The EIR for the extension of the Expo Line to Santa Monica provides for three stations in that city, with 70 parking spaces at the 17th Street Station. Because of the city’s density and walkability (an estimated 50% of its citizens live within a 10 minute walk of the three proposed stations), the city believes that additional parking is unnecessary and will negatively impact the quality of life by increasing traffic congestion. As an alternative, the city proposed expansion of the Big Blue Bus services in the city and throughout Los Angeles County, as well as construction of bike parking facilities at the stations. Aside from the 17th Street Station, no additional parking is planned for any Santa Monica station, including the downtown terminus. The city stresses that this is by design and in alignment with the city’s extensive long-term planning strategies for growth, development and sustainability. F. Metro Parking Availability And Utilization In 2014, Metro had a total of 23,222 parking spaces with an average estimated daily parking utilization of 14,399 spaces, or 62%. Usage is highly variable by Metro line, as shown in Exhibit 6. On any given day, there could be close to 9,000 available parking spaces throughout the Metro system. EXHIBIT 6: METRO LINE PARKING UTILIZATION Estimated Total Parking Daily Parking Average Daily Metro Line Spaces Utilization Utilization Rate Red Line 2,072 1,800 87% Blue Line 2,036 1,683 83% Gold Line 2,476 1,860 75% Expo Line 1,521 994 65% Silver (BRT) 3,631 2,256 62% Green Line 5,451 3,347 61% Red/Purple Line 1,878 1,153 61% Orange (BRT) 4,157 1,306 31% TOTAL 23,222 14,399 62% Source: Audit calculation based on Metro data. In reviewing Metro data, the Audit determined9 that many high utilization stations are located at the terminus of their respective Metro lines (e.g., Gold Line - Sierra Madre Villa and Atlantic; Green Line - Norwalk; Red Line - North Hollywood; Expo Line – Culver City). Further, high utilization stations are often adjacent to low or medium utilization stations, including stations along the Gold, Expo, Blue, and Green Lines and 9 Audit, pp. 212 et seq. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 189 low utilization stations are concentrated along the Green, Silver and Orange Lines. This indicates a mismatch of parking supply and parking demand. Parking utilization is not dependent on the total parking supply at any given Metro station. Levels of parking utilization at Metro stations are largely driven by factors other than the relative amounts of parking supply.10 The highest ridership is on the Red, Purple, and Blue Lines, the oldest lines in the system, accounting for approximately 70% of average weekday boardings, but those trips account for approximately 40% of parking supply and utilization. The Expo, Green and Gold Lines account for just approximately 30% of average weekday boardings, but approximately 60% of parking supply and utilization. KEY FOR EXHIBIT 7 Ridership Parking Supply Parking Utilization “High Ridership” stations, “Large” stations with between “High Utilization” stations, averaged 3,548 weekday 492-1,915 parking spaces. where more than 85% of parking boardings. spaces were occupied during Metro’s assessment. An indicator that Metro patrons could face difficulties finding a parking space. “Moderate Ridership” stations, “Medium” stations with between “Medium Utilization” stations, averaged 1,705-3,547 weekday 227-491 parking spaces. where between 45%-84% of boardings. parking spaces were occupied during Metro’s assessment. “Low Ridership” stations “Small” stations with between “Low Utilization” stations, averaged less than 1,704 18 and 226 parking spaces. where less than 45% of parking weekday boardings. spaces were occupied during Metro’s assessment. Audit, p. 202 190 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT EXHIBIT 7: MATRIX OF PARKING SUPPLY, RIDERSHIP, AND PARKING UTILIZATION BY STATION Number of Parking Parking Stations Stations Metro Line (a) Ridership Supply Utilization North Hollywood, Red/Orange; High Large High Universal City, Red; Green; Norwalk, Culver 4 Expo City Union Station, 2 Gold/Purple/ High Large Moderate Willow Red; Blue Sierra Madre 1 Gold Moderate Large High Long Beach 1 Blue Moderate Large Moderate Crenshaw, 2 Green; Green Moderate Large Low Hawthorne Del Mar 1 Gold Low Large Low Aviation 1 Green High Medium High Willowbrook, 2 Blue/Green; Blue High Medium Moderate Artesia Del Amo, Blue; Green; Moderate Medium High Lakewood, 3 Gold Atlantic Harbor Freeway 1 Green/Silver Moderate Medium Moderate Expo/ 1 Expo Moderate Medium Low Crenshaw La Cienega 1 Expo Low Medium Moderate Marine/ 1 Green Low Medium Low Redondo Florence, 2 Blue; Purple High Small High Westlake 103rd Street 1 Blue High Small Low Vermont, Avalon, Red; Green; Moderate Small Low Lake Avenue 3 Gold Wardlow, Blue; Gold; Gold; Low Small High Fillmore, Indiana, Gold; Gold Lincoln Heights, Heritage Square 5 Mission, Gold; Green Low Small Moderate Douglas/ 2 Rosecrans El Segundo 1 Green Low Small Low Source: Audit calculation based on Metro data. (a) Metro line colors are indicated in the order that train stations are listed. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 191 III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES Due to the vastness of the possible inquiry and time constraints, the CGJ narrowed its focus to the availability of parking around selected Metro light rail/bus-rail transit stations. As the primary provider of bus and rail transportation in Los Angeles County, Metro has made efforts to increase ridership by providing parking and transit alternatives. Metro’s success or failure would provide a reasonable litmus test from which conclusions and recommendations could be drawn. The CGJ employed the services of an audit firm to provide an operational audit of Metro’s parking supply relative to the demand for parking spaces at certain Metro stations. The Audit and its findings are attached and incorporated in this report. IV. FINDINGS 1. Parking availability at metro stations does not necessarily increase ridership. 2. Jurisdictions have requested modifications to planned parking availability. 3. Jurisdictions have implemented local efforts to supplement Metro ridership. 4. High parking utilization does not necessarily indicate a desire by jurisdictions for increased capacity. 5. In planning for parking needs, parochial rather than regional views dominate the thinking of local jurisdictions. 6. Local jurisdiction reliance that parking facilities elsewhere will “take care of” parking needs may be wishful thinking. 7. The lack of available land for parking expansion and the general high cost associated with constructing parking structures may inhibit provision of such facilities. 8. Many stations are close to current transportation infrastructure (highways and roads) preventing Metro’s ability to increase parking. 9. Local land use, community concerns, strategic goals and visions for growth impact the provision of parking. 10. Financial constraints impact the provision of parking. 192 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 11. It is unrealistic for local jurisdictions to attempt social re-engineering by means of the reduction of traffic lanes, increase of bicycling lanes, and reliance on alternative transportation (e.g., Über, Lyft), while ignoring the estimated 7.8 million registered vehicles currently on roads in Los Angeles County, with its vast geographic area and lack of easily accessible, reliable public transportation. 12. Currently there are 60 different Metro stations that offer parking with a total of 90 Park-and-Ride facilities. Of the 90 facilities, 15 are parking garages or structures, and 75 are parking lots. 13. In general, parking is provided at “origin” stations (where riders board at the start of their transit journeys to go to work, such as Culver City or Norwalk), and not provided at “destination” stations (where most riders disembark, such as downtown Los Angeles or Hollywood). 14. Parking facilities at Metro stations are owned and operated by a wide range of public agencies, cities, and private parties. 15. The 90 different parking facilities have 16 different owners, and 11 different operators. The divided ownership of these facilities can lead to conflicting mandates, different enforcement, or lack of resources. 16. Although parking garages increase parking capacity on limited available land, there are significant expenses associated with their construction and maintenance.11 17. Metro currently provides over 25,000 parking spaces at its stations and facilities, of which approximately 86% are free. 18. Of that amount, there are 3,588 paid parking spaces, located at 18 different stations, which comprise 14% of total parking. 19. Nearly 70% of paid parking spaces are located at North Hollywood, Union Station, and Universal City.12 11 Audit, pp. 208-209. Audit, p. 210. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 193 V. RECOMMENDATIONS The CGJ makes the following recommendations which should be read along with the details provided in the attached Audit. 10.1 The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) should focus on monitoring and evaluation of supply/demand at nine stations: North Hollywood, Universal City, Norwalk, Culver City, Sierra Madre, Aviation, Del Amo, Lakewood and Atlantic. These stations currently have high utilization and high ridership, which might warrant the usage of additional parking management tools. 10.2 Metro should monitor, specifically to track ridership increases that may warrant the usage of additional parking management tools, utilization at six stations: Union Station, Willow, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Artesia and Harbor Freeway. 10.3 Metro should identify tools to better inform park-and-riders of supply constraints and alternative parking opportunities. 10.4 Metro should, in collaboration with local and regional partners, consider how to expand policy and planning goals to incorporate increased employment density around transit stations. 10.5 Metro should evaluate and take advantage of opportunities for re-striping at high utilization parking lots in order to expand existing capacity, and negotiate to do so with local and regional partners where required. 10.6 Metro should explore opportunities to supplement parking for Metro riders at those stations with high parking utilization. 10.7 Metro should ensure that adequate and visible signage is available at parking lots, especially those with low utilization. 10.8 Metro should reevaluate, specifically to determine whether the leases need to be modified or renegotiated, parking at two shared parking stations: Expo/Crenshaw and Pierce College. 10.9 Metro should evaluate the benefit of including in the Preferred Parking Program the following stations: Culver City, Aviation/LAX, Lakewood, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Harbor Freeway, and Union Station. 10.10 Metro should explore ownership/transfer opportunities or alternative management arrangements of Caltrans properties at Norwalk, Lakewood, and Aviation/LAX. 194 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 10.11 Metro should ensure that the tools, models, data, and recommendations of its master planning process for parking are incorporated throughout Metro’s Countywide Planning Department. 10.12 Metro should continue exploring relationships with ride-sharing companies upon the expiration of its agreement with Lyft, including evaluating whether more comprehensive data-sharing and institutional partnerships might be appropriate. 10.13 Metro should incorporate into its future planning all findings from the Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan Study with regard to the impact of technological and demographic trends on parking. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses to recommendations shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). Responses shall be made in accord with Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Responses are required from: Metropolitan Transportation Authority: 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, 10.13. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 195 VII. ACRONYMS BRT Bus Rapid Transit CGJ Civil Grand Jury EIR Environmental Impact Report Metro/MTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Bart Benjamins Co-Chair Victor H. Lesley Co-Chair Judy Goossen Davis Edna McDonald Arun Sharan Lorraine Stark 196 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ATTACHMENT A: AUDIT OF PARKING SUPPLY AT METRO STATIONS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY April 7, 2016 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) provides bus and rail services throughout the County. Despite perceived efforts to increase ridership by providing parking and transit alternatives, there is evidence of a shortage of parking supply relative to the demand for parking spaces at certain Metro stations. To understand the extent of this problem, and Metro’s effectiveness at addressing station parking issues, the scope of this audit included: 1. An initial assessment of existing and projected parking supply and ridership data for Metro stations along major existing and planned transit lines. 2. A review of Metro’s plans, policies, and procedures with respect to parking at Metro stations, with a particular focus on facilitating increased access and ridership. 3. The selection of Metro stations for in-depth analysis of existing or planned parking supply, parking supply history, and related land use developments in local jurisdictions surrounding Metro stations. 4. A literature review to identify key sources for understanding the links between parking supply, transit ridership, and transit revenues. This would also include an evaluation of demographic, social, and technological changes that may affect parking needs in the next five, ten, or fifteen years. 5. An assessment of the effectiveness of Metro’s planning process for parking, as well as its parking policies and procedures, and identify recommendations for improvement. For an in-depth review of practices and operations at the local level, the audit team selected six existing stations with parking lots, and three planned stations, as noted below: 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 197 Table 1: Selected Stations for Analysis Status Station Name Municipality Metro Line/Extension Existing 103rd and Watts Los Angeles Blue Existing Aviation/LAX Los Angeles Green Existing Culver City Culver City Expo Existing Expo/Crenshaw Los Angeles Expo Existing Fillmore Pasadena Gold Existing North Hollywood Los Angeles Red/Orange Planned Arcadia Arcadia Gold (Extension) Planned Downtown Santa Monica Santa Monica Expo (Extension) Planned Inglewood Inglewood Crenshaw/LAX Corridor In general, the audit team found that there are many factors other than the availability of parking that impact transit ridership, and estimates indicate that increasing the amount of parking would result in significant costs with relatively modest impacts on ridership. The audit team did find opportunities to monitor utilization and expand parking management tools in order to maximize use of the existing facilities. Key recommendations to Metro include:  Focus monitoring and evaluation of supply/demand at nine stations— North Hollywood, Universal City, Norwalk, Culver City, Sierra Madre, Aviation, Del Amo, Lakewood and Atlantic—which currently have high utilization and high ridership  Explore opportunities to redirect park-and-riders from highly utilized lots to underutilized lots nearby, where possible  Evaluate the need for improved signage, lot re-striping, and shared parking at existing stations to maximize capacity  In collaboration with local and regional partners, consider how to expand policy and planning goals that incorporate increased employment density around transit stations, which the literature shows to be a primary factor in increasing transit ridership 198 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT II. BACKGROUND A. Metro History and Organization Created in 1992 by State of California Assembly Bill 152, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) serves as transportation planner and coordinator, designer, builder, and operator. Through bus and rail services, Metro provides transportation options for more than 10 million people across its 1,433-square-mile service area. Under the leadership of the Chief Executive Officer, and governed by a Board of Directors, the agency is divided in to 11 divisions, including: Engineering & Construction, Planning & Development, Operations, Finance & Budget, Information Technology, Vendor/Contract Management, Communications, Labor Relations, Program Management, Corporate Safety & Risk Management, and LA Metro Protective Services. B. Metro Annual Budget For Fiscal Year 2015-16, Metro’s total budget was over $5.5 billion, including all operations, capital projects, administrative costs and financing. The table below details sources of funds, as budgeted for the year. Table 2: Budgeted Revenues for FY 15-16 Revenue/Source FY 15-16 Amount Passenger Fares $376,000,000 TDA/STA $487,500,000 Proposition A - Cent Sales Tax $763,500,000 Proposition C - Cent Sales Tax $763,500,000 Measure R - Sales Tax $763,500,000 Federal and State Grants $950,300,000 Bond Proceeds $1,317,200,000 Other System-Generated Revenue $146,900,000 Total Revenues/Sources of Funds $5,568,400,000 Source: Metro As shown, the largest source of funds comes from bond proceeds. Passenger fares and other system-generated revenue represent the lowest sources of funds in Metro’s annual budget. The table below details the agency’s uses of funds, as budgeted for the year. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 199 Table 3: Budgeted Expenditures for FY 15-16 Expenditure/Use FY 15-16 Amount Bus Operations $1,050,400,000 Rail Operations $399,200,000 Regional Activities $22,800,000 Measure R Transit Capital $1,525,200,000 Operating Capital $469,200,000 Regional Rail Capital $46,600,000 Highway Capital $90,300,000 Subsidy Funding Capital $1,373,100,000 Congestion Management $93,100,000 General Planning & Programs $169,800,000 Debt Service $328,700,000 Total Expenditures/Uses $5,568,400,000 Source: Metro As shown, the areas of highest expenditures include Measure R Transit1, Subsidy Funding, and Bus Operations. Metro is responsible for the distribution of local, state and federal transportation funds in Los Angeles County. Over the next ten years, transportation funds available to local jurisdictions through local return sales tax revenue (i.e., Proposition A, Proposition C, Measure R), gas tax, and federal STP-L are estimated to reach over $10 billion. Metro uses a Call for Projects process for programming regional funds to cities, the County, and local agencies. C. Metro Services and Ridership As noted above, Metro provides bus and rail transit service for the County. The bulk of those operations are for the bus program, which serves a significantly larger footprint across the County, and thereby a larger number of riders. The table below provides a brief summary of basic operations for Metro’s bus and rail services. Measure R was a 2008 ballot measure to provide a half-cent sales tax for transportation projects. The Measure R Expenditure Plan funds seven transportation categories as follows: 35% to new rail and bus rapid transit projects, 3% to Metrolink projects, 2% to Metro Rail system improvement projects, 20% to carpool lanes, highways and other highway related improvements, 5% to rail operations, 20% to bus operations, and 15% for local city sponsored improvements. 200 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Table 4: Bus and Rail Service Summary Bus Rail Stops/Stations 15,967 86 Miles in Service Area 1,433 98.5 Number of Bus Routes/Rail Lines 170 6 Source: Metro To demonstrate ridership throughout the system, the following charts show bus, rail, and total transit (including both bus and rail) boardings over the past twelve years. Exhibit 1 below illustrates this change over time for annual ridership across the system. Exhibit 1: Annual Ridership on Bus and Rail Lines, 1991-2014 600,000,000 500,000,000 400,000,000 300,000,000 Bus Rail 200,000,000 Total FY Boardings 100,000,000 - Source: Metro As shown above, bus ridership has declined since 1991-92, although it slightly rebounded from a marked drop in 2003-04. Bus ridership leveled off in recent years at around 350,000,000 annual boardings, but experienced another slight decline in 2013- 14, the latest year of data. Conversely, rail ridership has experienced a slow but steady increase since 1991-92, with a similar but much less drastic decline during 2003-04. In total, rail ridership represents a fraction of total annual Metro ridership, roughly 20 percent. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 201 The exhibit below shows the same measures across the same time period for average weekday ridership. Exhibit 2: Average Weekday Ridership on Bus and Rail Lines, 1991-2014 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 Bus 800,000 Rail 600,000 Average Weekday Boardings 400,000 200,000 - Source: Metro Again, bus ridership has declined over time, while rail ridership has slowly but steadily increased. The percentage of average weekday rail ridership of the total ridership is approximately 28 percent—slightly higher than its portion of the annual ridership. According to a recent study, "Rail investments tend not to increase overall transit ridership in most cities; rather, most rail transit commuters are former bus commuters, not former drivers, and the main effect of rail investment may be giving transit users a faster transit option rather than reducing VMT and associated emissions (Baum-Snow and Kahn, 2005)." This could be a plausible explanation of ridership trends in Los Angeles, as total ridership has remained relatively flat while bus ridership has declined and rail ridership has increased. Metro conducts an annual rider survey to measure customer satisfaction and collect demographic information on riders. The two questions commonly asked that are most relevant to this audit include:  Do you have a car available for this trip?  How did you get to the first bus or train of this trip? Results from these survey questions over the past five years can be seen below. 202 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Table 5: Customer Satisfaction Survey Responses, 2011-2015 Car available for trip? How did you get here? Total Year Yes No Walked Dropped Off Drove Biked Other Responses 2011 25% 75% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 14,921 2012 19% 81% 83% 8% 3% 3% 3% 21,873 2013 21% 79% 80% 9% 4% 4% 3% 17,377 2014 31% 69% 84% 6% 3% 3% 4% 21,536 2015 22% 78% 79% 9% 5% 4% 3% 19,793 average 24% 76% 82% 8% 4% 3% 3% 19,100 Source: Metro According to the responses received over the past five years, no more than 5 percent of bus and rail transit riders drove to their first trip—presumably because an average of 76 percent of these riders did not have a car available for the trip. In each year, the overwhelming majority of riders walked to the first bus or train of the trip. D. Metro Mission and Policies According to its mission statement, “Metro is responsible for the continuous improvement of an efficient and effective transportation system for Los Angeles County”. The agency’s core goals include: Goal 1: Improve transportation services. Goal 2: Deliver quality capital projects on time and within budget. Goal 3: Exercise fiscal discipline. Goal 4: Provide leadership for the region’s mobility agenda. Goal 5: Develop an effective and efficient workforce. Goal 6: Secure local, state, private sector, and federal funding. Goal 7: Maintain open lines of communication. Goal 8: Enhance a safety-conscious culture with employees contractors and customers. Goal 9:Sustain the environment with energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve these goals while ensuring effective management of the fare and operating system, Metro outlined several strategies as part of the FY 15-16 budget process in order to improve operating/organizational efficiencies, reduce operating costs, strengthen cost controls, and explore opportunities for generating alternative revenues. These include:  Safety and security  Transit service quality improvements  Delivery of rail and highway projects 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 203  Bike programs  Technology enhancements  New initiatives including first last mile As it defines its own goals, Metro must take into account guidance and mandates from other levels of government. Federal, state, regional and local policies support increased use of public transportation as a means to ease roadway congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and support economic and physical health in communities. The State of California, in particular, has taken several steps to urge local jurisdictions to adopt policies and practices that promote modes of transportation that reduce the environmental impact.  California Department of Transportation’s Deputy Directive 64-R1 emphasizes all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.  The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) sets a mandate for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) requires emissions reductions through coordinated regional planning that integrates transportation, housing, and land-use policy. Achieving the goals of these laws will require significant increases in travel by public transit, bicycling, and walking. Metro’s policies are adopted by the Board of Directors and implemented by Metro employees. Recent major policy documents produced by Metro include  2009 Long Range Transportation Plan: in response to SF 375, Metro adopted this plan to “respond to emerging environmental challenges by providing alternatives to driving alone”  2012 Countywide Sustainability Planning Policy and Implementation Plan: to guide the integration of sustainability in the agency’s planning function  2014 First Last Mile Strategic Plan: to outline a specific infrastructure improvement strategy designed to facilitate easy, safe and efficient access to the Metro system  2014 Complete Streets Policy: to support an integrated multimodal transportation system  2015 Active Transportation Strategic Plan (in process) E. Metro Parking Policies Metro’s policies regarding parking are primarily reflected in the 2003 and 2009 Parking Policy documents, and have been summarized by Metro as follows: 204 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Metro recognizes that to support a high level of demand for ridesharing and to make the transition to and from public transit as seamless as possible, adequate parking must be available for patrons to easily move from one mode to the next. Providing parking facilities at key locations is critical to accommodate the growth in usage as the public responds to TDM strategies. Our existing Metro Station parking program helps manage parking resources and anticipates future parking demand. Metro will continue to investigate other options, including technological solutions, to increase the supply of parking facilities in key sites to make this alternative as attractive as possible. This approach may also utilize privately owned parking facilities and develop parking facilities that are located near freeways with carpool lanes or busways. Continuous work is needed to plan the growth of the network of park-and-ride lots that are safe and convenient for travelers to use. Metro’s 2009 Parking Policy also notes: In a region where auto usage represents over 85% of the regional trips, adequate parking near transit facilities is a crucial component of the transit system. This policy applies specifically to Metro facilities. Metro will work with the jurisdictions adjacent to Metro facilities to encourage them to consider and implement the policies included in this document. The parking management policy emphasizes two primary courses of actions, modify demand or increase supply, and in the long term to anticipate the need for both. The primary policy goals outlined in the 2009 document include:  Improving Alternative Access to Transit: This includes strategies that improve walking, cycling, ridesharing, and transit services.  Analyzing, and where appropriate (i.e. parking lots at 75% capacity), including such strategies as: Explore the formation of parking districts or authorities. o Implement charges for parking. o Improve the efficiency of parking. o Pursue lower cost options that increase parking supply in existing facilities. o  Creating off-street parking at high-demand locations near transit facilities and work with local jurisdictions to consider ways to increase on-street parking.  Working with cities to develop better land use and transportation integration. This report discusses specific strategies that Metro has undertaken to implement these policies, and recommends opportunities to more effectively achieve these goals. F. Process for Constructing, Financing and Managing Parking at Metro Stations i. Planning process Under the National Environmental Quality Act (NEQA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Metro is required to complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) when there is substantial evidence that a project will have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose is to inform policymakers and citizens of potential environmental impacts that could result from the project. Examples of impact areas 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 205 include population, traffic, schools, fire protections, archaeological artifacts, and community beauty. As such, Metro has been obligated to prepare an EIR when constructing all light rail lines and stations. These EIRs look at transportation impacts, like traffic flow, congestion, and safety. With regard to parking, Metro’s light rail station EIRs contain estimates of the on-street parking spaces that will be lost, as well as estimates of the increased demand for parking that will result from the opening of the station. The EIRs include a recommended number of spaces to be provided at each station on opening day and several years into the future. In some instances, the estimates of the need for parking vary depending on the particular station design likely to be implemented. Metro and the construction authorities (discussed below) are bound by the EIR to construct the number of recommended parking spaces determined during the EIR process to ensure proper compliance with environmental and other concerns. Municipal representatives and members of the public are invited to weigh in on the recommendations before they are adopted at a requisite number of public meetings held in the municipality. ii. Financing Typically, a significant amount of time passes between the EIR process, and the beginning of construction—primarily due to challenges in securing project financing. Metro line extensions are costly and require the coordination of multiple financing mechanisms. iii. Construction Once financing has been secured, the construction phase can begin. The State Legislature established construction authorities for the purpose of awarding and overseeing all design and construction contracts for completion of the Metro lines and extensions. These construction authorities have been tasked with:  Conducting the financial studies and the planning and engineering necessary for completion of the project;  Adoption of an administrative code, including a specified code of conduct, for administration of the construction authority, in accordance with laws relating to open meetings of public entities, contracting and procurement, contracting goals for minority and women business participation, and political reform; and  Completion of a detailed management, implementation, safety and financial plan for the project, to be submitted to the Governor, the Legislature and the California Transportation Commission. iv. Management Following construction, the project returns to Metro for management and ongoing operations. The parking facilities specifically are managed by Metro’s Parking Management Unit within the Countywide Planning and Development section of Metro’s 206 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Planning and Development Division. Jurisdictions that are planning a new station must work with Metro and the construction authority to determine the appropriate amount of parking spaces to build. Municipalities with existing Metro stations can implement solutions to manage the supply of parking and to mitigate the impacts of parking overflow onto nearby streets. Metro operated over 2,000 parking spaces in 1989. By 2015, that number had grown to over 22,000. When the current expansion programs are completed for Expo and the Gold lines, the total number of parking spaces will total approximately 25,000. According to Metro, “parking is a resource that needs to be effectively managed. Parking is also the first and the last impression for some transit riders. A well-managed supportive parking program will enhance transit riders’ experience.” III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES To complete this audit, the team conducted interviews with Metro staff and staff from the selected jurisdictions, as well as one of the Metro line construction authorities. The team conducted site visits to all of the selected stations. In addition, we reviewed:  Metro ridership data.  Metro parking utilization data.  Economic and demographic data.  Metro policies and procedures.  Selected Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs).  Metro Board agendas and minutes. IV. FINDINGS a. Finding 1 – Parking Utilization Overview and Transit Ridership Data Metro Stations and Parking Facilities There are currently 60 different Metro stations that offer parking with a total of 90 Park- and-Ride facilities, as seen in the Table below. Of the 90 total parking facilities, 15 are parking garages or structures and 75 are parking lots. Some stations have only one parking garage or lot, while others have several parking lots. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 207 Table 6: Number of Metro Stations with Parking and Metro Parking Facilities (2016) No. of Stations No. of Parking Metro Line with Parking Facilities Blue Line 7 11 Expo Line (incl Phase II) 7 7 Gold Line (incl Phase II) 15 17 Green Line 12 18 Orange Line (BRT) 8 15 Red/Purple Line 4 9 Silver Line (BRT) 7 13 Total 60 90 Source: Metro Of the stations shown above, there are 15 stations on Metro’s BRT lines with a total of 28 parking facilities and 45 stations on the light/heavy rail lines with a total of 62 parking facilities. As described further below in this section, not every Metro station has parking facilities. In general, parking is provided at “origin” stations, where riders board at the start of their transit journeys, such as commuters boarding at Culver City or Norwalk in the morning to go to work. Parking is generally not provided at “destination” stations, where more riders disembark, including stations in downtown Los Angeles or Hollywood, for example. Parking facilities at Metro stations are owned and operated by a wide range of public agencies, cities, and private parties, as seen in the table below. Across the 90 different parking facilities there are 16 different owners and 11 different operators. Metro is the largest owner of parking facilities at 45, followed by Caltrans at 28. Metro is also the largest operator of parking facilities at 60, followed by Caltrans at 20. Of the 45 different facilities owned by Metro, 10 are parking garages and 35 are parking lots. As will be explained further in the below section, “Ongoing Parking Management and New Parking Initiatives”, the relatively divided ownership of Metro parking facilities can create management challenges due to conflicting mandates, differential enforcement, or lack of resources. In addition, although parking garages increase parking capacity on limited available land, there are significant expenses associated with their construction and maintenance. 208 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Table 7: Owners and Operators of Metro Parking Facilities (2016) Owned Operated Owner/Operator Facilities Facilities Metro 45 60 Caltrans 28 20 City of Los Angeles 3 2 Southern California Edison 2 - City of Culver City 1 - City of El Monte / Metro 1 - City of El Segundo 1 1 City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment 1 1 Agency City of Pasadena 1 1 City of South Pasadena 1 1 County of Los Angeles 1 1 Fillmore Raymond MOB LLC 1 1 Lake Avenue Church 1 1 Lease Joint Effort/Metro, Foothill Transit, City of Azusa 1 - Los Angeles Community College 1 - West Los Angeles Church of God 1 1 Total 90 90 Source: Metro The 90 different Metro parking facilities are located in 23 different jurisdictions in Los Angeles County, as shown in the Table below. Over half of these parking facilities are located in the City of Los Angeles. As with the ownership of parking facilities, the large number of separate jurisdictions that facilities are located in creates planning challenges. As described further in the below section, “Sample Station Analysis”, individual jurisdictions have significant input in the planning process for Metro parking facilities, and different jurisdictions may have different assessments of what their parking needs are, what the parking requirements should be, or willingness to invest their own resources in providing parking supply. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 209 Table 8: Los Angeles County Jurisdictions with Metro Parking Facilities (2016) No. of No. of Metro Parking Jurisdiction Stations Facilities Los Angeles 30 47 Pasadena 4 4 Azusa 2 2 Compton 2 2 El Segundo 2 2 Gardena 2 2 Long Beach 2 5 Arcadia 1 2 Culver City 1 1 Downey 1 2 Duarte 1 1 El Monte 1 5 Hawthorne 1 1 Inglewood 1 2 Irwindale 1 1 Lynwood 1 2 Monrovia 1 1 Norwalk 1 2 Redondo Beach 1 2 Santa Monica 1 1 South Pasadena 1 1 Torrance 1 1 Wilmington 1 1 Total 60 90 Source: Metro Metro Parking Supply & Utilization As seen in the Table below, Metro currently provides over 25,000 parking spaces at its stations and facilities, of which approximately 86 percent are free. The 3,588 paid parking spaces are located at 18 different stations and comprise 14 percent of total parking. Nearly 70 percent of all paid spaces are located at just three stations, however: North Hollywood, Union, and Universal City. 210 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Table 9: Free and Paid Parking Spaces by Metro Transit Type (2016) Free Paid Total Metro Transit Parking Parking Parking Type Spaces Spaces Spaces Light/Heavy Rail 13,404 3,579 16,983 BRT 8,069 9 8,078 Total 21,473 3,588 25,061 Source: Metro Prior to the recent Foothill Expansion on the Gold Line and the pending opening of the Expo Line Phase II, there were 50 stations with park and ride lots with a total of 79 parking facilities. Of these, 35 stations were along rail lines with a total of 51 facilities. Because Metro ridership data is most comprehensive for rail stations, these 35 stations and associated facilities form the bulk of the analysis below with respect to Metro ridership data. In addition, 2014 was the last year Metro completed a comprehensive assessment of parking utilization at Metro stations; parking supply and ridership data are therefore evaluated using 2014 data.2 BRT data is presented wherever available. As seen in the table below, in 2014 Metro had a total of 23,222 parking spaces with an average estimated daily parking utilization of 14,399 spaces, or 62 percent. This indicates that on any given day there could be close to 9,000 available parking spaces somewhere in the Metro system. Utilization is highly variable by Metro Line, however, ranging from a high of 87 percent on the Red Line subway to a low of 31 percent on the BRT Orange Line. Table 10: Parking Spaces and Utilization by Metro Line (2014) Total Average Daily Parking Estimated Daily Parking Metro Line Spaces Parking Utilization Utilization Rate Red Line 2,072 1,800 87% Blue Line 2,036 1,683 83% Gold Line 2,476 1,860 75% Expo Line 1,521 994 65% Silver (BRT) 3,631 2,256 62% Green Line 5,451 3,347 61% Red/Purple Line 1,878 1,153 61% Orange (BRT) 4,157 1,306 31% Total 23,222 14,399 62% 2 According to Metro’s utilization report: parking counts “were conducted during the summer months of June through August… [and] were conducted during the morning peak parking demand hours, between 8:30a.m. and 11:30 a.m. The data was collected on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays during non- holiday weeks.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 211 Source: Metro; estimated daily parking utilization calculated by audit team The below summary by transit type shows that parking supply on light/heavy rail lines is generally much more heavily utilized than parking at BRT stations, with an average daily utilization rate of 70 percent across compared to 46 percent utilization for BRT. Table 11: Parking Spaces and Utilization by Metro Transit Type (2014) Total Average Daily Metro Transit Parking Estimated Daily Parking Type Spaces Parking Utilization Utilization Rate Light/Heavy Rail 15,434 10,837 70% BRT 7,788 3,562 46% Total 23,222 14,399 62% Source: Metro; estimated daily parking utilization calculated by audit team Parking Utilization By Metro Station Even with different parking utilization levels observed by Metro lines, and the additional distinction between rail and BRT, there is also significant variation between stations along the same lines. To demonstrate this, we categorized Metro stations with parking into three primary utilization groups:  18 “Low Utilization” stations, where less than 45 percent of parking spaces were occupied during Metro’s assessment;  14 “Medium Utilization” stations, where between 45 and 85 percent of parking spaces were occupied;  16 “High Utilization” stations, where 85 percent or more parking spaces were occupied, indicating that Metro patrons could face difficulties securing a parking spot. The below exhibit provides a graphical representation of where stations with Low, Medium, and High parking utilization are located in the Metro transit system. As can be seen, there are several notable patterns. For instance, many high utilization stations are located at the terminus of their respective Metro lines, including Sierra Madre Villa and Atlantic on the Gold Line, Norwalk on the Green Line, North Hollywood on the Red Line, and Culver City on the Expo Line. Low utilization stations are particularly concentrated along the Green, Silver, and Orange lines. In addition, high utilization stations are often adjacent to low or medium utilization stations, including stations along the Gold, Expo, Blue, and Green Lines. This indicates a mismatch of parking supply and parking demand that could be resolved through better public information. These patterns and potential solutions will be discussed further below in this section. 212 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 3: Parking Utilization by Metro Station (2014) Source: Metro, notations by audit team 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 213 Parking Utilization by Station Parking Supply It is important to note that parking utilization is not dependent on the total parking supply at any given Metro station. It could be, for example, that all stations with high utilization of parking supply are relatively small (which would indicate low parking supply relative to demand), or that all low utilization parking facilities are relatively large (which would indicate excess supply relative to demand). In order to test this, parking supply at Metro stations was grouped into three categories of approximately equal size:  17 “Large” stations with between 492 to 1,915 parking spaces.  15 “Medium” stations with between 227 to 491 parking spaces.  16 “Small” stations with between 18 and 226 parking spaces. As seen in the Table below there are instances of Low, Moderate, and High parking utilization among all three parking supply categories. For example, approximately 46 percent of all rail stations are classified as High Utilization but these 16 stations are split between Small, Medium, and Large stations. Alternatively, 54 percent of Metro rail stations have either Low or Moderate Utilization of parking, but these 19 stations are nearly evenly divided between Small, Medium, and Large stations. By contrast, there are no BRT stations with High Utilization, regardless of whether the facilities are Small, Medium, or Large. This indicates that levels of parking utilization at Metro stations are largely driven by factors other than the relative amounts of parking supply. Table 12: Parking Utilization by Relative Size of Station Parking Supply High Parking Moderate Low Parking Supply by Utilization Parking Parking Total # of Transit Type (# of Stations) Utilization Utilization Stations Rail Stations Large 5 3 3 11 Medium 4 4 2 10 Small 7 2 5 14 Rail Subtotal 16 9 10 35 BRT Stations Large - 4 2 6 Medium - 1 4 5 Small - - 2 2 BRT Subtotal - 5 8 13 All Stations Large 5 7 5 17 Medium 4 5 6 15 Small 7 2 7 16 Metro Total 16 14 18 48 Source: Audit team calculations based on data from Metro 214 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Parking Utilization by Station Ridership As can be seen in the Table below, the highest ridership is on the oldest lines in Metro’s rail system, including the Red, Purple, and Blue lines. These three lines represent approximately 70 percent of average weekday boardings for Metro but account for approximately 40 percent of parking supply and utilization. The Expo, Green, and Gold Lines, by contrast, account for approximately 30 percent of average weekday boardings and approximately 60 percent of parking supply and utilization. Table 13: Daily Ridership and Parking Supply by Metro Line (2014) Average Total Estimated Daily Average Total Daily Parking Weekday Parking Parking Utilization Metro Line Boardings Spaces Utilization Rate Purple Line 9,027 Expo Line 28,237 1,521 994 65% Green Line 42,294 5,451 3,347 61% Gold Line 42,678 2,476 1,860 75% Red Line 60,799 2,072 1,800 87% Blue Line 85,943 2,036 1,683 83% Red/Purple Line 89,535 1,878 1,153 61% Total 358,513 15,434 10,837 70% Source: Metro; estimated daily parking utilization calculated by audit team To further investigate the relationship between ridership and parking supply, the audit team broke out the ridership data by each individual Metro station and grouped them into three ridership categories of approximately equal size:  27 “High Ridership” stations, which averaged over 3,548 weekday boardings  26 “Moderate Ridership” stations, which averaged between 1,705 to 3,547 weekday boardings  27 “Low Ridership” stations, which averaged less than 1,704 weekday boardings As seen in the Table below, of 80 total stations in Metro’s rail system, only 44 percent, or 35 stations, have parking facilities. As with parking lot size, there is a range of parking utilization levels for different ridership categories. Of the 12 stations that provide parking that also have high ridership, seven stations have high parking utilization while five have low or moderate parking utilization. Of the 23 stations that provide parking that have low to moderate ridership, nine stations have high parking utilization while 14 have low to moderate parking utilization. This suggests that parking at high ridership stations is more heavily utilized, on average, than parking at stations with low to moderate ridership, although as can be seen there are examples of high parking utilization at all ridership levels. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 215 Table 14: Parking Utilization by Relative Station Ridership Levels (2014) High Station Ridership Parking by Total Average Utilization Moderate Low Stations Stations Weekday (# of Parking Parking with without Total Boardings stations) Utilization Utilization Parking Parking Stations High Ridership > 3,548 7 4 1 12 15 27 Moderate Ridership 1,705 to 3,547 4 2 6 12 14 26 Low Ridership < 1,704 5 3 3 11 16 27 Metro Rail Total 16 9 10 35 45 80 Source: Audit team calculations based on data from Metro Metro Stations Requiring Evaluation or Monitoring Finally, we created a rubric that scores each station that provides parking according to the combined three categories of Parking Supply, Ridership, and Parking Utilization, as summarized below. Parking Utilization  18 “Low Utilization” stations with less than 45 percent of parking spaces occupied  14 “Medium Utilization” stations with between 45 and 85 percent of parking spaces occupied  16 “High Utilization” stations with 85 percent or more parking spaces were occupied Parking Supply Size  17 “Large” stations with between 492 to 1,915 parking spaces  15 “Medium” stations with between 227 to 491 parking spaces  16 “Small” stations with between 18 and 226 parking spaces Ridership  27 “High Ridership” stations averaging over 3,548 weekday boardings  26 “Moderate Ridership” stations averaging between 1,705 to 3,547 weekday boardings  27 “Low Ridership” stations averaging less than 1,704 weekday boardings 216 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT As can be seen in the Table below, there are nine highlighted stations that have medium to large parking supply, moderate to high ridership, and high parking utilization.3 These nine stations should be further evaluated by Metro assess whether the high level of utilization and ridership indicates a demand for additional parking. Actions to be considered could include adding more paid parking spaces to effectively manage parking demand, exploring shared parking opportunities, establishing leases with outside parties, providing direction to drivers to access other available Metro parking, validating parkers at these stations to ensure they are Metro riders and not “poachers”, adding greater levels of parking enforcement, or exploring other expansions of supply in concert with the appropriate local jurisdiction. Metro is currently exploring many of these options, which will be discussed further in the section below, “Ongoing Parking Management and New Parking Initiatives”. North Hollywood (Red/Orange), Universal City (Red), Norwalk (Green), Culver City (Expo), Sierra Madre Villa (Gold), Aviation (Green), Del Amo (Blue), Lakewood (Green), Atlantic (Gold) 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 217 Table 15: Matrix of Parking Supply, Ridership, and Parking Utilization by Station (2014) Parking Parking # of Supply Ridership Utilization Stations Station Names North Hollywood, Universal City, LARGE HIGH HIGH 4 Norwalk, Culver City Large High Moderate 2 Union, Willow Large High Low - LARGE MODERATE HIGH 1 Sierra Madre Large Moderate Moderate 1 Long Beach Large Moderate Low 2 Crenshaw, Hawthorne Large Low High - Large Low Moderate - Large Low Low 1 Del Mar MEDIUM HIGH HIGH 1 Aviation Medium High Moderate 2 Willowbrook, Artesia Medium High Low - MEDIUM MODERATE HIGH 3 Del Amo, Lakewood, Atlantic Medium Moderate Moderate 1 Harbor Freeway Medium Moderate Low 1 Expo/Crenshaw Medium Low High - Medium Low Moderate 1 La Cienega Medium Low Low 1 Marine/Redondo Small High High 2 Florence, Westlake Small High Moderate - Small High Low 1 103rd Street Small Moderate High - Small Moderate Moderate - Small Moderate Low 3 Vermont, Avalon, Lake Avenue Small Low High 5 Wardlow, Fillmore, Indiana, Lincoln Heights, Heritage Square Small Low Moderate 2 Mission, Douglas/Rosecrans Small Low Low 1 El Segundo Source: Audit team calculations based on data from Metro There are an additional six stations with medium to large lots and moderate to high ridership that are currently at a moderate level of parking utilization, including Union, Willow, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Artesia, and Harbor Freeway. Although there are currently a sizable number of available parking spaces at these stations, Metro should monitor for additional activity, and take action according to existing or planned policies if parking utilization increases to “High”. 218 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT At this time, there is less need to focus on stations that otherwise have significant available parking capacity and are therefore able to accommodate more riders. Smaller parking lots in general, even those that have high levels of utilization, should also not be an area of focus because parkers at these stations comprise a very small percentage of overall ridership. For example, although available parking supply is heavily utilized at some of the smaller parking facilities along the Gold Line, these stations have among the lowest ridership of any stations in the Metro system. Even significant relative expansions of parking supply at these stations are unlikely to have major impacts on the overall number of Metro riders. As will be illustrated further in the sections below, “Characteristics of Metro’s Rail Riders” and “Literature Review on the Determinants of Transit Ridership”, parkers at these stations comprise a relatively small number of an already-limited pool of riders, and ridership is likely relatively low along the Gold Line for reasons besides parking availability. Finally, as discussed in the next subsection, there is also available parking capacity adjacent to some Gold Line stations with high parking utilization. Mismatches of Supply and Demand Referring again to Exhibit 3 above on parking utilization by station, it can be clearly seen that many high utilization parking facilities are directly adjacent to low or moderate utilization facilities. With better public information and communications, park-and-ride commuters could be made aware of supply constraints and alternative parking opportunities in advance of their trips and directed to the nearest available facility. The below table lists some of these stations, including several where the distance between facilities are two miles or less and likely a relatively short automobile trip. While this will not be an ideal solution for many riders, it could be a good option for at least some transit users depending on their origin. Table 16: Distance Between Stations with Parking Shortages and Stations with Parking Capacity Distance Metro Station with High Adjacent Metro Station(s) with Between Parking Utilization Available Parking Capacity Stations Fillmore (Gold) Del Mar, South Pasadena 0.6 mi, 1.8 mi Culver City (Expo) La Cienega Jefferson 1.0 mi Wardlow (Blue) Willow St. 1.1 mi Aviation/LAX (Green) Hawthorne/Lennox 1.7 mi Del Amo (Blue) Artesia 2.7 mi Lakewood Blvd (Green) Long Beach Blvd 4.7 mi Source: Audit team calculations based on data from Metro Metro recently issued a Request for Proposal for a “Parking Guidance System” that will have some of the recommended capabilities suggested above. This RFP will be discussed further in the section “Ongoing Parking Management and New Parking Initiatives”. Metro should explore alternatives as directed above for other high capacity 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 219 stations that are not near stations with available capacity, including the terminus stations of North Hollywood, Sierra Madre Villa, Atlantic, and Norwalk. a. Finding 1B – Characteristics of Metro’s Rail Riders Metro completes annual surveys of its bus and rail riders to gather information including age, income, and race, as well as their riders’ means of transportation to Metro stations and stops. As can be seen in the below table, there are significant differences between Metro’s rail customers and the overall population of Los Angeles County. Comparing 2014 Metro Rail survey data with 2014 Census data for the County, Metro riders are more male and comprised of more working-age adults than the County as a whole. In addition, Metro Rail serves a diverse group of riders, as shown in Table 17 below. Finally, Metro riders have considerably lower median and average household income. These results are generally consistent with what is established in the transit literature regarding the characteristics of transit users, as described further in the section below, “Literature Review on the Determinants of Transit Ridership”. Table 17: Los Angeles County Pop. and Metro Rail Rider Characteristics (2014) Category Los Angeles County Metro Rail Riders Gender Male 49% 54% Female 51% 46% Age Less than 18 years 23% 5% 18 to 64 years 65% 93% Over 65 years 12% 3% Race White 27% 17% Black 8% 18% American Indian 0.2% <1% Asian/Pacific Islander 15% 12% Latino 48% 47% Other 2% 6% Median Household Income $55,746 $21,980 $83,104 $37,142 Average Household Income Source: 2014 American Community Survey (ACS); Metro In Metro’s 2014 “First Last Mile Strategic Plan & Planning Guidelines” document, Metro summarized the findings from their 2011 Metro On-Board survey as follows: “One of the surprising findings from the Metro survey data is the small number of transit riders parking at stations. Though highly visible in communities, parking facilities support only 6.2% of Metro Rail users, and only 3.8% of Metro BRT users. Of this relatively small user group half live close enough to walk or bike to stations.” The report further elaborated that 91 percent of Metro Rail and BRT users walk, bike, or take buses to stations while 9 percent drive and park or are dropped off stations. 220 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The results from Metro’s Customer Satisfaction Survey produce different figures for a similar but slightly altered question. As seen in the Table below, Metro survey data from 2012 to 2015 shows that an average of 15 percent of Rail survey respondents stated they drove to get to the first bus or train of their rail trip, compared to 4 percent across the entire Metro transit system (including buses). According to the 2014 Rail survey results, 76 percent of Rail riders walked, biked, or used other means to get to the first bus or train of their trip, while 15 percent drove and nine percent were dropped-off. These figures therefore do not separately account for rail riders who arrived at their station via bus. Table 18: % of Survey Respondents Who Drove “to the first bus/train of this trip” Year System-wide Rail Only 2012 3% 15% 2013 4% 17% 2014 3% 15% 2015 5% 12% Average 4% 15% Source: Metro Customer Survey Data The reasons for the discrepancy between the figures in Metro’s Strategic Plan and the raw results of the Customer Satisfaction Survey are not known at this time. However, the figures noted above are generally consistent with audit team estimates, depending on whether and how round-trips are accounted for. As provided in the Table below, combining weekday boarding data with average parking utilization data, we estimate the percentage of boardings by station likely to be attributable to drivers and their passengers.4 Although these estimates are consistent with some limited Metro data on the percentage of riders who park at specific stations5, they are for illustrative purposes only and should not be interpreted as scientific. The figures have many clear limitations, including the fact that they cannot account for “poachers” (drivers who use Metro parking without riding transit), distinguish between one-way trip boardings versus round- trip boardings, or account for natural turnover among parking spots (parking spots that support multiple riders over the course of a single day). They can, however, provide a sense of scale and clarify important differences between stations. As can be seen, park-and-riders may account for as few as an estimated 0.2% of all boardings at Westlake to as many as an estimated 37 percent of all boardings at Norwalk and 35 percent of boardings at Sierra Madre Villa. Many of the stations where park-and-riders account for an estimated 10 percent or more of all boardings were previously identified in our matrix as high-priority stations for continued monitoring and evaluation. Based on an average vehicle occupancy of 1.103. Metro Data (“Paid Parking Pilot Program” PowerPoint, Feb. 10, 2016) vs HMR Estimate: North Hollywood (9% to 7%); Universal City (13% to 12%); Atlantic (8% to 13%); Culver City (15% to 15%) 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 221 Table 19: Parked Vehicle Passengers as Percentage of Boarding by Metro Station Total Avg No. of Park-and- Average Utilized Riders as Weekday Parking Estimated % Metro Line Station Boardings Spaces of Boardings Green NORWALK 4,571 1,523 37% Gold SIERRA MADRE VILLA 2,784 888 35% Blue WILLOW 4,119 737 20% Expo LA CIENEGA/JEFFERSON 1,659 247 16% Green LAKEWOOD 2,654 389 16% Gold HERITAGE SQR/ARROYO 821 116 16% Expo CULVER CITY 4,179 580 15% Gold DEL MAR 1,599 214 15% Gold ATLANTIC 2,031 247 13% Red UNIVERSAL CITY 7,806 862 12% Green AVIATION 3,767 402 12% Blue DEL AMO 3,353 352 12% Green LONG BEACH 3,099 291 10% Gold FILLMORE 1,528 139 10% Green MARINE/REDONDO 1,180 101 9% Expo EXPO/CRENSHAW 2,180 167 8% Green CRENSHAW 3,120 226 8% Gold MISSION 1,668 112 7% Gold LINCOLN HEIGHTS 1,327 86 7% Green HAWTHORNE 2,811 174 7% Red NORTH HOLLYWOOD 16,671 1,031 7% Green HARBOR FREEWAY 3,057 172 6% Blue ARTESIA 4,051 226 6% Blue WARDLOW 1,688 90 6% R/P/G UNION 33,775 1,135 4% Green EL SEGUNDO/NASH 878 27 3% Green DOUGLAS/ROSECRANS 821 20 3% Gold INDIANA 1,484 36 3% Blue FLORENCE 4,745 100 2% Gold LAKE AVENUE 1,753 22 1% Blue WILLOWBROOK/ROSA 19,729 187 1% Green AVALON 2,886 14 1% Green VERMONT 3,321 8 0.3% Red/Purple WESTLAKE 9,218 18 0.2% Blue 103RD STREET 3,635 - 0% Source: Metro; estimated daily parking utilization and estimated boardings calculated by audit team 222 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Regardless of which estimates are used, at most 1 in 7 Metro rail riders are driving and parking at stations, whereas at least 6 out of every 7 riders are accessing stations via other means. The fact that the majority of Metro users walk, bike, or take the bus to access rail is consistent with what is known in the transit literature regarding the general characteristics of transit users and the primary determinants of transit ridership, as described further in the next section. b. Finding 1C – Literature Review on the Determinants of Transit Ridership There are many studies that have examined the various factors influencing transit ridership, including transit use in California and Los Angeles, but no conclusive studies on the role of parking supply in driving overall ridership. Although definitive statements are thus not possible, the available literature offers insights to explain the characteristics of transit use in Los Angeles. The literature suggests that parking availability is, at most, one of many factors that influence overall ridership in a regional transit system – and likely a much less significant factor than employment and population density, household income, race, age, levels of private vehicle ownership, fare levels, or service frequency.6 These insights are consistent with the information and findings presented in this report. The Primary Determinants of Transit Ridership A team of transportation researchers analyzed transit use across 265 urban areas in the United States and found that most of the variation in transit ridership can be explained by factors outside the control of transit agencies, including7:  Regional geography: population and employment density, urbanized area, total population.  Metropolitan economy: personal and household income.  Population characteristics: age, immigrant status, race.  Auto/highway system characteristics: percent of carless households, non- transit and non-vehicle trips (i.e., walking, biking). The researchers determined that transit agencies do have control over certain transit policies that can make a difference: for example, 26 percent of the variation in per capita transit use observed by researchers could be explained by fare levels and service frequency. As the research team summarized: low fares attract passengers and infrequent service pushes passengers away. The exhibit below summarizes the researchers’ findings regarding the determinants of transit demand. 6 “Nature and/or nurture? Analyzing the determinants of transit ridership across US urbanized areas”. B.D. Taylor et al., Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 60-77. 7 (Ibid.) 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 223 Exhibit 4: The Determinants of Transit Ridership from Taylor et al. Source: “Nature and/or nurture? Analyzing the determinants of transit ridership across US urbanized areas”. B.D. Taylor et al., Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 60-77. These findings are consistent with the results from the Metro customer survey provided above, namely that factors such as income, race, age, and access to a private vehicle all influence who rides transit. Further, there is evidence that Metro ridership peaked in 1985 following a fare reduction from $0.85 to $0.50 in 1982 as authorized by a County sales tax measure. Ridership increased rapidly over the three-year period of reduced fares prior to falling after fares increased again in 1986.8 A report from the Public Policy Institute of California delved into further detail on transit, density, employment, and ridership specifically for stations in California.9 This report shed light on many of the specific areas identified above, including residential and employment density, proximity to stations, travel patterns, and transportation mode choices. Below we present some key findings from the report, along with commentary on implications for Metro and Los Angeles County. Residential & Employment Density Residential and employment density are both key factors in determining the utility of transit: the more residents living near stations and the more jobs accessible by transit, the bigger the potential pool of transit customers. Of the two factors, however, the 8 “Railtown: The Fight for the Los Angeles Metro Rail and the Future of the City”, Ethan Elkind, 2014. 9 “Making the Most of Transit: Density, Employment Growth, and Ridership around New Stations”, Kolko et al, Public Policy Institute of California, February 2011. 224 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT research suggests that employment density is more strongly associated with transit ridership than residential density. Table 20: Residential and Employment Density Findings from PPIC & Other Literature Implications & Relevance for Metro 1. Employment densities at trip destinations 1. This was confirmed in the audit team’s affect ridership more than residential densities analysis, which discovered a moderate at trip origins. In fact, the relationship is nearly relationship between employment density twice as large. within 1-mile of stations and ridership. This relationship was stronger than the relationship observed between residential density and ridership. 2. Compared to metropolitan areas 2. Residential density in Los Angeles nationwide, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa County is already high but employment Ana are 2nd in population, 2nd in residential density is relatively low. The PPIC authors density, but only 23rd in employment density. concluded: "California's relatively low San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, by contrast, employment density [presents] a challenge are 12th in population, 3rd in residential density, for supporting transit investments and and 3rd in employment density. raising ridership." Metro and other regional policies have not been specifically oriented towards the issue of raising employment densities near transit stations. 3. Metropolitan areas where employment is 3. The dispersion of jobs and lack of more centralized in downtowns have higher centralized employment highlights transit ridership. 7 percent of employment is additional challenges for rail in Los concentrated within the Los Angeles CBD, Angeles: only a fraction of the region's compared to 21 percent of employment in the total employment is located in the CBD, San Francisco-Oakland CBD. Over twice as although most existing transit lines are many people commute via transit in San oriented towards downtown. Francisco compared to Los Angeles. 4. Employment density was highest around 4. This explains the audit team’s earlier stations that opened prior to 1992. finding that ridership is still highest on Metro's oldest rail lines (see Table 13) Source: Public Policy Institute of California; implications by audit team Proximity to Station Transit ridership is also heavily dependent on proximity to transit, although, as with density, proximity to employment matters more than proximity to residence. - 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 225 Table 21: Proximity to Station Findings from PPIC & Other Literature Implications & Relevance for Metro 1. Transit ridership falls sharply as distances 1. This aligns with Metro customer survey from transit stations increase, particularly data that shows the majority of rail users walk past ¼ or ½ mile. to their stations. It was also confirmed in the audit team’s analysis, which discovered only a weak relationship between ridership and residential density at distances of 1, 2, and 3 miles. 2. Workplace proximities to transit matter 2. The finding on proximity to employment more than residential proximities for ridership also makes sense because commuters purposes. generally have fewer transportation options available at their destination stations compared to their origin stations. This further highlights the importance of increased employment density around transit stations. Source: Public Policy Institute of California; implications by audit team Travel Patterns and Transportation Mode Choice Finally, proximity to transit does not in and of itself guarantee high ridership and investments in transit do not always lead to expected changes in travel behavior. Table 22: Travel Patterns and Transportation Mode Choice Findings from PPIC & Other Literature Implications & Relevance for Metro 1. Within a half-mile of a transit station, 7 1. This confirms Metro’s experience and the percent of residents and workers commute data provided above, which shows that even via fixed-line transit such as subway or in areas where there is ample available street-cars. Beyond a half-mile, only about 1 parking, commuters are not being attracted to percent of residents and workers commute ride transit. People who own vehicles in by fixed-line transit. Three-quarters of general are less likely to use transit, simply workers within a half-mile of a transit station because they have access to a car and drive alone to work. especially if their place of employment is not easily accessible by transit. 2. Rail investments do not always increase 2. This finding could explain Metro data overall transit ridership in most cities presented in the Background section of this because most rail riders are former bus report, which shows that while rail ridership riders and not former drivers. has been increasing, bus ridership has been decreasing. 3. Transit investments may not reduce 3. VMT and congestion reduction have been overall Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). major policy drivers for Metro and other Transit investments are generally designed regional planning agencies; however, the to serve commuters, but commuting academic literature suggests these reductions accounts for only 27 percent of VMT. In may be difficult to achieve solely through addition, congestion improvements often transit investments. induce more driving. Source: Public Policy Institute of California; implications by audit team 226 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Implications for Metro Parking Supply & Policy Considerations The evidence from the literature does not suggest that parking availability and supply are significant enough factors to override the other inputs that drive transit ridership including household income level, accessibility to employment, and access to a private vehicle. Because the pool of riders who have access to a vehicle, who live near a transit station, whose employment is easily accessible by transit, and who are willing to ride transit is already limited, the literature indicates that parking availability will not have a significant impact on ridership if viewed in isolation from other factors. Instead, parking supply and demand should be actively managed by Metro based on pre-established criteria and priorities such as location, land use, density, and ridership. Further, due to the costs of building and maintaining parking facilities (see Finding 4 “Barriers to Parking”, below), and the fact that most Metro parking is provided for free or below-cost, most drivers who park at Metro facilities are receiving an additional subsidy on top of their already subsidized transit fares. There are many legitimate reasons in terms of both policy goals and customer service that Metro may provide this subsidy. However, if Metro’s primary goal were to significantly increase ridership using measures under its direct control, the literature suggests that Metro should cut fares or increase the frequency of existing service. Finally, the above findings from the literature suggest that Metro and its regional and local partners should incorporate the facilitation of increased employment density around transit stations as a more explicit goal in relevant policy and planning documents. This is likely to be an effective land-use change that would facilitate increased transit ridership. Looking Ahead The transit literature would also predict that the biggest ridership impacts are likely to result from pending or in-progress major Metro projects that will connect more employment centers and facilitate faster regional travel. In particular,  The Purple Line west-side extension project, which will travel through the jobs- rich Wilshire corridor and terminate at UCLA, a major regional employment center  The Regional Connector, which will create new stations in the jobs-rich downtown and connect more origins and destinations without the need for transfers (i.e., from Azusa to Santa Monica, or Long Beach to Pasadena, etc.)  The pending Expo Line Phase II, which terminates in Santa Monica, a major regional destination The ridership impacts from these extensions are likely to be larger compared to other recent expansions of the transit system, including the first phases of the Expo and Gold light rail lines, and the Silver and Orange BRT lines. Regarding transit ridership and parking utilization, we recommend that Metro: 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 227 1.1 Focus monitoring and evaluation of supply/demand at nine stations— North Hollywood, Universal City, Norwalk, Culver City, Sierra Madre, Aviation, Del Amo, Lakewood and Atlantic—which currently have high utilization and high ridership. Actions to be considered could include adding more paid parking spaces to effectively manage parking demand, exploring shared parking opportunities, establishing leases with outside parties, providing direction to drivers to access other available Metro parking, validating parkers at these stations to ensure they are Metro riders and not “poachers”, adding greater levels of parking enforcement, or exploring other expansions of supply in concert with the appropriate local jurisdiction. 1.2 Monitor utilization at six other stations—Union, Willow, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Artesia and Harbor Freeway—to track increases that may warrant the usage of additional parking management tools. 1.3 Identify tools to better inform park-and-riders of supply constraints and alternative parking opportunities, such as directing them to a nearby available facility. 1.4 In collaboration with local and regional partners. consider how to expand the policy and planning goals to incorporate increased employment density around transit stations, which the literature shows to be a primary factor in increasing transit ridership. c. Finding 2 – Sample station analysis As noted above, for our in-depth analysis we selected six existing Metro stations with parking, and three planned Metro expansion stations. Selection criteria used for the existing stations included: size of lot, rate of utilization, and geographic representation. Planned stations were selected based upon recommendations from the Grand Jury Committee, as well as geographic representation. Table 23: Sample Stations, with Parking Availability and Utilization Total % Ridership Free Paid Space Parking Metro Station Metro Line Spaces Spaces s Utilized Aviation/LAX Green 390 - 390 102% 3,767 Culver City Expo 586 - 586 100% 4,179 North Hollywood Red/Orange 619 333 952 95% 16,671 Fillmore Gold 130 30 160 88% 1,528 103rd /Watts Blue 63 - 63 0% 3,635 Expo/Crenshaw Expo 450 - 450 37% 2,180 Arcadia Gold 300/600 Downtown Santa Monica Expo 0 Inglewood Crenshaw/LAX Source: LA Metro 228 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 5: Sample Station Maps Arcadia Expo/Crenshaw Aviation/LAX North Hollywood Culver City 103rd Street/Watts 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 229 i. Outreach to Sample Sites The audit team also conducted outreach to all station jurisdictions, successfully reaching five of the six10 jurisdictions: Arcadia, Culver City, Inglewood, Pasadena and Santa Monica. Contact persons in these jurisdictions varied, but typically included Transportation Directors, Planning Department staff, and/or Public Works officials. The audit team also interviewed the Chief Project Officer at the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority. General areas of inquiry for jurisdictions included:  History of collaboration with Metro/Construction Authority during EIR and planning process  Current collaboration with Metro regarding parking management at the station  Local assessment of station parking needs  Impact of excess demand (if applicable) on local community  Local efforts to manage parking and/or promote alternative access modes (bikes, buses) to station Below is a summary of major findings from the investigation of the sample locations.  Jurisdictions have requested modification to planned parking structures.  Jurisdictions have implemented local efforts to support increased Metro ridership.  High parking utilization does not necessarily correspond with a need or desire for more parking. Local Efforts to Modify Planned Parking Facilities Arcadia: The 2007 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Gold Line Foothill Extension project modeled a demand for 300 parking spaces on opening day during Phase I of the Gold Line development, when the line runs from Pasadena to Azusa, and a demand for up to 800 parking spaces by 2025 once the line is completed and continues from Azusa to Montclair. However, when the City received design plans for Phase 1 development, the parking structure proposed did not have the capacity for expansion to accommodate the Phase 2 parking supply (800 spaces) as presented in the EIR. On May 15, 2012, the Arcadia City Council passed Resolution 6834 requesting that the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority design and construct the Phase 1 Gold Line Station Parking Structure to allow for future expansion of up to 800 spaces, as recommended in the EIR document. As a result of this Resolution and Arcadia’s efforts generally, the 10 Four stations are located in the City of Los Angeles – Aviation/LAX, North Hollywood, Fillmore, 103rd/Watts. Despite exhaustive efforts, the audit team was unable to contact anyone at the City of Los Angeles (LADOT, City Planning), who could answer our questions regarding parking at the Metro stations. 230 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Construction Authority designed the columns of the parking garage so that they would be able to hold additional decks of parking that might be built in the future. Santa Monica: Following the EIR and planning process for the three proposed Metro stations, Santa Monica city officials expressed concerns regarding the proposal to provide 70 parking spaces at the 17th Street Station, as presented by the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority. Because of the city’s density and walkability—with an estimated 50 percent of city residents living within a 10-minute walk of one of the three proposed Metro stations—Santa Monica city officials believed that additional parking was unnecessary, and would negatively impact quality of life by increasing traffic congestion. A s an alternative, the City of Santa Monica proposed expansions of the Big Blue Bus services, as well as the construction of bike parking facilities at the stations. However, Construction Authority officials were unwilling to eliminate the provision for the 70 parking spaces, citing the approval for the spaces in the EIR. There will be no additional parking11 provided at the planned downtown Santa Monica station, and City officials stressed that this is by design and in alignment with the City’s extensive long-term planning strategies for growth, development and sustainability. Local Efforts to Support Ridership at Metro Stations Santa Monica: As noted above, the City of Santa Monica has invested in route expansions for the Big Blue Bus, which provides bus service around Santa Monica to locations throughout LA County. Arcadia: The City of Arcadia converted its previous dial-a-ride transit system to a fixed ride system to coincide with Metro’s opening and to make stops at several points of interest, such as the race track, the shopping mall, and the hospital. Culver City: Installing bike racks and bike lockers at Metro stations continues to be a priority for the municipalities interviewed. In Culver City, for example, there were ten bike lockers at the station, as well as bike racks, and an additional ten bike lockers and fifteen bike racks were added recently. Inglewood: As it anticipates the need for more parking once this planned station becomes operational, the City of Inglewood is exploring opportunities to provide supplemental parking in the area by making existing lots available for a fee. It should be noted that there will be additional parking available at stations in between Culver City and Santa Monica, including Sepulveda. Sepulveda was not selected for the sample so is not addressed in more detail in this report. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 231 High Utilization of Parking Does Not Necessarily Indicate a Need/Desire for Increased Capacity Culver City: A 600-space temporary parking lot at the Culver City Metro Station will soon be eliminated to make way for a transit-oriented development project. Construction for the project will begin in 2017, and will include a six-story, 1,500 space parking lot which will have 300 parking spaces reserved for Metro. According to both Metro’s utilization data and this audit team’s site observations, the current 600-space temporary is heavily utilized. However, the local jurisdiction has determined that the benefit of the transit- oriented development outweighs the need to meet parking demand. ii. Site Visits and Observations In addition to reviewing ridership and parking utilization data, the audit team conducted site visits the existing stations in the selected sample, plus Arcadia which opened during the course of this audit. We recorded informal observations of parking lot activity and potential opportunity for improvement or expansion, with a focus on the following categories:  Utilization: what level of usage was observed at the time of visit?  Re-striping: were parking spaces striped in order to maximize availability?  Shared Parking: were other lots located nearby with the potential for a partnership with Metro to expand capacity for park-and-riders?  Signage: were signs for the lots adequate to ensure awareness and access? Our observation of these factors at each station visited is shown below: Table 24: Sample Station Observations Station Utilization Re-Striping Shared Parking Signage North Hollywood High Completed Possible, Lots Nearby Adequate Aviation/LAX High Possible Unlikely Adequate Watts/103rd St Unknown Unknown Possible, Lots Nearby Inadequate Arcadia Medium Not Necessary Possible, Lots Nearby Excellent Expo/Crenshaw Medium Not Necessary Possible, Lots Nearby Inadequate Culver City High Possible Possible, Lots Nearby Adequate While our observations and sample jurisdiction research were limited, they did point to important opportunities for Metro to consider enhancements at parking stations for expanding capacity or increasing utilization. We recommend that Metro: 2.1 Evaluate opportunities for re-striping at high utilization parking lots in order to expand existing capacity at minimal cost. 232 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2.2 Explore opportunities to supplement parking for Metro riders with access to existing lots near stations, with a focus on those stations with high utilization. 2.3 Ensure that signage is adequate and visible at parking lots, particularly those with low utilization, to increase access and usage. d. Finding 3 – Barriers to expanding parking supply To expand the supply of parking, Metro must take into account three major factors: physical constraints, land use and local community issues, and financial constraints. Physical Constraints As development in Los Angeles County continues, available land for parking expansion is in increasingly short supply. Around most existing Metro stations, the adjacent lots and areas have already been significantly developed, often in such a way that would prevent the addition of parking facilities. Many stations are located close to other transportation infrastructure, such as highways and roads, further impeding Metro’s ability to increase parking at existing stations and lots. And while vertical expansion of existing parking structures may be an option to explore in some locations, air rights may limit this opportunity and must be considered. Land Use and Local Community Concerns Additional challenges to expanding parking supply can be land use issues and local community concerns. The addition of parking may or may not align with the local jurisdiction’s long-term strategic goals and vision for growth. As noted in the Background of this report, local governments must accommodate federal and state mandates regarding environmental protections and sustainability. These mandates may not allow for additional parking, in cases where existing infrastructure and environmental conditions may be negatively impacted. Financial Constraints As with most public projects, the primary constraint to expanding parking supply is the cost. Particularly because parking at transit stations has historically been offered at no cost, it represents a significant subsidy to riders and the public. These costs, detailed below, include construction, operations, and long-term financing which is often made possible through bonds. These costs carry obligations that can extend 20-25 years, potentially tying up funds that could be used for other purposes. Examples of costs for recently constructed Metro parking facilities are shown below. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 233 Table 25: Construction Costs for Planned Metro Stations Cost Per Station Spaces Cost Space Notes Arcadia 300 7,000,000 $ 23,333 Garage & lot Monrovia 350 8,000,000 $ 22,857 Garage Duarte 125 500,000 $ 4,000 Lot Irwindale 350 11,500,000 $ 32,857 Garage Azusa Citrus 200 8,500,000 $ 42,500 Garage Total (all) 1325 35,500,000 $ 26,792 Total (structures only) 1170 34,880,000 $ 29,812 Source: Metro To understand the impact of long-term financing on a parking construction project, the audit team calculated the amortized cost of a bond valued at $8,720,000 to build 293 parking spaces. The financing assumptions for the cost of amortization model include: Bond amount $ 8,720,000 Annual interest rate 4.00 % Loan period in years 30 Start date of loan 1/1/2016 At these rates, Metro would pay approximately $6.4 million in interest over the 30 years, and the average daily cost per space would total roughly $5.00. This amount includes only the costs of construction and financing; it does not include costs for the purchase of the land, or ongoing maintenance and operations costs. To illustrate these costs even further, the audit team estimated the costs of doubling Metro’s 2014 parking supply at rail stations from 14,452 parking spaces to 28,904 using the same financing assumptions outlined above. Assuming that the land available for parking lot expansion is constrained and that garages would be required to achieve a supply increase on this scale, the audit team estimates it would require a $390 million bond to build 14,452 new parking garage spaces, with close to $287 million in interest payments over 30 years. The average daily cost per space would total roughly $4.30 per day. As before, these cost estimates do not include land purchases or maintenance and operations costs. The ridership impacts of such an expanded parking supply are also unclear. If it were assumed that each new space were to attract one vehicle carrying new riders, that each new space were occupied, and that all new passengers were to complete round trips via transit, it is estimated that this would result in close to 16,000 new riders and 32,000 additional weekday boardings. Compared to 2014 average weekday rail boardings of 359,000, this would represent a total ridership increase of close to 9 percent. As described in previous sections, however, it is unlikely that all parking spaces would be utilized and also unlikely that every rider attracted to newly available parking would be a new rider. Assuming instead a parking utilization rate of 70 percent and that only 234 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 50 percent of the parkers were new Metro customers, it is estimated that Metro would attract about 11,000 new customers resulting in an additional 22,000 weekday boardings. This would represent a ridership increase of 3 percent compared to 2014 rail data. Either scenario would require significant financial investments for relatively modest ridership increases. $390 million would comprise nearly seven percent of the agency’s FY 2015-16 budget and would equal nearly the entirety of the FY 2015-16 rail operations budget. Further, if Metro continued to provide primarily free parking these costs would constitute significant additional subsidy for a relatively limited customer base. As previously stated, the academic literature suggests that Metro would likely be able to achieve more significant ridership increases by reducing fares, increasing service frequency on its existing routes, or significantly increasing employment density around transit stations. e. Finding 4 – Ongoing Parking Management & New Parking Initiatives Consistent with Metro’s existing parking policy, Metro has engaged in a variety of parking management efforts to expand supply and manage demand at stations. These efforts have generally occurred on an ad-hoc basis and have included shared use parking agreements, parking leases, restriping parking lots at existing facilities, and expanding paid parking. Metro’s newly formed Parking Management Division is also spearheading several new initiatives to formalize parking policies and fees, develop an overall agency strategic plan for parking, more effectively manage demand at high-utilization parking lots, collect real-time data on parking utilization, and provide improved public information regarding parking availability. Many of these initiatives will address issues raised in previous sections of this report. Ongoing Parking Management Shared Use & Parking Leases Shared parking programs allow Metro to partner with local jurisdictions or entities in order to provide parking. The advantage of these agreements is that parking is available to Metro patrons but the agency’s construction, maintenance, and operating costs are mitigated. Metro currently has approximately 815 shared use spaces along the Gold Line Stations of South Pasadena, Fillmore, Del Mar, and Lake, representing about 3 percent of Metro’s total parking supply. These facilities are owned and operated by other entities including the City of South Pasadena, Fillmore Raymond MOB LLC, the City of Pasadena, and the Lake Avenue Church, respectively. Metro also leases two parking facilities for Metro patron parking. The Expo/Crenshaw parking facility on the Expo Line is owned and operated by the West Los Angeles Church of God. The original lease provided 450 spaces to Metro customers at an annual lease cost of approximately $795,000, including a base annual lease payment of 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 235 $282,000 and annual operating expenses of $513,000—totaling approximately $1,767 annually per vehicle, or about $4.84 per vehicle per day. The facility, however, was poorly patronized and had a utilization rate of only nine percent. Metro has since reduced the lease to 225 spaces, but utilization remains low, at 37 percent. As noted in Finding 3, this utilization may be related to poor signage. Metro also leases 373 spaces at the Pierce College station on the Orange Line BRT which has a 55% utilization rate. The lot is owned by Los Angeles Community College, and was secured through a prepaid lease payment of $5.3million. These leased spaces represent about two percent of current Metro parking supply. As noted, however, both facilities have low to moderate parking utilization and neither are high-ridership stations. Metro should reevaluate how parking need was estimated for both facilities, determine whether the leases should be modified or renegotiated, and determine whether funds could be better directed towards parking agreements at other appropriate high-ridership or high-utilization stations. Restriping of Existing Facilities Metro has also completed or initiated several projects to “re-stripe” existing parking facilities, including at Norwalk on the Green Line, Wardlow and Artesia on the Blue Line, and North Hollywood on the Red/Orange Line. These are lots whose original configurations were not designed to maximize the number of cars which could fit within the station area. Completed work at Norwalk’s West Lot increased parking capacity from 198 to 306, an increase of 55 percent. Proposed work at Wardlow will increase parking capacity from 89 to 134, an increase of 51 percent. North Hollywood work added a new parking lot within the station area, creating an additional 191 spaces. This increased parking capacity at the station by 8 percent. Finally, although estimates were not available for the Artesia re-striping plans, a 50 percent increase on the order of Norwalk and Wardlow would increase parking capacity by about 149 spaces to 447 total spaces. With the exception of Wardlow (which the audit team classified as a low ridership station with a small parking lot) the above stations were all previously identified for further evaluation or continued monitoring. Metro should consider evaluating whether Del Amo, Lakewood, Universal City, and Aviation are good candidates for re-striping, although as discussed below Caltrans ownership may complicate action at certain lots. In addition, not all lots are likely to yield efficiency gains on the order described above; Metro’s existing parking policy predicts typical gains on the order of five to 15 percent. 236 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Preferred Parking Program Metro’s Preferred Parking Program was adopted in July of 2003 to start adding paid parking spaces at parking lots where utilization reaches or exceeds 90 percent. It allows patrons who register and pay online to secure a space prior to 11 a.m. After 11 a.m., the spaces are then available to others Metro riders. The Preferred Parking Program is currently in operation at 15 stations, as shown in the table below. Approximately 21 percent of the total spaces at these stations, or 976 out of 4,708, are paid. Monthly rates for preferred parking spaces range from $20 to $59 and daily rates for paid spaces are generally about $4, although both monthly and daily rates are higher at a few stations. Monthly passes are currently sold out at seven of the 15 stations. Table 26: Metro Stations Participating in the Preferred Parking Program Free Paid Total Parking Parking Parking Monthly Station Name Metro Line Spaces Spaces Spaces Fee Status Artesia Blue Line 266 32 298 $ 25 Available Atlantic Gold Line 260 24 284 $ 29 Available Balboa Orange Line 264 9 273 $ 20 Available Del Amo Blue Line 338 61 399 $ 25 Available Fillmore Gold Line 125 30 155 $ 29 Available Florence Blue Line 95 20 115 $ 25 Available Heritage Square Gold Line 118 11 129 $ 20 Sold out Indiana Gold Line 37 5 42 $ 29 Available Lake Gold Line 28 22 50 $ 29 Available Lincoln Heights Gold Line 79 15 94 $ 25 Sold out North Hollywood Red Line 735 375 1,110 $ 59 Sold out Sierra Madre Gold Line 841 124 965 $ 29 Sold out Universal City Red Line 633 195 828 $ 55 Sold out Wardlow Blue Line 72 17 89 $ 25 Sold out Willow Blue Line 817 36 853 $ 25 Sold out Total 4,708 976 5,684 Source: Metro Many of these stations were previously identified in this report for continued evaluation or monitoring. Or, as in the case of most Gold Line stations, action was not recommended because despite high utilization the facilities are relatively small and ridership is low. Exceptions include Balboa on the Orange Line and Lake on the Gold Line, both of which have low utilization of parking. In accordance with current policy, Metro should re-evaluate whether paid spaces are required or necessary at these stations. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 237 Currently utilization levels for the paid preferred spaces identified above do not exceed 90 percent anywhere, which indicates that the paid rationing of spaces is effective at keeping at least some parking spots open at high-demand facilities for those willing to pay. Finally, we identified seven stations for evaluation or continued monitoring (see Finding 1) which are not currently part of the Preferred Parking Program, including Culver City, Aviation, Lakewood, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Harbor Freeway, and Union. The Union parking garage facility is owned and operated by Metro but all 1,860 spaces are unreserved paid spaces; the garage is currently classified as moderate utilization. Parking is free at high-utilization Culver City, although these spaces will eventually be replaced by a Transit-Oriented-Development, as described in the Finding 2. The remaining five stations are all owned by Caltrans, however, and are prohibited from charging for parking. Three of these stations are currently at high levels of parking utilization including Norwalk (85 percent), Lakewood (98 percent), and Aviation/LAX (103 percent). Metro should continue exploring ownership transfer opportunities or alternative management arrangements of these lots, as well as continued opportunities to implement paid parking or other effective demand management techniques at these high utilization lots. New Measures & Initiatives As previously noted, there are currently several parking-related initiatives occurring at Metro. These include the recent passage of the agency’s first parking ordinance and parking rate resolution, the initiation of a parking master planning process to culminate in the agency’s first Strategic Plan for parking, the impending start of a paid parking pilot program, and a recently issued request-for-proposal for the development of a parking guidance system, which will facilitate improved signage, data collection, and public information. Parking Ordinance and Parking Rate & Permit Fee Resolution Metro’s Parking Ordinance, Parking Rate Resolution, and Permit Fee Resolution were adopted in September 2015 to facilitate the agency’s impending master planning process. Metro had previously been operating without a parking ordinance, parking rate resolution, or permit fee resolution, which created enforcement challenges. The ordinance did not contain significant changes from previous law, policy, or practices, but instead served as a compilation of existing rules and regulations. The purpose was to enable Metro transit security to provide more effective enforcement at Metro’s parking facilities. The parking rate and permit fee resolution standardized existing parking fees on a station-by-station basis. 238 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The new ordinance is expected to be leveraged as a tool to implement future enforcement strategies and operations. Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan In fall 2015 Metro’s Board of Directors approved a contract to conduct the Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan Study on behalf of Metro’s Parking Management Unit. The purpose of the master plan is to serve as a system-wide comprehensive parking study, with two major objectives: (1) to present findings to Metro’s Board that will inform the Board’s decision to continue Metro’s existing parking program as is, or to increase the use of technology, incorporate more demand-management tools, and expand paid parking; and (2) produce a Strategic Plan to be adopted by Metro’s Board, which will include a 5-10 year parking implementation plan, the adoption of an updated parking policy, and the identification of capital and technology projects. The major components of the first phase of this study will include surveys and data collection, an assessment of the current program, public outreach and stakeholder meetings, and a range of analysis. Below are excerpts from the master plan statement of work, to highlight key activities that will take place over the course of the study, which is currently in progress and is expected to be completed later this year:  An assessment of all parking facilities. Identify locations with high demand and evaluate re-design potential. o Identify locations with low utilization and explore opportunities. o Evaluate pricing and its potential policy impacts. o Identify locations for preferred parking for car share and van pools. o Improve pedestrian and bike access plus facilities. o Enhance way finding and parking guidance. o  A ridership and parking demand model. The consultant will build a model to estimate parking demand under o different scenarios, enabling calculation of revenue projections and parking fee recommendations, as well as allowing the agency to calculate changes in parking demand when there are near-by changes in land-use, occupancy, income, and so on.  A supply and demand analysis and projection of future parking needs.  An evaluation of revenue projections, costs, and the feasibility of establishing a parking enterprise fund.  An evaluation of Metro’s parking enforcement, management, organizational structure, and maintenance schedule. Based upon this study, Metro’s Board will decide on continuing Metro’s existing parking program “as is” with free and preferred parking, or to increase the use of technology, expand enforcement and paid parking, and incorporate more demand-management tools. Once the Board has determined the parking program’s future policy direction, a strategic plan will be developed, which will include a 5-10 year parking implementation 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 239 plan, the adoption of an updated parking policy, as well as the identification of capital and technology projects. Many of the tasks identified in this master planning process could help mitigate or better manage several of the issues identified earlier in this report. As Metro moves forward, however, it will be important to ensure that the tools, models, data, and recommendations that result from the master planning process are incorporated throughout Metro’s Countywide Planning Department, and do not remain solely within the Parking Management Division. For example, planners who are involved on the front- end of parking planning at stations should have access to the future ridership and parking demand model, to ensure consistency and act as a check on internal models currently used for estimation purposes. Paid Parking Pilot Program In March 2016 Metro’s Board of Directors approved a parking management pilot program to be implemented by the end of this year. Since the March Board meeting, as new Gold Line stations have opened, Metro has revised the list of stations for the Paid Parking Pilot Program, in order to reflect changes in parking utilization that have occurred with the opening of the Gold Line extension. Specifically, the Sierra Madre and Culver City stations have been replaced by APU/Citrus and Irwindale as seen in the Exhibit below. The program will include 7,826 parking spaces and will first be implemented at new stations along Phase II of the Expo Line. The primary purpose of the program is to help distinguish between transit users and parking “poachers” who use Metro facilities for free or at low-cost without using transit. “Poachers” have been previously identified as a major enforcement challenge for the agency. The program will use TAP Card readers to verify whether patrons had paid fares within the previous 96 hours, and charge differential rates accordingly. 240 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT As shown in the Exhibit below, daily parking rates will be approximately $2 a day for transit users. Exhibit 6: Metro Stations Participating in the Paid Parking Pilot Program Source: Metro The locations above were selected based on capacity, terminus locations, utilization and recent facility assessment findings. Atlantic, Universal, and North Hollywood, as well as the optional locations of Norwalk, Lakewood, and Aviation, were all identified in this report for evaluation and continued monitoring (see Finding 1); the Paid Parking Pilot Program could assist with demand management and enforcement issues at all stations. Metro has also stated the program will help fight the perception of non-drivers who believe they are subsidizing parking. Currently parking operations are maintained through Metro’s annual budget without sufficient revenue to recover costs. Metro estimates the pilot program will generate about $400,000 in net revenue in FY 2016-17. Staff is expected to monitor implementation and update Metro’s Board in September 2016. Parking Guidance System Finally, Metro Parking Management recently issued a Request for Proposal seeking a supplier for the development and installation of a parking guidance system at 83 of Metro’s parking facilities. The guidance system will allow Metro to maintain a real-time inventory of parking utilization at all Metro facilities, provide enhanced digital signage at facilities, and enable the dissemination of parking availability information to customers via mobile phone applications or the web. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 241 Metro states the guidance system will help patrons minimize their parking search and travel time and also reduce congestion. The parking guidance system could also help resolve issues identified above with respect to the parking supply and demand mismatches of high-demand and low-demand facilities located directly adjacent to each other. Overall, the guidance system will likely result in improved signage, improved data, and improved public information and communications. The contract is expected to begin July 1, 2016, with the full system in place by June 30, 2019. Regarding the implementation of its ongoing and new initiatives, we recommend that Metro: 4.1 Reevaluate how parking need was estimated at Expo/Crenshaw to determine whether the shared parking lease should be modified or renegotiated, and whether funds could be better directed towards parking agreements at other appropriate high- ridership or high-utilization stations. 4.2 Evaluate whether Del Amo, Lakewood, Universal City, and Aviation are good candidates for re-striping, and if so, consider ways to take action under agreement with Caltrans. 4.3 Evaluate the benefit of including seven additional stations in the Preferred Parking Program, including Culver City, Aviation/LAX, Lakewood, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Harbor Freeway and Union. Explore ownership transfer opportunities or alternative management arrangements of Norwalk, Lakewood and Aviation/LAX lots, which are currently owned by Caltrans. 4.4 Ensure that the Parking Management division is included in the EIR process, particularly as Metro moves forward with the master planning process for parking. For example, planners who are involved on the front-end of parking planning at stations should incorporate the future ridership and parking demand model, to ensure consistency and act as a check on internal models currently used for estimation purposes. f. Finding 5 – Impact of demographic, social and technological changes on future parking needs There are a number of demographic, social, and technological trends emerging that could impact future parking needs. The impacts of these trends on commuting, travel patterns, and vehicle ownership are still developing, however, and not yet well- understood in the academic literature. The likely impacts on future parking needs are therefore still unclear at this time. Below we present a few developments and trends worth watching. Ride-Sharing Technologies 242 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Ride-sharing technologies such as Uber and Lyft provide on-demand access to vehicles through smart-phone applications at relatively modest prices. Many commentators have suggested that ride-sharing is an ideal solution to the “First-Last Mile” transit challenge of getting riders to and from destinations that aren’t within easy walking distance of a station. Ride-sharing could provide transit users with the convenience, range, and speed of automobile travel while potentially lessening the need to provide parking on- site at Metro stations. According to a recent report in the Los Angeles Times, “Metro is negotiating an agreement with Lyft aimed at learning more about ride-share trips that begin and end at key Metro stations.” The agreement could shed light on how many, where, and when transit users take advantage of ride-sharing services in order to access transit. Lyft states that transit stops are “passengers’ most common drop-off location” and that the most requested transit destination in Los Angeles isUnion Station. Metro should continue exploring relationships with ride-sharing companies upon the expiration of its agreement with Lyft, and evaluate whether more comprehensive data- sharing and institutional partnerships might be appropriate. If Metro determines upon further study that ride-sharing services are facilitating transit travel for an increasing or significant share of its riders, the agency may need to evaluate whether relevant stations are optimized to handle the increase in pick-up and drop-off activity. Stations might need to be reconfigured or redesigned to facilitate more efficient transfers and limit congestion impacts upon surrounding communities, for example. Ride-sharing services could also lessen the demand for vehicle ownership, although there is not sufficient evidence to establish whether this is happening yet. Trends in Vehicle Ownership As seen in the Table below, the number of people and the number of vehicles in Los Angeles County have both grown from 2000 to 2014. Following an increase from 2000 to 2004, the number of automobiles per person and total vehicles per person remained relatively constant for the next 10 years. There is no evidence in this data that there are relatively fewer cars on the road, or that there is a trend towards fewer vehicles per person in the County. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 243 Table27: Vehicles Per Person in Los Angeles County, 2000-2014 Total Los Angeles Autos Vehicles County Other Total Per Per Year Population Autos Vehicles Vehicles Person Person 2000 9,543,000 5,134,168 1,385,966 6,520,134 0.54 0.68 2001 9,635,000 5,296,141 1,403,585 6,699,726 0.55 0.70 2002 9,718,000 5,529,023 1,480,822 7,009,845 0.57 0.72 2003 9,777,000 5,498,554 1,506,468 7,005,022 0.56 0.72 2004 9,808,000 5,881,156 1,633,087 7,514,243 0.60 0.77 2005 9,804,000 5,850,140 1,664,776 7,514,916 0.60 0.77 2006 9,761,000 5,917,189 1,672,054 7,589,243 0.61 0.78 2007 9,735,000 5,933,335 1,653,447 7,586,782 0.61 0.78 2008 9,779,000 5,859,407 1,639,315 7,498,722 0.60 0.77 2009 9,848,000 5,785,091 1,616,459 7,401,550 0.59 0.75 2010 9,826,000 5,810,035 1,600,590 7,410,625 0.59 0.75 2011 9,885,000 5,805,760 1,554,813 7,360,573 0.59 0.74 2012 9,952,000 5,904,847 1,517,407 7,422,254 0.59 0.75 2013 10,020,000 6,079,057 1,530,460 7,609,517 0.61 0.76 2014 10,117,000 6,197,573 1,521,787 7,719,360 0.61 0.76 Source: Los Angeles County DMV; American Community Survey The implications for transit and parking at Metro stations, however, are less clear. On the one hand, this might indicate that there are just as many cars as ever in the County, and that transit agencies will have to continue accommodating vehicles via on-site parking. On the other hand, as previously shown in Tables 5 and 18, most transit users do not drive to stations and a significant portion of Metro riders do not have access to an automobile. In addition, vehicle ownership in general makes individuals less likely to use transit at all. There is also evidence that Vehicle-Miles-Travelled (VMT) per capita is decreasing, as shown in the Exhibit below. This would suggest that there has been a trend towards people driving less, even if the number of vehicles per capita is remaining relatively constant. 244 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 7: Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled in Los Angeles County, 2000- 2014 Source: Metro Again, the implications for transit and parking at Metro stations are not clear and the reasons behind the overall VMT reduction in the County are not well understood. Travel Changes Among Young Adults A recent dissertation12 from the University of California Los Angeles established that “[y]oung people in the 2000s traveled fewer miles, owned fewer vehicles, and were less likely to hold a driver’s license than young people in the 1990s.” The article examined whether travel behaviors had fundamentally changed, including increased use of non- automobile travel or the increased use of communication technologies. The paper found no evidence that young people’s preferences for “car-less” lifestyles were driving the changes in travel behavior. Instead, the paper found the economic constraints, deferred marriages and child-bearing, and racial/ethnic compositional changes were the prime explanations of travel behavior over the period examined. This would suggest that these travel changes might be reversed once economic conditions have sufficiently improved or family formation trends increase. As with the discussion above, the implications for transit and parking at Metro stations are not clear. Many of these factors have been included in Metro’s Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan Study, and Metro should incorporate all findings with regard to the impact of technological and demographic trends on parking into its future planning. To understand the impact of demographic and technological changes on parking needs, we recommend that Metro: 12 “Stalled on the Road to Adulthood? Analyzing the Nature of Recent Travel Changes for Young Adults in America, 1995 to 2009”. Kelcie Ralph, University of California Los Angeles. 2015. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 245 5.1 Continue exploring relationships with ride-sharing companies upon the expiration of its agreement with Lyft, and evaluate whether more comprehensive data-sharing and institutional partnerships might be appropriate. 5.2 Incorporate all findings from the Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan Study with regard to the impact of technological and demographic trends on parking into its future planning. 246 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT POLITICS 101: OBSERVATIONS ON LOS ANGELES COUNTY GOVERNANCE POLITICS 101: OBSERVATIONS ON LOS ANGELES COUNTY GOVERNANCE “No man undertakes a trade he has not learned, even the meanest; yet everyone thinks himself sufficiently qualified for the hardest of all trades, that of government.” Socrates I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the past nine years, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (BOS) has changed the county’s governance structure twice: in 2007 it provided a strong appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and, in 2015 repealed its 2007 action, reverting to a decentralized/weak CEO model. The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) was interested in determining the impact of these actions and conducted interviews with current and past officials at all levels. The Los Angeles County Charter does not provide for an independent elected-at-large executive accountable to county residents for the functioning of the county. Prior to May 2007 the county operating structure was decentralized with appointed department heads reporting directly to BOS.1 In May 2007 the county operating structure was centralized through the creation of an appointed chief executive to be a single point of contact for department heads and accountable for the implementation and management of county programs.2 In July 2015 the county operating structure reverted to the previous decentralized structure and department heads again report directly to BOS.3 The CGJ found that while it may be premature to determine the long-term impact of the change in governance structure, the structure’s short-term impact is to displace long- term goals. The CGJ found that, under the present system enacted in July 2015, BOS intended that the direct communication between it and county departments would lead to more efficient conduct of public business. BOS motions proliferate, however, and departments find it difficult to adjust to BOS’ constantly changing priorities. The CGJ found that the CEO no longer tempers the heat of BOS - say no - or to advocate on behalf of departments. The CGJ found that there is no structured form of communication between BOS and department heads, nor does BOS meet with all departments on a regular basis. Chief Administrative Office, Los Angeles County Administrative Governance Transition Report, May, 2007, p. 10. Chief Administrative Office, op. cit., pp. 5-6. Chief Executive Office, County Governance, July 7, 2015, p. 1. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 247 The CGJ found that the county lacks an updated strategic plan as well as a meaningful structure for measuring management performance. Nearly all of the next most populous counties in the country elect a county chief executive. Two previous Grand Juries made recommendations that the county adopt an elected chief executive officer and increase the number of supervisors. This CGJ finds both concepts need to be revisited and provides appropriate recommendations for the 2020 county-wide election. 248 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT II. BACKGROUND Reorganization of the structure of county government is not a topic that readily engages most citizens. Their concerns are more basic. They care only that county services are provided well. The CGJ looked at the recent change in the structure of the governance of Los Angeles County from the perspective of citizens concerned with the efficient application of public money to county responsibilities. A. May 2007 Centralization of County Governance Structure In 2007, BOS adopted a strong CEO model replacing a decentralized organization structure in which 34 appointed Department Heads reported independently to BOS. The “hallmark principles” of the strong CEO model included:4 • “Benefits to County residents: With the day-to-day operation of the County vested in the CEO, BOS was able to partner with residents and communities in focusing on studying and developing strategies to address the complex social, economic, and environmental issues that impact the quality of life in Los Angeles County. The CEO’s accountability for implementing BOS policy direction to improve outcomes for residents through service and resource integration and enhanced service accessibility was to result in significant benefit for County residents.” • “Strengthen the Board’s policy role: BOS’s role was strengthened through the creation of the CEO as a single point of contact accountable for implementation and management of Board direction.” • “Focus on outcomes: The County would systematically focus on the needs of County customers – children, families, senior citizens, other residents and the communities they live in – and on improving outcomes for customers.” • “Service integration: Focus on the needs of County customers would be implemented through integration of County services, the optimal use and/or blending of resources, and continuously working to improve the County’s organization and its operating processes.” The 2007 ordinance adopting the strong CEO model included a non-intrusion clause which reinforced BOS as exclusively vested with the responsibility for county policy, regulations, and organizational directions. Individual BOS members and their staff continued to seek information and assistance from county department heads and employees. Chief Administrative Office, Los Angeles County Administrative Governance Transition Report, May 2007, pp.5-6. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 249 B. July 2015 County Governance Structure Reversion On July 7, 2015, BOS adopted a revised county governance structure aiming to improve the (a) effectiveness of service delivery, (b) efficient utilization of limited resources, and (c) timely implementation of Board policy directives. The new governance structure was further intended to balance “flexibility, accountability, transparency and efficiency.”5 The justifications provided for this action included:6 • “The new structure will provide for more Board interaction with departments, more effective decision making, and additional opportunities for policy discussions.” • “Ad hoc initiatives, housed within the CEO will provide for greater energy, focus, and interdepartmental collaboration on Board initiatives, with the flexibility to quickly adjust to new priorities.” • “The CEO will evaluate the placement and composition of CEO and County functions to provide for efficient operations and effective and innovative constituent services.” III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ researched and reviewed governance and best practices sources. Interviews were conducted with current and past county officials at all levels. IV. FINDINGS A. Checks and Balances: The CGJ found that the Los Angeles County Charter does not provide for an executive accountable to county residents for the functioning of the county. The underlying governmental structure of the United States is a separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches, known as checks and balances. No branch of our government can gain absolute power or abuse its powers with impunity. Chief Executive Office, County Governance, July 7, 2015, p. 1. Ibid., p. 2. 250 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT • The legislative branch proposes and enacts the laws, adopts the budget, and may overturn an executive veto. Each representative represents but a small portion of the nation, but collectively Members of Congress can be seen as reflecting the popular will. • The executive branch is intentionally structured as the guardian of the national interest: elected at large, commander in chief of the military, responsible for proposing the annual budget, wielding the veto, and managing the national bureaucracy. • The judicial branch declares the law of the land in accord with the Constitution, and in response to legislative and executive actions. Federal judges must be confirmed by the Senate and, like all elected federal officials, may be impeached. Although not perfect, this tri-partite arrangement is ingrained in the national psyche as a model for all government in the United States – except in California at the county level, where there is no separation of the executive and legislative functions.7 Section XI of the State Constitution and Article II of the Charter of the County of Los Angeles provide for a five-member supervisorial structure. County voters can take advantage of the discretion given them in the County Charter by making changes in the county’s governing board, officers, and employees such as:8 • increasing the number of county supervisors, • electing county supervisors at-large, • appointing fewer county officers and specifying their duties, • contracting out for any service (subject to certain state contracting rules), and • specifying a process to fill a supervisor vacancy. Our County Charter does not provide for an elected executive function in spite of the enormity of our population or the budget and bureaucracy providing services to it. Los Angeles County is a $27.1 billion enterprise,9 with 37 departments and 108,000 employees, representing a population of 10.1 million (in fact, Los Angeles County, standing alone, would be the eighth most populous state in the country),10 governed by a five member board. The governance structure in Los Angeles County is the same as that in every other California county except for San Francisco, which has an elected executive. Amendments to the State Constitution and the County Charter have not addressed this basic governance structure, which reflects the State’s agrarian and early 20th century reform history. 7 “Unlike the separation of powers that characterizes the federal and state governments, the Board of Supervisors is both the legislative and the executive authority of the county (except San Francisco City and County). It also has quasi-judicial authorities.” California State Association of Counties, County Government in California: An Introduction to California Counties, http://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/tab_2_-_county_government_in_california.pdf 8 Ibid. 9 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Adopted Budget. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Population Data. http://www.census.gov/popfinder/ 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 251 In the opinion of the CGJ, an organization on this scale cannot be effectively governed and managed by a board or committee. It is not unreasonable to wonder if BOS has the time not only to govern, but also to manage the county departments. B. County Governance Structure Prior to May 2007: The CGJ found that prior to May 2007 the county operating structure was decentralized with 34 appointed department heads reporting directly to BOS. BOS has made several attempts to find an optimal governance structure to meet the needs and aspirations of the electorate. Prior to May 2007, the county’s operating structure was characterized as a “… decentralized structure in which 34 appointed department heads report independently to the Board.”11 A 1995 article on the county’s government structure noted: • “The five-member board doesn’t work. Responsibilities for setting policy and actual administration of the county are so intertwined that there is no discipline in the system. Additionally, there is a confusion of priorities among jurisdictions within the county, which leads to conflict and unnecessary waste.”12 • “As a five-member Board, the Board of Supervisors is too small to allow for shifting coalitions, too big to allow any single member to emerge as a leader because no one is willing to allow his or her colleague to step out in front. Nor are there enough members to seriously represent the county’s diversity, whether ethnic or geographic.”13 • “. . . there is no constituency for saying ‘no.’ And there is little courage to stand up for the broader picture beyond one’s district.”14 C. May 2007 Centralization of the County Governance Structure: The CGJ found that in May 2007 the county operating structure was centralized through the creation of an appointed chief executive to be a single point of contact for department heads and accountable for the implementation and management of county programs. The following are observations from current and past county officials: Positive Observations  “Fan of previous structure where deputy CEO attempted to integrate all BOS views and department views.” 11 Chief Administrative Office, Los Angeles County Administrative Governance Transition Report, May 2007, p. 10. Kayden, Xandra, “Behind the County Health Woes: An Outmoded Government: A last minute federal rescue should not lessen the need to reinvent a deeply flawed structure of governance.” Los Angeles Times, September 24, 1995. http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-24/opinion/op-49458_1_l-a-county 13 Ibid. Ibid. 252 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT  “The CEO acted as a filter to bounce ideas off and finesse proposals before transmittal to BOS.” The May 2007 governance structure addressed those issues by “… the creation of the CEO as a single point of contact accountable for implementation and management of Board direction.”15 Specifically, the CEO would be “… the one person in the governing structure who would consider and propose policies and resource allocations with all of the people in the county in mind – especially the underserved and marginalized residents.”16 In effect, the action provided for a “checks and balances” on BOS by separating governance and management (executive) functions in the operation of the county. The CEO filled the executive function, handling the county’s day-to-day operations and acting as a filter by dealing with “every-day” and “ordinary” issues. Significantly the CEO was expected to wield independent executive power, even providing push-back to BOS where appropriate, while serving at BOS’s pleasure in an appointed position.17 Given this conflicting dual nature of the CEO’s position, it can be no surprise that the CEO developed into and was seen as an independent power center, the “sixth, unelected Supervisor.”18 The CEO’s power rested on intimate knowledge of the County’s day-to-day operations and ability to influence the good will of at least three of the Supervisors. The CGJ believes that such inherent structural conflict between BOS and the CEO resulted in the July 2015 action. D. Return to Decentralized Pre-2007 Governance Structure: The CGJ found that in July 2015 the county operating structure reverted to the decentralized structure in which department heads report directly to the board. Additionally, the CGJ found that BOS intended the direct communication between it and county departments to more efficiently further the conduct of the public’s business. The following are observations from current and past county officials: Positive Observations  “Philosophy was different between CEO and BOS.”  “BOS is not to be minimized.”  “BOS wants increased level of communications.”  “New structure compels policy as a priority and is streamlined.”  “There should be no impediments to process of getting information.”  “A strong commitment to do the public’s business efficiently.”  “BOS wants more input in policy decisions.”  “New focused initiatives (priorities) are staffed across departments – working more together than ever before.” 15 Chief Administrative Office, Los Angeles County Administrative Governance Transition Report, May, 2007, pp. 5-6. Yaroslavsky, Zev, “Reflections on Four Decades in Office,” Bollens-Ries-Hoffenberg Lecture, University of California, Los Angeles, April 7, 2015. Observations from current and past county officials. Observations from current and past county officials. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 253 Negative Observations  “Structure was seen as cause so just changing CEO was not solution – BOS always had the power.”  “There was a bad relationship between prior CEO and BOS, BOS wants CEO to downsize.”  “There was a conflict with the prior CEO who acted like a sixth supervisor.” By changing the CEO’s function back to the pre-May 2007 governance structure, the “new” operating structure again blurs the boundaries between governance and management. In an article on the re-restructuring, the Los Angeles Times noted: • “The change back to a weaker executive has many wondering whether the supervisors’ new power will result in more streamlined, decisive management or simply create more meddling by the elected officials and politicize the workings of government.”19 • As Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas commented at the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum in 2015: “Politics 101, ladies and gentlemen, never give away your power.”20 Within the first year of the new governance structure, BOS adopted a series of sweeping actions to address long standing and urgent needs: • Allocated $100 million for each of three years, to construct and maintain affordable housing (October 27, 2015); • Consolidated public health care functions of the Departments of Public Health, Mental Health, and Health Services (January 21, 2016); • Created the Homeless Initiative to coordinate county strategies to reduce homelessness through an intensive, inclusive planning process (January 21, 2016); and • Delayed the construction of and reduced the size of the new Men’s Central Jail (June 9, 2015). E. Impact of Return to Prior Decentralized Governance Structure: The CGJ found that, under the present system enacted in July 2015, BOS intended that the direct communication between it and county departments would lead to more efficient conduct of public business. BOS motions proliferate 19 Sewell, Abby, “L.A. County supervisors move to consolidate power by weakening CEO’s job,” Los Angeles Times, July 7, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0708-county-ceo-20150708-story.html 20Editorial Board, “New thinking at the L.A. County Board of Supervisors,” Los Angeles Times, December 24, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-county-supervisors-20151223-story.html 254 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT however, and departments find it difficult to adjust to BOS’ constantly changing priorities. The following observations are from current and past county officials: Positive Observations  “Less interference since deputy CEO is gone.”  “Issues discussed directly with BOS deputies.”  “Department has reorganized to provide flexibility in answering BOS needs.” Negative Observations  “Lots of motion sickness.”  “More effort involved in responding to BOS motions.”  “Planning and priorities are messed up.”  “Sustainability of management by motion is unknown.”  “BOS determines department priorities – not interested in department concerns, it’s difficult to plan.”  “Need an entity to coordinate information going to BOS.”  “Reorganization changed nothing, but changes in BOS members and removal of deputy CEOs increased business – now everything is hot.”  “No impact except more direct instructions (via motions) by BOS.”  “Deputy CEO used to absorb BOS demands on department heads, new CEO is not doing that.”  “Deputy CEO (DCEO) did not stop BOS from contacting department heads directly.”  “DCEO used to chair cluster meetings, no longer; CEO finance person just sits in.” BOS has addressed pressing issues by establishing task forces composed of county employees taken from various departments involved in various aspects of the issues addressed. Relying on the cross-department knowledge and experience of its members, each task force is intended to address pressing issues with a global perspective. This action breaks down the self-imposed barriers of intra-department prerogatives and concerns (also known as silo-ization) with an inter-department viewpoint to address issues of common interest. Commendable as this action is, it has its downside – personnel taken from their regular assignments to address task force issues, are not replaced, leaving vacuums, staffing shortages and the possible inability of those departments to meet their mandated budget and program goals. The enactment of priority motions (also known as “motion sickness” or “management by motion”) without proper consideration of the impact on short-term policy decisions, sacrifices long-term goals and needs. The short-term interests change with each new priority issue.21 BOS direct decision making approach is not limited at the management level, but in some cases reaches down to the lowest levels of county operations. Instead of letting 21 Observations from current and past county officials. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 255 managers manage, BOS dictates departmental priorities and goals, and is not interested in a department’s concerns. Departments are forced to work on the priority issues to the exclusion of their regular mandated work.22 This makes it very difficult for a department to do any meaningful future planning. It stifles management initiative and necessary pushback where warranted (e.g., budget, program, legal, or other mandated considerations), and fosters a climate of insecurity – officials never know when their job is on the line (also known as “living Tuesday to Tuesday).23 The CGJ is very concerned about the future of the county’s administrators – how will the county attract and keep quality people when their every decision may be second guessed? BOS’ discretionary authority, its opaque decision making processes, and the degree to which it is insulated from direct political controls, often deflects the brunt of public discontent and accusations of waste and mismanagement of scarce resources. Direct management action by BOS in the county’s operations should mean that BOS will be directly responsible for the results. Instead, department heads suffer the consequences. The CGJ is concerned that although the impact of term limits has not been felt yet, each Supervisor’s emphasis on parochial interests will only increase as their term in office is limited. As noted in an editorial in the Los Angeles Times: “… county government is not a game. It’s the chief provider of human services and vital infrastructure to a region of 10 million people. Who’s in charge? With the five-member committee that is the Board of Supervisors, who knows? The members make up a sort of legislature with no executive, yet at the same time they are a kind of five-headed executive with no legislative oversight. They are a family of squabbling brothers and sisters trying to manage the house in the absence of their parents, each sibling sniping about the others while forming, breaking and re-forming alliances in order to move their various agendas. They are a comically constituted group with deadly serious business to perform for their constituents.”24 F. Management Issues: The CGJ found there is no structured form of communication between BOS and department heads, including lack of a meaningful structure for measuring management performance. BOS does not meet with all departments on a regular basis. Further, the county lacks an updated strategic plan. The following are observations from current and past county officials: Positive Observations 22 Ibid. Ibid. Editorial Board, “Grading L.A. County,” Los Angeles Times, March 12, 2016. http://graphics.latimes.com/grading-la-county-2016/ 256 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Negative Observations  “Before reorganization, departments only had to convince the CEO; now, they need to convince three out of five BOS members and the CEO is no longer involved.”  “No structured communication between BOS and management, departments with departments.”  “BOS needs to meet with all departments on a regular basis, visit departments at least once per year.”  “No updated long-term strategic plan.”  “No meaningful structure for measuring departments’ and their management performance.”  “No clear chain of command between BOS, CEO, and department heads with clearly defined responsibilities.” One stated reason for BOS’s 2015 reversion is the intent to ensure direct communication between it and county departments, which in turn leads to more efficient conduct of public business. The CGJ found that although the “filtering” layer of Deputy CEO’s (DCEO) was eliminated, departments now report to Supervisors’ deputies.25 Instead of one reporting site, departments now have to report to five. There appears to be no communication clearing house to coordinate information requests, schedule structured regular communication meetings among the Supervisors’ deputies, and/or schedule communications meetings with and among department heads. The CGJ found that BOS must develop an up-to-date county-wide long-term strategic plan, and allow feedback, refinement and updates by department heads. Departments should develop their plans in support of the strategic plan, including levels of service and outcomes from BOS to department heads, and department heads to “street level” operations. G. Role of CEO: The CGJ found the CEO no longer tempers the heat of BOS, “say no,” or to advocate on behalf of departments. The following are observations from current and past county officials: Positive Observations  “While seen as beneficial by some departments, BOS felt isolated from department heads and wanted first-hand information.”  “BOS felt CEO was making decisions without them, believed they had to go through CEO before talking to department heads.” 25 Observations from current and past county officials. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 257 As noted by former Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, “…our current system puts a premium either on parochial or consensus based decision making.”26 The CGJ is concerned that without an executive function to oversee the day-to-day operations of the county, and ensure the long-term fiscal health and viability of its programmatic needs and goals, there is a real possibility that such concerns will be overlooked or forgotten. A major impetus of the May 2007 governance structure was the impending retirement of then Chief Administrative Officer David E. Janssen, who expressed concern that no replacement could be found for him while the county continued to operate without a strong CEO.27 The current governance structure eviscerates the recent function of the CEO by limiting its operations to budget and labor relations. BOS did not test whether Janssen’s fears were warranted by conducting an executive search. It determined to strip the appointed CEO of independence and authority, and quickly appointed its own Executive Officer to fill the diminished post.28 On March 29, 2016, BOS took further action that limited the CEO’s function to its “core mission” and transferred non-“core mission” functions to other departments (e.g., photo and graphics, health and wellness, Work Place Programs, Employee Assistance Program, Occupational Health, Leave Management, and Real Estate).29 The CGJ is concerned that the new role of the CEO appears to be one of insisting on form over substance. Responding to a reporter’s question as to why no additional resources had been provided for the Department of the Medical Examiner-Coroner (DMEC) in the 2016-2017 County Budget, the CEO stated: “…the request was not granted because the department had not submitted required paperwork documenting its justification for the added positions.”30 H. Case Study: The CGJ found that problems in the DMEC were due in part to a lack of communication. DMEC’s staffing and funding concerns were not heard by the CEO, which, in turn, asked why those concerns had not been transmitted. DMEC’s responses to a Corrective Action Plan were not accepted by the CEO prompting the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner (CMEC) to resign. BOS challenges in attempting to act in its executive function, are illustrated in the recent resignation of the CMEC, as noted in CGJ’s April 21, 2016, interim report Who Cares for the Dead When The Dead Don’t Vote? 26 Yaroslavksy, Zev, “Reflections on Four Decades in Elected Office,” Bollens-Ries-Hoffenberg Lecture, UCLA, April 7, 2015. Observations from current or past county officials. Sewell, Abby, “L.A. County Supervisors vote to make interim chief executive permanent,” Los Angeles Times, October 6, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-county-chief-executive-20151006-story.html 29 Chief Executive Officer, “Chief Executive Office Organization Redesign,” March 29, 2016, pp. 1-2. Sewell, Abby. “$28 billion L.A. County budget proposal aims to address homelessness, improve jails,” Los Angeles Times, April 11, 2016. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-county-budget-20160411-story.html 258 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT DMEC’s problems can be attributed to years of insufficient staffing levels, due to a number of factors: • Too few budgeted positions; • Not enough available qualified candidates to fill the needs of the department (e.g., forensic pathologists); • Toxicology reports are six to seven months behind schedule; • Salary constraints that inhibit recruitment and retention of qualified professionals; • BOS requests for immediate processing of selected cases, thereby negatively impacting DMEC’s internal prioritization of investigations; and • The sheer geographic and population size of the county and its resultant workload. Insufficient staffing has led to the following results: • Worker fatigue and burnout; • Extended time required to complete autopsy reports; • Suspension of a number of operations, including gunshot residue, scanning electron microscopy, and Law Enforcement/Officer involved shooting case review; • No cushion to absorb extra work generated by catastrophes and extended leaves of absence (e.g., maternity or bereavement leave, illness); • Possible loss of accreditation from The National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME), Institute of Medical Quality/California Medical Association (IMQ/CMA), and the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ACSLD/LAB). The loss of accreditation may have significant impact in terms of challenging the credibility and validity of the Medical Examiner-Coroner findings in court. Repeated requests by the CMEC to BOS for appropriate funding for DMEC to meet its statutorily-mandated goals went unheeded. During the 2016-2017 Budget process, BOS and the CEO provided a “current level budget” and imposed a “Corrective Action Plan” which in great detail set out steps to address the various issues facing DMEC, and requested responses from the Medical Examiner-Coroner. In follow- up meetings with the CEO and BOS, DMEC’s responses to the Corrective Action Plan were refused for consideration. Since he did not receive adequate resources to address DMEC’s significant needs, the CMEC submitted his resignation on March 11, 2016. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 259 I. Independent County Executive Function: The CGJ found that nearly all of the next most populous counties in the country elect a county chief executive. The counties, listed by their relative sizes per population, are: (2) Cook County, IL (pop. 5.2 million), (3) Harris County, TX (pop. 4.4 million), (7) Miami-Dade County, FL (pop. 2.7 million), (8) Kings County, NY (pop. 2.6 million), (9) Dallas County, TX (pop. 2.5 million), (11) Queens County, NY (pop. 2.3 million), (13) King County, WA (pop. 2.1 million), and (15) Tarrant County, TX (pop. 2.0 million). The exceptions to the elected county executive trend are the following large counties, most of which are in California: (4) Maricopa County, AZ (pop. 4.1 million), (5) San Diego (pop. 3.3 million), (6) Orange (pop. 3.1 million), (10) Riverside (pop. 2.3 million), (12) San Bernardino (pop. 2.1 million), and (14) Clark County, NV (pop. 2.0 million). Prior CGJ reports (1972-1973; 1996-1997) have recommended the creation of a strong independent executive function. Their recommendations are supported by organizations such as the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the League of Women Voters, and the Los Angeles County Economy and Efficiency Committee. The 1972- 1973 CGJ report also recommended that BOS membership be expanded so that each Supervisor would represent only one million residents. This CGJ agrees with that recommendation. Given that the County’s current 10.1 million population is growing, BOS membership should therefore increase to 10 or, if an odd number is required 11. The cost of additional Supervisors should be a zero sum game by taking the current budgeted amount for the Supervisors and their staff, and dividing that by 11. Currently each Supervisor’s office budget is $3.4 million or $17 million for all five.31 This CGJ believes that the time has come to (a) revisit the creation of a strong independent elected chief executive function, and (b) increase BOS membership to a minimum of 11 Supervisors. Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors. 260 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT J. County CEO Response to Prior CGJ Recommendations: The CGJ found that two previous Grand Juries made recommendations that the county adopt an elected chief executive. The County’s CEO’s response to the CGJ’s 1996-97 recommendation was that voters defeated the proposals: • In 1992, by a margin of 57 to 43 percent. • In 1978, by a margin of 53 to 47 percent. The response also indicated that adding such a proposal to the ballot would cost in excess of $1 million. In both elections, opponents of the issue noted that it would just add another layer of bureaucracy at additional costs to the taxpayers. The question that needs to be asked is whether the public is served by the current structure of five czars controlling the fate of the county without any checks and balances. Adding an independent elected chief executive (at an estimated four million dollar cost, approximately 0.015%) in a $27.1 billion budget to provide the necessary checks and balances seems a small price to pay. V. RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 That Los Angeles County, , create a structured communication system between the Board of Supervisors and all department heads, and across departments, between department heads, through a centralized clearing house, so that information is transmitted clearly and efficiently. 11.2 That Los Angeles County ensures that the Board of Supervisors tour each county department and meet management there, at least once per year. 11.3 That Los Angeles County, , establish a published county chain- of-command with clearly defined responsibilities. 11.4 That Los Angeles County, within one year, develop and implement a long-term strategic plan for the county and for each county department. 11.5 That Los Angeles County, within one year, establish for each department, levels of service with measurable goals and outcomes, allowing for feedback, refinements and updates by department management. 11.6 That Los Angeles County approve and place before the electorate for the 2020 election an amendment to the County Charter that provides for a County Chief 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 261 Executive, elected on a county-wide basis, with the powers and duties substantially similar to those provided in the May 2007 county governance structure. 11.7 That Los Angeles County approve and place before the electorate for the 2020 election an amendment to the County Charter to provide six additional supervisory districts in Los Angeles County, created based on equal proportions of the county’s population, within the current budget, as adjusted for inflation. Such amendment should include provision for adding supervisory districts as the populations grows. 11.8 Los Angeles County should establish a Citizens’ Ad Hoc Committee on government reform and report back to the Board of Supervisors no later than April 1, 2017, with appropriate language for the amendments recommended in 11.6 and 11.7. 11.9 Los Angeles County should, prior to the 2020 county-wide election, support, explain, and otherwise strongly back the amendments recommended in 11.6 and 11.7, emphasizing the benefits of each to county residents and to the careful furtherance of county government in the public interest. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses to recommendations shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). Responses shall be made in accordance with Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Responses are required from: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors: 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 11.9 262 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT VII. ACRONYMS BOS Board of Supervisors CEO Chief Executive Officer CMEC Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner DCEO Deputy Chief Executive Officer CGJ Civil Grand Jury DMEC Department of the Medical Examiner-Coroner VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Bart Benjamins Co-Chair Bruce A. Berke Co-Chair Judy Goossen Davis Victor H. Lesley Molly Milligan Sandy A. Orton Arun Sharan Bob Villacarlos 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 263 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 264 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT READY OR NOT: ADULTHOOD IS NOW READY OR NOT: ADULTHOOD IS NOW I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “No one expects adulthood to occur overnight, but that is exactly what happens to youth exiting the foster care system. To a youth in foster care, reaching the age of maturity, typically set by states at age eighteen means losing everything.”1 In Los Angeles County the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has over 28,000 youth under its supervision.2 Over 25% of these children reach majority status each year. The statistics concerning the outcomes of Transitional Age Youth (TAY) in California are dismal. “70% of all California inmates have spent time in the foster care system. 50% of all female foster children will become pregnant by age 19. 36% will be homeless after 18 months of emancipation.” 3 There is a disconnect between service providers and Transitional Age Youth that has doomed these children to a life of poverty and homelessness. DCFS attempted to address several of the issues facing these children. DCFS has programs for housing, education, transportation and health services, but they go unused for a variety of reasons. The TAY youth tend to leave the system without a clear plan for the future. Many of these youth simply don’t want anything to do with the system which reminds them of their foster care history. It is important that we as guardians of these children address this disconnect. The stakeholders, such as DCFS and the Department of Mental Health (DMH), should enlist social media to make TAY youth aware of all the available resources at their disposal. The County of Los Angeles and DCFS should develop and maintain a mobile app. To ensure that individuals have easy access to a comprehensive directory of foster-related services, the 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) is proposing the development of a mobile-friendly website. This site will automatically change its appearance depending upon whether a visitor is using a smartphone or a computer. The website will display a collection of foster-related services. Each listing will provide a complete set of necessary information—name of the service, location, contact information and services provided. The listings can be sorted, filtered and searched using a variety of different techniques. Visitors will be able to view resources by type (i.e. transportation resources). Visitors will also be able to enter their zip code and the 1 Atkinson, Melinda, “Aging Out of Foster Care: Towards a Universal Safety Net,” Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review, (Vol. 43, Winter 2008), p. 183. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol43_1/183-212.pdf 2Alliance for Children’s Rights, kid-alliance.org/facts-stats 3“Mission Statement” from United Friends of the Children www.unitedfriends.org 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 265 website will then display a list of nearby resources. Each listing will contain a collection of appropriate keywords to make searching easy. The website will also contain a collection of web based; password-protected authoring tools so that appropriate individuals can manage all of the listings, create new listings, edit existing listings or remove outdated listings. II. BACKGROUND TAY youth present the DCFS and other attendant agencies with a perplexing and complex set of issues. When children are removed from their families or guardians for cause, they become “wards” and “de jure” children of the state. We as a society assume the responsibility for their total well-being. We become responsible for the healthcare, education and morality of these children. In many cases, the county and the state are the only civic safety net keeping these children afloat. This is no small task. A. Prior CGJ Recommendations Several preceding CGJs have looked at the plight of TAY youth. The most comprehensive of these reports was written by the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury. Their recommendations, reproduced in part IV of this report, need to be looked at again with fresh eyes and renewed vigor. Those recommendations included establishing a partnership with all the agencies that interface with foster care youth. It also pointed DCFS toward additional and better training of foster parents, group home operators and social workers. This CGJ applauds these efforts and adds its voice that these recommendations be fully implemented. B. Reasons For Disconnect DCFS has been tasked by the county with helping our foster youth attain the age of maturity with some measure of success. Through research and several interviews with personnel from DCFS, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the Department of Health Services (DHS), it has become abundantly clear that TAY youth are still underserved or underinformed regarding available benefits. Many of these children who find themselves at the doorstep of adulthood are poorly equipped to take advantage of the resources which are available to them. DCFS has myriad benefits that go unused. TAY youth’s lives are burdened with the stigma of being a foster child and all the emotional baggage that entails. Many of these children have had experiences that make them mistrust any adults. The April 7, 2016 indictment of four case workers involved in the death of an eight year old foster child in Palmdale is a clear example of the potential neglect that causes mistrust with the custodial system. Plenty of county officials including the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) had a chance to intervene and save that child.4 4 Dilworth, M., “Palmdale boy dies after abuse, mother and boyfriend arrested,” Antelope Valley Times, May 5, 2013. 266 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The system has sometimes dropped the ball where TAY youth are concerned. There are many examples and plenty of blame to go around. The LAUSD, before this current school year, had only three dedicated counselors assigned to assist over 7,000 foster children. It now has a dedicated program with 80 counselors.5 Hopefully, this will begin to improve academic outcomes. The fact that over 36% of TAY youth become homeless after 18 months of emancipation is an indication that DCFS and other county agencies are failing our children. III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES CGJ conducted several interviews with staff personnel from the DCFS, DHS, and Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), LAUSD, and Congresswoman Karen Bass, California’s 37th District. The CGJ researched several past CGJ reports concerning the status of TAY youth in Los Angeles County. The CGJ also used information gleaned from newspapers and the internet. IV. FINDINGS Often alone and usually adrift is one way of describing foster youth that are aging out of the Los Angeles County foster care system. One day they are seventeen and in a foster home or group home. On their eighteenth birthday “poof,” they are expected to perform as adults. Most are woefully unprepared to navigate the complexities of adulthood. They do not have many (if any) marketable skill sets. They have precious little, if any, life skills such as budgeting, saving, cooking, interview skills and resume writing. By and large, the system and most of the adults in their short lives have failed them. The failure is a result of a multitude of reasons: parents or guardians who have either abused or abandoned them, the broken and overcrowded foster care system, inadequate education, as well as overworked and stressed case workers. Then, there are the government officials who are reactive and not proactive in the protection of our TAY youth. These politicians respond only when there is a media firestorm around an egregious child injury or death. Politicians who show up a day late and millions of dollars short spouting the same old rhetoric in media sound bites and yet, they bring nothing in the way of solutions to the myriad problems of the broken system. The example of Los Angeles County’s lack of support for these children can be seen by the tepid support it gave to recommendations made by its own Blue Ribbon 5 Interview with LAUSD staff and DCFS staff. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 267 Commission. This commission investigated the death of eight year old Gabriel Fernandez in Palmdale. In December 2013, the commission recommended hiring hundreds more social workers, increasing standards of training and constructing a cross agency database so social workers could more adequately check medical and criminal files of foster parents. There was even a discussion about a child welfare Czar with powers to cut across agencies. When it was time for the rubber to meet the road, the only recommendation that the Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved was to install a member of law enforcement at local DCFS offices to expedite background searches for emergency placement foster parents.6 Since children do not vote and do not make campaign contributions, it appears that they are an afterthought of most politicians. As soon as the media frenzy is over, politicians return to business as usual. There are, however, ways to improve and enhance the lives of TAY youth. We must begin earlier in their lives introducing them to all of the resources available to them. The team concept should be developed to ensure that the youth do not fall through the cracks. The team should consist of the youth, guardian and/or parent, caseworker, school counselor and psychologist. The current CGJ would like to reiterate and re-emphasize the 2007-2008 CGJ recommendations and the DCFS 2008 responses to them. Recommendation 1: A county leadership team under the direction of the Deputy CEO and including DCFS, DPSS, Probation, DMH and LACOE should develop a new strategic plan to refocus TAY programs on integration, efficiency and effectiveness. “The Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) supports this recommendation and is currently working in partnership with the other agencies. DCSF co-chairs the partnership meeting. In addition, there are community stakeholders that attend the monthly partnership meeting.” Recommendation 2: The Deputy CEO should develop and implement a regular and systematic process of program review and evaluation for TAY programs which include a goal of periodic streamlining of operations in DCFS, Probation and DMH. “The Department supports this recommendation and recommends that TAY programs be reviewed and evaluated via a systematic process to be developed by the Deputy CEO in collaboration with DCSF, Probation, and DMH.” 6 www.blueribboncommissionla.com 268 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Recommendation 3: DCFS, Probation, DMH and DPSS should develop and implement innovative programs to target high risk families and high risk children for proactive early intervention. “The Department has committed to targeting high-risk families and high-risk children for early intervention as part of our prevention strategy by devoting Title IV-E funds for the purpose of Alternate Response, Upfront Assessment and Point of Engagement. Alternated Response targets those families identified by members of the community as being at risk, but who do not meet the criteria for an in-person response by the Department. Rather than not responding to the these families, the Department has partnered with Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to refer families for intervention.” Recommendation 4: DCFS, Probation, and DMH should develop a multifaceted organizational plan including a comprehensive mentoring program that increases each child’s level of trust of the system. “The Department supports this recommendation and is working with Probation and DMH in collaborative efforts to provide care for the children under out supervision and improve the level of trust of the system.” “FY 2007-08 the Department and Probation issued a Request for Proposals for Community-Based Mentoring Programs intended to serve both the Department and Probation youth, in recognition of the need for and importance of a continuous, positive relationship with an adult. In addition, to support the commitment to provide needed services to youth in care, DMH entered into agreements with our Department and Probation, co-locating staff in the Department’s regional offices and at Juvenile Hall to provide assessments for youth and to assist staff.” Recommendation 5: The Directors of DCFS, Probation, DMH and LACOE should design and implement jointly a curriculum that addresses practical educational skills to better prepare them for independence. “The Department supports this recommendation. The Department will meet with Probation, DMH, and LACOE in order to formulate comprehensive strategies for better meeting the educational needs of TAY youth with the goal of designing a process whereby the departments work together to formulate joint curriculum plans for each youth after assessing his/her to be independent. A standard core curriculum focused on achieving independence should be coupled with a strategic plan individually designed for each youth based on 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 269 his/her strengths and needs. With the collaboration of all involved departments the resources, services and supports within each department can be better leveraged on a short-term and long-tear strategic basis.” Recommendation 6: Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS. Probation, DPSS and DMH, improved programs should be provided to youth 18 to 25 who have left the system. “The Department supports this recommendation. We recommend that the involved agencies collaborate to develop an individual plan for each TAY prior to and/or after termination of jurisdiction. In addition, a seamless process enabling both pre and post TAY to access services should be enhanced to ensure improve outcomes for the population being served. Additional employment opportunities should also be considered with this recommendation.” Recommendation 7: Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation and DMH in consultation with LACOE and other school districts, should develop a plan and a timetable for a comprehensive information system to capture all records on all children in the system. The plan should include: cost elements to develop and operate the system, a proposal for funding and a timetable for implementation. Progress on development and implementation should be reported every four months to the Board of Supervisors. “The Department agrees with the above recommendation and recommends that school records be made easily accessible to DCSF and Probation. The Department currently has our own system that tracks the educational assessment, referrals to life skills classes and completion, any financial assistance, including transportation to college, even out of state, and appliances CIO/CEO regarding time frames for such automated system.” 270 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT V. RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 County of Los Angeles and the Department of Children and Family Services should establish more non-Department of Health Services Transitional Age Youth drop in centers which provide showers, meals, internet access, peer support groups, linkage to educational services, employment assistance, medical treatment information and transportation. This should be completed 12.2 Los Angeles County and the Department of Children and Family Services should create financially driven incentive programs which are tied to the academic performance of foster youth. For example, the Department of Children and Family Services should reward foster care providers whose wards graduate from each level including elementary, middle and high school with a “B” average or better. This should be accomplished 12.3 Los Angeles County and the Department of Children and Family Services should create a mobile app which will allow Transitional Age Youth to access the multitude of services available to them. This should be completed 12.4 Los Angeles County and the Department of Children and Family Services should immediately start to reanalyze and implement the recommendations made by the Civil Grand Jury of 2007-2008 pertaining to foster care youth. These recommendations are still valuable. Implementation of these recommendations will ensure greater success for Transitional Age Youth. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). Responses shall be made in accordance with Penal Code Sections 933.05 (a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 271 Responses are required from: Los Angeles County: 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4 Department of Children and Family Services: 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4 VII. ACRONYMS BOS Board of Supervisors CGJ Civil Grand Jury DCFS Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services DHS Los Angeles County Department of Health Services DMH Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health LACOE Los Angeles County Office of Education LAUSD Los Angeles Unified School District TAY Transitional Age Youth VIII. COMMITTEE Rene Childress Co-Chair Rita Hall Co-Chair Heather Preimesberger Secretary Francine DeChellis Edna McDonald Patricia Turner 272 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT RENTER OR LANDLORD: WHO BENEFITS? RENTER OR LANDLORD: WHO BENEFITS? I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Los Angeles (City) has an ambitious program that requires a building code inspection of every residential rental unit in the City at least once every three years.1 The Systematic Code Enforcement Program (SCEP) is administered by the Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department (HCIDLA). Since inception of SCEP in 1998, the inspection of each unit has not been completed as frequently as the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) requires. An annual fee to fund SCEP is assessed to the owner of each residential rental property in the City.2 Landlords are permitted to pass on 100% of the fee to their tenants, whether or not a rental unit is inspected on schedule, according to the LAMC.3 Residential rental units in the City that were constructed before 1978 are generally subject to rent control under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO).4 The LAMC allows automatic annual increases in rental rates by 3% and up to 8% annually depending on economic conditions.5 The percentage increase amount generally correlates with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). There is a 3% floor on annual rent increases because the RSO permits a 3% increase in annual rent even if the CPI is below 3%.6 II. BACKGROUND The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) reviewed the SCEP.7 The focus of the investigation was on the frequency of SCEP inspections. Additionally, the CGJ reviewed the RSO, in particular the provision that defines the amount of annual rent increases that a landlord may charge a tenant in a rent stabilized unit.8 1 LAMC §§161.301 and 161.353. LAMC § 161.352. LAMC § 151.05.1. LAMC §§ 151.00 through 151.30. LAMC § 151.06 (Automatic Adjustments); based on the CPI based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County area (hereafter “RSO allowable rent increases”). See RSO allowable rent increases. LAMC §§ 161.201 through 161.604. See RSO allowable rent increases. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 273 A. Systematic Code Enforcement Program Before SCEP was initiated in 1998, rental units were not required to be routinely inspected by the City for critical habitability problems that violated state and local building codes.9 The City’s stated goal in enacting SCEP was, “…to eliminate substandard housing conditions in rental units.”10 HCIDLA is responsible for administering SCEP. The aspirations of SCEP were recognized in 2005, when it earned the City the Innovations in American Government Award.11 Problems such as defective water heaters, poor plumbing and mold are addressed during inspections. CGJ witnessed habitability deficiencies first hand when they accompanied a HCIDLA building inspector on inspections in various locations throughout the City. CGJ noted that many units passed inspection because they were well-maintained by conscientious landlords and tenants. If the SCEP inspector discovers deficiencies, the owner will receive a Notice to Comply with City and state codes. If the violations are not corrected in a timely manner,12 the city will place the property into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP).13 When a property is in REAP there may be reductions in the rent that the landlord may collect from a tenant.14 Additionally, a REAP notice is recorded against the property title, and administrative fees are charged to the landlord. The most serious consequence is referral to the Los Angeles City Attorney.15 1. SCEP inspections are behind schedule An inspection of each rental unit is required “...at least once every three years.” 16 There is no authority for longer intervals between inspections. However, according to HCIDLA, after a rental unit is inspected, it takes more than three years to perform a subsequent inspection. HCIDLA has informed the CGJ that SCEP inspections are behind schedule because the department does not have a sufficient number of staff qualified to perform such inspections. California Civil Code § 1941.1.1 et seq. LAMC § 161.353 et seq. (Added by Ordinance No. 172,108, Effective July 15,1998). Presented by the Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center for Democratic Governance. Rent Stabilization Bulletin-THE SYSTEMATIC CODE ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN, p. 3 (“The Owner will be allowed up to 30 days to make the repairs (depending on severity of the deficiencies).” 13 LAMC §§ 162.00-162.12. LAMC § 162.05. LAMC § 162.04. Ibid. 274 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Example: A building passed a SCEP inspection in 2006, the next mandatory inspection was completed in 2011, more than 2 years late. Moreover, the next inspection, due in 2014, was not performed until 2015, according to the LAMC. See Figure 1. Figure 1. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS OF AN ACTUAL SAN FERNANDO VALLEY APARTMENT PROPERTY Cycle Inspection Date Time Since Last Inspection I No data - II 2/19/06 - III 6/13/11 5 years and 4 months IV 3/06/15 3 years and 9 months Source: CGJ with data provided by HCIDLA. HCIDLA publishes a Rent Stabilization Bulletin (Bulletin) to inform the public about various provisions of the program. However, the Bulletin does not inform the public about the three year deadline, “Under SCEP, HCIDLA thoroughly inspects the City’s residential rental properties once every four years.”17 (The Bulletin should accurately inform the public that inspections of each rental unit are required in intervals of every three years.) Alternately, the city should amend the section of the LAMC that defines the mandatory frequency of intervals between SCEP inspections. See LAMC, section 163.353. 2. Accelerated schedule Inspections may also be complaint-based.18 Complaint-based inspections are put on an accelerated schedule, when there are serious risks to health and/or safety such as no heat, gas or water.19 The CGJ witnessed complaint-based inspections first hand and found certain tenant’s living conditions to be deplorable. According to information provided by HCIDLA to the CGJ, once a complaint inspection has confirmed violations, the unit is placed on an accelerated SCEP inspection cycle. 3. 100% of inspection fees may be “passed-through” to tenants The annual SCEP fee for each residential rental unit in the city is $43.32. The fee is assessed to the landlord. However, the LAMC allows a landlord to “pass-through” 100% of the fee to the tenant as a charge of $3.61 per month, in addition to rental payments.20 Information provided to the CGJ by HCIDLA, indicates that a total of 17 Rent Stabilization Bulletin-THE SYSTEMATIC CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (SCEP), p.1. hcidla.lacity.org/system/files_force/documents/SCEP_English.pdf? 18 LAMC § 161.351. LAMC § 161.353. See also HCIDLA Rent Stabilization Bulletin # 52-3.25.2015; Telephone number for complaints is 866-577- 7368; online complaints may be filed at the HCIDLA website at: http://hcidla.lacity.org in-person at HCIDLA Public Information Counter. Rent Adjustment Commission Regulations § 370.00; Fee allowed provided landlord is not delinquent in the payment of annual fee to HCIDLA; landlord must serve the tenant a 30-day written notice. http://161.149.40.43/hcidla- library?field_document_category_tid=145&combine=RAC+&date_filter%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=01%2F01%2F1999&date_filter _1%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F20%2F2015 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 275 approximately $42.5 million in SCEP fees and nearly $500,000 in delinquent fees were collected in the first 4 months of 2016. Property owners are charged the $43.32 fee annually for each rental unit, whether or not the units are inspected in the current year of payment.21 For example, if a unit is inspected once every three years, $129.96 will have been collected. (Calculation: 3 yrs. x $43.32= $129.96.) If the inspection is once every four years, $173.28 in fees will have been collected for each unit. According to HCIDLA the SCEP Trust Fund has not been audited in years. The CGJ interviewed key staff members of the Los Angeles City Controller (Controller), who stated that due to budget constraints and limited staffing of auditors, periodic audits have not been conducted. The CGJ recommends that the City either allocate sufficient funds so that the Controller may begin to perform periodic audits of the SCEP Trust Fund; or amend section 161.352 of the LAMC which sets the frequency of SCEP inspections. B. Rent Control In Los Angeles Rent rate increases in residential rental units in the City built before 1978 are subject to rent control under RSO. Rental units constructed after 1978 are not subject to rent control. Approximately 641,000 units in the city are under rent control.22 1. Allowable automatic rent increase Landlords may increase the rent under RSO by 3% annually, even when there is a downturn in certain economic conditions. When the economy is very strong the annual rent increase percentage may be up to 8%.23 The annual rent increase adjustment normally mirrors the CPI,24 however, there are exceptions. For example, in years when the CPI is below 3%, or even negative, a tenant still may receive a 3% rent increase, at the landlord’s discretion. For example, a tenant with a $2,500 monthly rent may still be subject to a $75 per month increase when the CPI is less than 3% even when it is in negative territory. See Figure 2. LAMC § 161.353. According to data provided to the CGJ by HCIDLA. LAMC § 151.06 (Automatic Adjustments). LAMC § 151.07 A.6. The CPI average for the twelve (12) month period ending September 30 of each year. 276 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Figure 2. ANNUAL RENT INCREASES ALLOWED UNDER THE RSO Beginning % Increased Rent Allowed Rent (July CPI 1 each yr.) 8% $ 2,500 8% $ 2,700 7% $ 2,500 7% $ 2,675 6% $ 2,500 6% $ 2,650 5% $ 2,500 5% $ 2,625 4% $ 2,500 4% $ 2,600 3% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 CPI less than 3% 2% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 1% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 0% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 -1% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 Source: CGJ with data provided by HCIDLA It is not uncommon for the CPI to be below 3%. It has been lower than 3% every year since 2010. For example, in 2010 when the CPI was -.062%, the LAMC authorized a 3% increase in annual rents in rent stabilized units. See Figure 3. Figure 3. ALLOWABLE RENT INCREASES SINCE 2006 YEAR CPI INCREASE ALLOWED 2006 4.45% 4% 2007 4.79% 5% 2008 2.97% 3% 2009 4.14% 4% 2010 -0.62% 3% 2011 1.17% 3% 2012 2.24% 3% 2013 2.10% 3% 2014 1.55% 3% 2015 1.19% 3% 2016 0.80% 3% Source: CGJ with data provided by HCIDLA In the CGJ’s opinion, the 3% automatic increase is unfair to low to moderate income tenants when the CPI is below 3%. 2. Property tax break for landlords for declines in market value Property owners may receive property tax reductions on their real estate when the Fair Market Value (FMV) of their property declines. When the FMV is lower than the 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 277 factored base year value (Proposition 13 value), the Assessor is required to enroll the FMV.25 California assessors refer to this as “Decline in Value.” Example: An 18 unit apartment building in the City of Los Angeles that is under rent control received Decline in Value property tax reductions. For example, in 2014 and 2015, the FMV of the property was lower than the Proposition 13 value. Since property taxes are based on the lower of the two values, the property owner received substantial reductions. In 2014 his property tax bill was reduced by an estimated amount of $5,263.69; in 2015 the savings was approximately $5,560.06. See Figure 4. Figure 4. ACTUAL PROPERTY TAX REDUCTIONS FOR A BOYLE HEIGHTS APARTMENT OWNER (RSO PROPERTY)* Proposition 13 Fair Market Enrolled Value Est. Tax Year Value Value (FMV) (lower of FMV or Prop. 13) Savings 2014 $ 1,727,928 $ 1,296,000 $ 1,296,000 $ 5,263.69 2015 $ 1,762,451 $ 1,296,000 $ 1,296,000 $ 5,560.06 APPROXIMATE SAVINGS IN PROPERTY TAXES IN 2014 AND 2015: $10,823.75 *Note: The amounts in Figure 4 include publicly-available information provided to the CGJ by the Los Angeles County Assessor. According to public records in the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office, in 2014 owners of RSO properties received over $9 million in property tax reductions. In 2015, the reductions were over $6 million. In the same year that a landlord may receive a substantial reduction in property taxes, the tenant may receive an increase in rent. There are no provisions in RSO to reduce a tenant’s rent if the current rent level is higher than current fair market rent. Example: A tenant lives in a large apartment complex of rent stabilized units and the rent has been increased each year under the provisions of the RSO. The rent for his current unit is higher than fair market rent. The choice the property management gives the tenant is to move to another unit in the complex in order to pay fair market rent, or to stay in the unit subject to a 3% increase in the rate, or leave the complex. In this case the tenant had to move within the complex so he would pay fair market rent. California Revenue and Taxation Code § 51(a). 278 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ accomplished the following: • interviewed Housing + Community Investment Department General Manager, senior management and the Director of Code Enforcement, • interviewed senior staff of the Los Angeles City Controller’s Office, • accompanied a Housing Inspector during SCEP inspections, • observed a General Manager’s Meeting, • attended a Rent Escrow Account Program Code Enforcement and Billing Information Workshop, • interviewed property managers and tenants, • reviewed system generated Rent Stabilization Cycle Reports, • reviewed various system generated Inspection Reports, • reviewed Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office public data on the assessed values of properties under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, • reviewed certain HCIDLA procedures, • analyzed Systematic Code Enforcement Program Inspector staffing statistics, • reviewed HCIDLA’s SCEP financial report, • interviewed a Los Angeles City Councilmember, and • reviewed certain sections of the LAMC. IV. FINDINGS 1. SCEP inspections of all rental unit properties in the City of Los Angeles are required at least once every three years per the LAMC. 2. SCEP inspections of each rental unit in the City of Los Angeles have not been performed at least once every three years as required by the LAMC. 3. HCIDLA is responsible for administering the SCEP. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 279 4. The SCEP Trust Fund has not been audited by the Controller in years. 5. The Rent Stabilization Bulletins omit informing the public that SCEP inspections are required at least once every three years, per the LAMC. 6. The SCEP fees are collected annually from the landlord for each rental unit in the City; 100% of the fees may be passed on to the tenant. 7. HCIDLA does not have sufficient staff to perform timely SCEP inspections. 8. HCIDLA disseminates information to the public on SCEP and the RSO in the Rent Stabilization Bulletin. 9. Under the RSO, annual rent increases from 3% to 8%, depending on the current CPI, are permitted in rent stabilized units. 10. Landlords may be eligible for reductions in property taxes on their rental properties when Fair Market Values decline due to economic conditions. 11. The annual rent increases permitted under the RSO may result in rent that is higher than fair market rent. 12. HDICLA does not have a sufficient number of qualified inspectors to perform SCEP inspections at each rental unit in the City every three years as required by LAMC. V. RECOMMENDATIONS 13.1 The City of Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department should inspect each rental unit in the City of Los Angeles at least once every three years as required by the Los Angeles City Municipal Code. or 13.2 The City of Los Angeles should, within three months, amend section 163.352 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code that states the mandatory interval between Systematic Code Enforcement Program inspections. 13.3 The City of Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department should, within three months, accurately inform the public that inspections of each rental unit in the City of Los Angeles are required at intervals of every three years. 13.4 The City of Los Angeles should, re-evaluate the 3% floor on automatic annual rental increases, when the CPI is lower than 3%. Allowable rent increases 280 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT should equal the Consumer Price Index when it is lower than 3% but not below 0%. 13.5 The City of Los Angeles should, within three months, provide sufficient funding to the Los Angeles City Controller so that there will be sufficient audit staff to perform periodic audits of the System Code Enforcement Program Trust Fund. 13.6 The Los Angeles City Controller should audit the System Code Enforcement Program Trust Fund within three months. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses to recommendations shall be made no later than (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). Responses shall be made in accord with Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles. CA 90012 Responses are required from: City of Los Angeles: 13.2, 13.4, 13.5 Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department: 13.1, 13.3 Los Angeles City Controller 13.6 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 281 VII. ACRONYMS CGJ Civil Grand Jury CPI Consumer Price Index FMV Fair Market Value HCIDLA Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department LAMC Los Angeles Municipal Code REAP Rent Escrow Account Program RSO Rent Stabilization Ordinance SCEP System Code Enforcement Program VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Debra Cohen Chair Francine DeChellis Patricia Turner 282 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT S O S AVE UR ENIORS: NURSING HOME INSPECTIONS SAVE OUR SENIORS: NURSING HOME INSPECTIONS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In all counties of California, except Los Angeles County, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) conducts inspections of Nursing Home Facilities (NHF) and investigates nursing home complaints. Most of the people in nursing homes are seniors. In Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) through its Health Facilities Inspection Division (HFID) carries out NHF inspections and complaint investigations in the 396 NHFs located in the county. HFID and Los Angeles County are contracted with the State of California to enforce state and federal laws as they relate to nursing homes. In 2014, two audits were conducted by the State of California and the County of Los Angeles relating to the operations of HFID.1 Both audits made several recommendations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of HFID operations. The audits uncovered a large backlog of complaints that were not investigated, some of which went back several years. In June 2015, a new contract was entered into between the State of California and Los Angeles County.2 This contract attempted to address many of the deficiencies found in the audits. In 2015, incremental funding of $14 million was provided to HFID to hire more personnel. The new contract attempted to reduce, by thirty percent, the workload of Health Facilities Evaluator Nurses (HFEN), also called surveyors. Additional hires would substantially increase HFID’s ability to reduce the backlog of complaints and complete certification and recertification surveys in a timely manner. It is hoped that when the new hires are assigned to various district offices the backlog of complaints will be reduced. The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) reviewed the HFID’s inspection of nursing homes. Our review showed that the number of complaints against the NHFs was larger in 2015 than in 2014. Despite an increase in the number of complaints being investigated, the backlog continues to be high. The data provided by CDPH shows a backlog of 6,514 pending complaints, with some going back to 2011.3 The CGJ feels that significant time savings can be gained by standardizing and systematizing the surveys and complaints investigating process, fully utilizing laptops and setting up a single point for entry of complaints. The use of laptops by surveyors is sporadic, and some senior surveyors are not fully utilizing this technology. The CGJ also finds that efforts need to be made for improving the communication between senior 1 California State Auditor, Sacramento, CA, October 2014, and County of Los Angeles, Department of Auditor-Controller, April 4 and August 27, 2014. Agreement Number 15-00003, July 2, 2015 (hereafter “Contract”). Email to CGJ from HFID, February 29, 2016, “Data Request.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 283 management and the rest of the workforce. Further steps need to be taken to improve the morale of the employees. II. BACKGROUND Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNF), NHFs, and Long Term Care Facilities are all titles used to describe the facilities that have been under review by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), CDPH, and DPH. In California, Medicaid is called Medi-Cal. As a result of the 2014 audit, HFID was transferred to the Environmental Health Division, reporting ultimately to the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS).4 A. Staffing 1. Health Facilities Evaluator Nurse (HFEN) HFENs perform a valuable public service by overseeing the quality of healthcare provided to Californians. HFENs conduct complaint investigations and in-depth surveys of health facilities to determine compliance with state and federal laws, and certification requirements of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Their primary responsibility is enforcement of state and federal laws and rules pertaining to areas affecting total patient care such as nursing, physician care, physical therapy, pharmacy, social services, dental care and related services.5 The HFENs may act as team leaders on surveys and complaint investigations and assist in the training of new staff. They conduct surveys by visiting nursing home facilities, interviewing patients, evaluating the adequacy of patient care through direct observation, inspecting the facility, and reviewing patient and staff personnel records. They evaluate reports prepared by state or county level experts. Survey data is analyzed and recommendations are made to approve or disapprove the certification of nursing homes in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. They issue citations in accordance with deficiencies found.6 2. Registered Environmental Health Specialist (REHS) REHSs work to improve the quality of life and health at nursing homes through environmental and physical inspection of the facility. In accordance with the new contract the REHS cannot now independently conduct surveys.7 4 CDPH website. http//:www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/LNC/pages 5 County of Los Angeles, “Class Specification Bulletin, Heath Facilities Evaluator, Nursing, Class Code 5707,” April 1, 2007. https://agency.governmentjobs./lacounty/default.cfm?action=specbulletin+ClassSpec,1c 6 CGJ interviews with HFID staff. CGJ interviews with HFID supervisors and assistant supervisors. 284 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 3. Health Facilities Supervisors A supervisor is a manager of at least four HFENs at district offices. They engage in supervising surveys for health facility licenses,8 issuing citations and levying civil penalties. Supervisors are involved in determining program flexibility and decisions and reviewing health facilities for participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs. They perform more difficult and complex surveys of nursing homes.9 Supervisors and assistant supervisors are required to review the surveyors’ findings and draft reports to confirm the accuracy of the findings and determine if the evidence supports the findings. Supervisors and surveyors must come to a consensus on the recommended deficiencies found and recommended citations. Surveyors are called to testify when litigation or appeals are made: therefore, it is critical that they are included in all discussions regarding their investigations, especially if their conclusions are changed.10 4. Program Manager Program managers are responsible for overseeing HFID district offices. They may manage individual departments or district offices. B. Complaints Processing 1. Complaints made by the public CDPH has contracted with DPH and HFID to investigate complaints relating to nursing home facilities located within Los Angeles County.11 Complaints are submitted by the general public, family members of residents, staff and residents. In Los Angeles County such complaints are filed with HFID. Complaints made to HFID can be made telephonically, by computer, smart phone, fax and mail. Complaints made electronically to HFID all go to the Information Technology (IT) Center at HFID headquarters in Norwalk, California. At the IT Center, the complaints are entered into the Aspen Complaint Tracking System (ACTS). Complaints made telephonically or by fax, are entered onto an “intake form” and directed to the appropriate district office by the support staff.12 The number of complaints received by HFID in 2014 was 1,527 and increased to 1,866 in 2015. The data shows HFID completed 1,506 complaint investigations in 2014, which increased to 2,235 in 2015.13 See Chart 2. Ibid. CGJ interviews with HFID staff. Ibid. Contract, paragraph A.5.H. CGJ interview with HFID supervisors. Email to CGJ from HFID, February 19, 2016, “Number of Complaints made Each Month, January 1, 2014 – December 31, 2015.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 285 2. Entity Reported Incident (ERI) Under State law and regulations, NHFs must self-report events such as epidemic outbreaks, poisonings, fires, major accidents or other catastrophes, or unusual occurrences which threaten the welfare, safety, or health of residents, staff or visitors.14 Alleged or suspected patient abuses are also to be reported. These self-reported complaints are known as ERIs. HFID investigations of ERIs increased from 1,067 in 2014 to 1,343 in 2015.15 ERIs and complaints made by the public are combined to analyze trends and backlog of complaints.16 HFID classifies and prioritizes complaints based on the severity of the event. Complaints are classified as Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) if a facility’s non-compliance has caused or may cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to the resident. Complaints classified as non-IJ are situations in which the facility’s noncompliance caused or may cause harm that has limited consequence and does not significantly impair the resident.17 California law provides that IJs will be investigated by HFID within 24 hours of receipt of the complaint. Investigation of all other complaints must be started of receipt.18 14 CDPH, Health Consumer Information System, “Health Information General Questions.” http://hfcis.cdph.ca.gov/faq/General.aspx 15 Email to CGJ from HFID, February 26, 2016, “The number of complaints January 1, 2014, 2014-February 22, 2014.” 16 Ibid. California State Operations Manual, Appendix Q, “Guidelines for Determining Immediate Jeopardy,” paragraph II, February 14, 2014, as well as CGJ interviews with HFID staff. California State Auditor Report 2014-111, October 2014, p. 14. 286 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Chart 1 Monthly Trend of Incoming Complaints (2014-2015) 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 complaints received 162 110 112 113 122 125 155 137 127 144 113 107 2015 complaints received 163 149 145 134 157 167 181 161 175 151 146 137 Source: Prepared by CGJ based upon data provided in HFID email dated February 26, 2016. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 287 stnialpmoc fo rebmun 3. Complaints backlogs Despite the increasing number of complaints being investigated, the backlog of complaints continues to be high. The total number of backlogged complaints at the end of 2015 was 6,514 including • 52 complaints from 2011, • 363 complaints from 2012, • 1,146 complaints from 2013, • 2,143 complaints from 2014, and • 2,760 complaints from 2015. Chart 2 is a pictorial representation of the backlog of complaints, created by CGJ based upon information provided by HFID.19 Chart 2 Backlog of Complaints 3000 2500 2000 1500 Backlog of univestigated 1000 complaints 500 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 19 Email to CGJ from HFID, February 22, 2016, “Backlog Pending Investigations.” 288 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT C. Certification And Recertification Surveys In 1986, at the request of Congress, a study was conducted by the federal Institute of Medicine and it found that residents of nursing homes were being abused, neglected and given inadequate care. The Institute proposed reforms be made and subsequently the Nursing Home Reform Act was passed.20 The provisions of the Act were contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987.21 The Act requires that states and the federal government inspect nursing homes to ensure that residents receive quality care and services. The law requires that the states and federal government complete inspections of Skilled Nursing Home Facilities (SNF) and NHFs to certify their compliance. The inspections of SNF and NHF are called surveys and are conducted by HFID.22 Survey teams consist of two or more HFENs and may include REHS, physicians, dieticians and other personnel as needed.23 The initial certification survey of nursing homes focuses on residents and structural requirements.24 The state has contracted with DPH to conduct surveys for recertification and relicensing.25 Recertification surveys are to be completed no later than 15.9 months from the exit date of the previous survey. Over the course of the contract the elapsed time between surveys of each NHF will be reduced so as not to exceed 12.9 months.26 HFID staff is expected to complete two surveys per month.27 D. Citations Under the 2015 contract entered into between the State of California and the County of Los Angeles, DPH and HFID are called upon to issue citations to NHFs when deficiencies are found during inspection (surveys) and complaint investigations.28 The contract also requires HFID to revisit facilities that have received citations to make sure the nursing home has corrected the deficiencies noted.29 Citations are issued by HFID for violations of state or federal law. There are several classes of citations: Class AA – issued when a resident death has occurred and the cause is found to be the responsibility of the nursing home; Class A – issued when a violation presents imminent danger or a substantial probability of death or serious harm; 20 42 CFR § 483.25, “Quality of Care.” 21 Public Law 100-203, December 22, 1987. CGJ interviews with HFID staff. Ibid. Ibid. Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 5.A. Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 6.D.(1)b. CGJ interviews with HFID staff. Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 5.D. Ibid. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 289 Class B – issued for all other violations. Citations issued by HFID personnel are given to the Citation Desk Supervisor, located at the El Monte district office, within five days after they are issued. The supervisor then enters the citation on the computer into the Electronic Licensing Management System (ELMS) which provides information to state officials.30 All A or AA citations go up the chain of command at HFID and DPH legal for approval. The NHF owner is given a copy. Within 24 hours after being given a citation the nursing home owner must prepare a plan of correction for the deficiencies noted in the citation.31 In 2014, HFID issued 25 Class A citations and four Class AA citations. In 2015, the number of citations issued almost doubled, with 49 Class A and seven Class AA citations issued.32 Citations carry monetary penalties, which are collected by the State of California. Class AA violations draw fines of $25,000 to $100,000. Class A and Class B violations fines range from $2,000 to $20,000. Also, any willful material falsification or willful material omission in the health care record of a patient can result in a fine of $2,000 to $20,000 for each violation.33 Appeals from the issuance of a citation are handled by the State of California, Department of Public Health (CDPH). • To uphold a Class AA citation, HFID must prove that: (1) the violation was a direct proximate cause of the death of a patient; (2) the death resulted from an occurrence the regulation was designed to prevent; and (3) the deceased was among the group intended to be protected by the regulation.34 • In order to uphold a Class A citation on appeal, HFID must prove imminent danger from a deficiency that could cause death or serious harm to a patient or a substantial probability of death or serious harm caused to a patient by the deficiency.35 • Class B citations are upheld on appeal if the violation is found to have a direct relationship to the health, safety or security of a patient.36 30 Interview with HFID Citation Desk staff. Ibid. Information provided by HFID, “List of A and AA citations issued 2014-2015.” 33 California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, “CA Nursing Homes: Violations Key, October 22, 2015.” http://www.canhr.org/NH_Data/List_Key/ViolationsKey.html 34 Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 8.D. Ibid. Ibid. 290 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The Citation Desk has one supervisor and two support staff members. The desk should use more staff members to process citations.37 E. Hiring Los Angeles County, in 2015, received $14 million to hire additional staff as a result of the new contract.38 Inadequate staffing had been identified in the audits as a primary cause of the backlog. Los Angeles County has hired 57 new registered nurses for surveyor positions.39 At present, there are 27 HFENs who are ready to be certified by the federal exam to work in the field independently. Management needs to secure supervision and support staff for these new hires. HFID is on track to meet its hiring target. F. Training Proper training is imperative for the HFID staff to be efficient. This will lead to better morale and efficiency. As a result of our interviews it became clearly evident that the department is not properly training its employees. This makes for very low morale within the department. However, the most disturbing result of this failure to train properly is the well-being of residents of NHF that HFID is hired to protect. The voices of the elderly and ill who reside in the nursing homes are silent and clearly their needs are in jeopardy. New hires go through county orientation and learn what it means to be a county employee. They do this by viewing six weeks of webinars before starting the state training. Several state run academies offer state training and usually have a class size of 30. Reservations must be made for the date and location which is most convenient. The training lasts for three weeks and during this time the new hire learns the state regulations that a surveyor will be enforcing.40 Federal training consists of one week of classes given in Los Angeles County to acquaint the surveyor with the federal regulations (Medicare and Medicaid) he or she will be enforcing. Federal training must be completed before the new hire can take the Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test (SMQT). The federal test is only scheduled a few times a year. New hires may conduct complaint investigations with additional supervision, and may accompany qualified nurses on regular inspections. This on-the- job-training continues until federal training is completed and the SMQT test is passed.41 In order for an employee to do their job there are certain factors that the employer must provide. Among these are proper training and mentoring. From discussions with surveyors and supervisors, the CGJ feels that the training provided is not adequate. Interview with HFID Citation Desk staff. Contract, Exhibit B, paragraph 6.A. 41; Contract between California Department of Public Health and County of Los Angeles dated June 15, 2012, Agreement Number 12-10082, Exhibit B, paragraph 5.A. Comparing the information in these documents, the difference is approximately $14 million. Email to CGJ from CDPH, April 14, 2016, “RE: HFID Surveyor’s Count.” 40 Interview with HFID training staff. Ibid. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 291 CGJ interviews with HFID personnel lead to the conclusion that HFID staff feels that their training is grossly inadequate. This leads to the question of how HFID is failing to understand and appreciate this situation. This problem should be immediately corrected. The implementation of the use of laptops for investigations has created additional problems. Laptop training at HFID consists of webinars and about 4 hours of classroom work. The new hires have adapted to the integration of these, but the older employees are still writing reports manually and then entering these reports into the laptop when returning to the office. This is not time efficient. Based upon interviews of senior surveyors, laptop training is not adequate. Since the new contract, one trainer has been added to the staff bringing the total to three. These three trainers support all five district offices in Los Angeles County. With the 57 new hires and the 80 existing surveyors, who need to be kept informed of new and changed procedures, the training department is severely understaffed. Other counties in the state have one trainer for each district office.42 HFID should add a trainer to each district office. With this addition, it is hoped that trainers will have sufficient time to gain feedback from surveyors as to the adequacy of training given. A Quality Assurance Committee has been created, consisting of surveyors, supervisors, and senior management. It meets weekly, if possible, to discuss ways to improve methodology of the activities of HFID.43 Emphasis should be given to the work of this committee and senior management should listen and act upon its suggestions. G. Systems CMS maintains a National Database (ND) in Baltimore, Maryland which is the end repository for, among other information, all data pertaining to nursing homes throughout the country. California’s NHF data is maintained in the State Agency (SA) database in Sacramento which is synchronized with ND on a nightly basis.44 ASPEN is a suite of applications used to input and process local data and to interact with the SA database. Within ASPEN, the Aspen Complaint Tracking System (ACTS) is the entry point for complaint and ERI data which is referred to as an ACTS “intake”. Another application is Aspen Central Office (ACO) which manages licensing and certification and is the main collection point for facility information.45 HFCIS is the software used by HFID to track consumer complaints and ERIs. CMS provides qualified users the Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports 42 Ibid. Ibid. Interview with HFID Staff. Ibid. 292 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT (CASPER) for extracting data from ND and for printing reports.46 ACTS Reports Menu provides the same service for the SA database but is not as functional as CASPER. Other tools are available but their use requires significant technical knowledge. During interviews with nurse surveyors, CGJ noted that they were supplied with new laptops. Further discussion unveiled the fact that the laptops were not being used during investigations due to unfamiliarity with the equipment. Questions to the IT department revealed that the new laptops were HP Revolve 810 Tablet PCs and were loaded with a standard California Department of Public Health System which runs on Microsoft Windows 7. This is a solid platform which has eliminated any software bugs found since its introduction. To use this equipment to its full potential, it should be user friendly, and include a new improved template especially developed for surveyors to use during complaints investigation and surveys. Such a template should be developed with major input supplied by the nurse surveyor end user. This template would be downloaded with data for the site being investigated and would ease the input of boilerplate data with most entries being yes/no or other short responses. Additional data can be entered on screen using the One-Note function of Microsoft Office. This change from pen and paper to electronic data entry could dramatically reduce the workload for entering investigative data, but adequate training must be provided. H. Communication There is a communication disconnect between the managers and the line personnel at HFID. The breakdown in communication is contributing to low morale. Several of the surveyors expressed their frustration with the lack of communication when interviewed by the CGJ. When queried as to policies that could be utilized to enhance communication, they readily responded. The staff felt that it would be extremely beneficial for the department head, managers and supervisors to have an open door policy. Additionally, regularly scheduled meetings should be held to ensure that communication is fluid. Information should travel vertically up and down so that all persons are informed and kept in the information loop. Another form of communication they felt was critical to the success of HFID was that the headquarters’ senior management should visit area offices on a regular basis. This would provide them with a ground level perspective to know which policies are working, which ones need improving and which ones are not working and need to be modified or replaced. Surveyors also felt that headquarters’ senior management should accompany a surveyor to observe the details of the job. It was felt that if the upper echelon had firsthand experience doing surveys, they would understand exactly the complexities of 46 Email to CGJ from CDPH, February 4, 2016, “Federal System Support.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 293 the job and have a more realistic view of the process. Equipped with this knowledge, the headquarters’ senior management would be able to affect policies to assist the surveyors to effectively and expeditiously do their job. All levels of supervision need to seek the input of surveyors when developing any new policies and or procedures regarding the investigation of complaints. And lastly, the headquarters’ senior management needs to ask the surveyors what tools they need to be more proficient in doing their job. I. Morale It does appear to the CGJ that morale and cooperation at HFID is in need of improvement. This situation seems to relate to a backlog of complaints/workload, surveyors RN/REHS hostility and upper management not being promoted from within. Complaint backlog is at approximately 6,500 complaints, some stemming from 2011.47 This, coupled with the survey schedule has put a great deal of pressure on surveyors. It is hoped that the new hires, once they complete their training, will reduce the work hours and pressure REHS were the majority of surveyors in the past, but, especially with the new contract, all new hires for surveyors are registered nurses (RN) licensed to practice in California.48 RNs starting salaries are greater than for REHS surveyors and that is a problem area for REHS individuals.49 Also, only RNs can lead a survey, although a REHS surveyor on the team may have more experience. In addition, the work of REHS surveyors has been cut back to its present level, even though, before RNs were hired exclusively, the REHS surveyors performed the same duties as RNs do now.50 Based upon interviews and discussions with HFID staff it appears to the CGJ that there is a prevailing view among middle to lower level employees at HFID that, since the headquarters’ senior management came from a different division, they have little or no knowledge of what surveyors or supervisors do on a regular basis. It is also apparent to the CGJ that the fact that headquarters’ senior management does not regularly visit district offices, and does not consult with surveyors and supervisors on policies relating to the conduct of surveys, does not help this feeling. Until each of these issues is dealt with and management recognizes the issue, morale will remain a drain on worker cooperation and pride in accomplishment. See footnote 3, supra . Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 5.E. CGJ interviews with HFID staff. Ibid. 294 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ conducted numerous interviews with senior staff, program managers, HFENs and REHS as well as supervisors and assistant supervisors. CGJ also spoke to staff at the IT, Citation Desk, hiring and training areas. The CGJ obtained reports detailing number and backlog of complaints, the number of “AA” and “A” citations as well as the aging of complaints. The requested information was provided by CDPH. Documents relating to audits were obtained and reviewed including quarterly inspection reports with level “AA” and/or “A” deficiencies since January 2014. Nursing home inspection reports conducted by HFID for the last three quarters were reviewed. IV. FINDINGS 1. Complaints submitted electronically are logged in electronically by the IT staff at the Norwalk location. Complaints submitted via telephone, fax or mail, are sent to the appropriate district office and, after review, it is then entered into ACTS by the district staff. 2. There has been no improvement in the time taken for completing surveys for certification or recertification. It still takes two weeks to complete and report on the surveys. 3. Laptops are not being fully utilized by all surveyors. Some surveyors are first writing the report on paper and then entering it into their laptop. This is a duplication of work. 4. Complaint workload is too high. The target of two surveys a month takes 20 plus days to complete. This leaves only regular and weekend overtime to work on complaints and leads to delays and inefficiencies. 5. Some program managers, supervisors and assistant supervisors lack the proper skills to retrieve timely and pertinent data and reports from SA and ND. 6. New hires are not receiving adequate training to competently complete an investigation in a timely and efficient manner. 7. A disparity exists between HFEN and REHS in terms of wages and responsibilities. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 295 8. HFID headquarters’ senior management has a background in environmental health while surveyors are RN’s. Surveyors feel that decisions are made without taking their views into account. 9. HFID top management has not made an effort to let the surveyors know that it cares about the job they want the surveyors to do and to succeed. V. RECOMMENDATIONS During the course of the current contract the following recommendations should be implemented: 14.1. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should develop a process to route all complaints including ERI’s to the IT department in Norwalk to be entered in the ACTS system as they are received. 14.2. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should form a team to develop a new electronic template to be used by surveyors to input complaints information into ACTS. 14.3. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should enhance training of surveyors in the use of laptops. 14.4. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should make it mandatory for surveyors, assistant supervisors and supervisors to use laptops during the conduct of surveys by December 31, 2016. 14.5. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should ensure that program managers, supervisors, and assistant supervisors should receive adequate training in ASPEN and access to and training on CASPER to enable them to produce timely and informative reports. 14.6. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should develop a system to monitor new hire post training needs including compliance with mandatory training requirements and competencies. A post training review process that enables 296 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT HFID managers and supervisors to identify when competencies have not been established and refresher training is needed. 14.7. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should require a senior Health Facilities Evaluator Nurse to accompany a new hire until the new hire feels comfortable completing surveys competently. 14.8. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should hold weekly staff meetings to discuss investigation problems occurring in the field, potential morale issues and any overall concerns that may affect a well-run efficient organization. 14.9. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should initiate a study to determine how to reduce the hostilities between Health Facilities Evaluator Nurses and Registered Environmental Health Specialists due to differential in wages and responsibilities. 14.10. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should make sure a schedule exists for the Chief and Assistant chief of the Health Facilities Inspection Division to visit each district office at least once a month to determine the immediate needs of that office. 14.11. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should make sure that during each visit of the headquarters’ senior management in the Health Facilities Inspection Division to district offices time is set aside for them to discuss with surveyors, on a one-to-one basis, issues regarding the surveyor job. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). Responses shall be made in accord with Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 297 Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Responses are required from: Health Facilities Inspection Division: 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.10, 14.11 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health: 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.10, 14.11 Los Angeles County Department of Health Services: 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.10, 14.11 VII. ACRONYMS ACO ASPEN Central Office ACTS Aspen Complaints Tracking System ASPEN Automated Survey and Processing Environment CASPER Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting CDPH California Department of Public Health CGJ Civil Grand Jury CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services DHS Department of Health Services DPH Los Angeles County Department of Public Health ELMS Electronic Licensing Management System ERI Entity Reported Incident HFCIS Health Facilities Consumer Information System HFEN Health Facilities Evaluator Nurses HFID Health Facilities Inspection Division IJ Immediate Jeopardy IT Information Technology NHF Nursing Home Facility ND National Database REHS Registered Environment Health Specialist RN Registered Nurse SA State Agency SMQT Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test SNF Skilled Nursing Facility 298 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Marina LaGarde Co-chair Arun Sharan Co-chair George Zekan Co-chair Judy Goossen Davis Secretary John Anthony Rita Hall Edna McDonald Heather Preimesberger Stephen Press 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 299 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 300 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND TECHNOLOGY THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND TECHNOLOGY I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California state statutes passed in the last five years resulted in the number of probationers supervised by the Los Angeles County Probation Department (LACPD) to increase significantly. The population of probationers also continues to increase at about 400 to 500 per month. The department has hired new probation officers to deal with the increase in caseload. This report deals with the status of technology used by the department and seeks to determine if it is sufficient to help the department do its job. Computer hardware is adequate at present, but software is old and will need to be updated and reworked in the next few years. Although a goal of the department is to have a paperless office, without a change in software 70% of all work will continue to be done on paper. At this time, the department should issue laptops or tablets, and also smart phones, to probation officers to take to the field with them. This would increase their efficiency and provide a safer environment. II.

R18-64

years 65% 93% Over 65 years 12% 3% Race: White 27% 17% Black 8% 18% American Indian 0.2% <1% Asian/Pacific Islander 15% 12% Latino 48% 47% Other 2% 6% Income: Median Household $55,746 $21,980 Income Average Household $83,104 $37,142 Income Source: 2014 American Community Survey (ACS); Metro 186 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Metro’s data, shown in Exhibit 4, also reveals the following: • the overwhelming majority of riders walked to their first bus or rail stop, • an average of 76% report not having a car available for the trip, and • no more than five percent of bus and rail riders drove to a bus or rail stop. EXHIBIT 4: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY RESPONSES, 2011-2015 Car available for trip? How Did You Get Here? Dropped Total Year Yes No Walked Off Drove Biked Other Responses 2011 25% 75% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 14,921 2012 19% 81% 83% 8% 3% 3% 3% 21,873 2013 21% 79% 80% 9% 4% 4% 3% 17,377 2014 31% 69% 84% 6% 3% 3% 4% 21,536 2015 22% 78% 79% 9% 5% 4% 3% 19,793 Average 24% 76% 82% 8% 4% 4% 3% 19,100 Source: Metro However, when the question was rephrased in another survey (the data is presented in Exhibit 5) as to whether riders drove to the first bus or train stop of their trip, an average of 15% responded that they drove to their first stop. EXHIBIT 5: SURVEY RESPONDENTS DRIVING TO THE FIRST BUS/TRAIN OF TRIP SYSTEM- YEAR WIDE RAIL ONLY 2012 3% 15% 2013 4% 17% 2014 3% 15% 2015 5% 12% Average 4% 15% Source: Metro Customer Survey Data E. Planning For Metro Parking Availability In compliance with the National Environmental Quality Act (NEQA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Metro is obligated to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to constructing all light rail lines and stations. Such EIR’s include estimates of on-street parking spaces that will be lost, as well as estimates of the increased demand for parking resulting from a station’s opening. Metro and the construction authorities (public agencies, cities, and private parties) are bound by the 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 187 EIR to construct the number of recommended parking spaces determined during the EIR process to ensure proper compliance with environmental and other concerns. Municipal representatives and members of the public are invited to comment, before final parking-related recommendations are adopted, during multiple public meetings held in a municipality.7 Individual jurisdictions have significant input in the planning process. Different jurisdictions have different assessments of what local parking needs are, what parking requirements should be, and what level of investment of their own resources they are willing to make in providing parking supply.8 Shared parking programs, such as the ones that follow, allow Metro to partner with local jurisdictions or entities in order to provide parking, as shown in the following six cities or agencies (information provided by Metro). The advantage of these agreements is that parking is available to Metro patrons but the agency’s construction, maintenance, and operating costs are mitigated. Arcadia. The 2007 EIR for the Gold Line Foothill Extension projected a demand of 300 parking spaces in Phase I of the Gold Line Development (Pasadena to Azusa), and a demand of up to 800 spaces by 2025 once the line is completed (Azusa to Montclair). The Phase I proposed parking structure design did not allow for future expansion up to 800 parking spaces. The city requested and received a redesign to allow for additional parking decks in the future. The city also converted its previous dial-a-ride transit system to a fixed ride system to coincide with Metro’s opening, making stops at points of interest, such as the race track, shopping mall, and hospital. Culver City. The 600 space parking lot at the Culver City Metro Station lot is heavily utilized. Culver City installed 15 bike racks and 20 bike lockers at the station. The city has scheduled the elimination of the lot in 2017, to make way for a transit-oriented development project. The project will include a six-story 1,500 space parking lot, of which 300 spaces will be reserved for Metro. The city determined that the benefit of the transit-oriented development outweighs the need to meet parking demand. Expo/Crenshaw. This facility has low to moderate parking utilization and is not a high- ridership station. Metro leased 450 spaces from the West Los Angeles Church of God. Because this facility, near the Exposition/Crenshaw station, was poorly patronized with a nine percent utilization rate, Metro reduced the lease to 225 spaces. Utilization continues to be low at 37%, which may be the result of poor signage. Inglewood. The city anticipates the need for additional parking once the planned station becomes operational. The city is exploring opportunities to provide supplemental parking in the area by making existing lots available for a fee. Pierce College. This facility has low to moderate parking utilization and is not a high- ridership station. Metro leases 373 spaces at the Pierce College station on the Orange 7 Audit, p. 10. Audit, p. 13. 188 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and has a 55% utilization rate. The lot is owned by Los Angeles Community College, and was secured through a prepaid lease of $5.3 million. Santa Monica. The EIR for the extension of the Expo Line to Santa Monica provides for three stations in that city, with 70 parking spaces at the 17th Street Station. Because of the city’s density and walkability (an estimated 50% of its citizens live within a 10 minute walk of the three proposed stations), the city believes that additional parking is unnecessary and will negatively impact the quality of life by increasing traffic congestion. As an alternative, the city proposed expansion of the Big Blue Bus services in the city and throughout Los Angeles County, as well as construction of bike parking facilities at the stations. Aside from the 17th Street Station, no additional parking is planned for any Santa Monica station, including the downtown terminus. The city stresses that this is by design and in alignment with the city’s extensive long-term planning strategies for growth, development and sustainability. F. Metro Parking Availability And Utilization In 2014, Metro had a total of 23,222 parking spaces with an average estimated daily parking utilization of 14,399 spaces, or 62%. Usage is highly variable by Metro line, as shown in Exhibit 6. On any given day, there could be close to 9,000 available parking spaces throughout the Metro system. EXHIBIT 6: METRO LINE PARKING UTILIZATION Estimated Total Parking Daily Parking Average Daily Metro Line Spaces Utilization Utilization Rate Red Line 2,072 1,800 87% Blue Line 2,036 1,683 83% Gold Line 2,476 1,860 75% Expo Line 1,521 994 65% Silver (BRT) 3,631 2,256 62% Green Line 5,451 3,347 61% Red/Purple Line 1,878 1,153 61% Orange (BRT) 4,157 1,306 31% TOTAL 23,222 14,399 62% Source: Audit calculation based on Metro data. In reviewing Metro data, the Audit determined9 that many high utilization stations are located at the terminus of their respective Metro lines (e.g., Gold Line - Sierra Madre Villa and Atlantic; Green Line - Norwalk; Red Line - North Hollywood; Expo Line – Culver City). Further, high utilization stations are often adjacent to low or medium utilization stations, including stations along the Gold, Expo, Blue, and Green Lines and 9 Audit, pp. 212 et seq. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 189 low utilization stations are concentrated along the Green, Silver and Orange Lines. This indicates a mismatch of parking supply and parking demand. Parking utilization is not dependent on the total parking supply at any given Metro station. Levels of parking utilization at Metro stations are largely driven by factors other than the relative amounts of parking supply.10 The highest ridership is on the Red, Purple, and Blue Lines, the oldest lines in the system, accounting for approximately 70% of average weekday boardings, but those trips account for approximately 40% of parking supply and utilization. The Expo, Green and Gold Lines account for just approximately 30% of average weekday boardings, but approximately 60% of parking supply and utilization. KEY FOR EXHIBIT 7 Ridership Parking Supply Parking Utilization “High Ridership” stations, “Large” stations with between “High Utilization” stations, averaged 3,548 weekday 492-1,915 parking spaces. where more than 85% of parking boardings. spaces were occupied during Metro’s assessment. An indicator that Metro patrons could face difficulties finding a parking space. “Moderate Ridership” stations, “Medium” stations with between “Medium Utilization” stations, averaged 1,705-3,547 weekday 227-491 parking spaces. where between 45%-84% of boardings. parking spaces were occupied during Metro’s assessment. “Low Ridership” stations “Small” stations with between “Low Utilization” stations, averaged less than 1,704 18 and 226 parking spaces. where less than 45% of parking weekday boardings. spaces were occupied during Metro’s assessment. Audit, p. 202 190 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT EXHIBIT 7: MATRIX OF PARKING SUPPLY, RIDERSHIP, AND PARKING UTILIZATION BY STATION Number of Parking Parking Stations Stations Metro Line (a) Ridership Supply Utilization North Hollywood, Red/Orange; High Large High Universal City, Red; Green; Norwalk, Culver 4 Expo City Union Station, 2 Gold/Purple/ High Large Moderate Willow Red; Blue Sierra Madre 1 Gold Moderate Large High Long Beach 1 Blue Moderate Large Moderate Crenshaw, 2 Green; Green Moderate Large Low Hawthorne Del Mar 1 Gold Low Large Low Aviation 1 Green High Medium High Willowbrook, 2 Blue/Green; Blue High Medium Moderate Artesia Del Amo, Blue; Green; Moderate Medium High Lakewood, 3 Gold Atlantic Harbor Freeway 1 Green/Silver Moderate Medium Moderate Expo/ 1 Expo Moderate Medium Low Crenshaw La Cienega 1 Expo Low Medium Moderate Marine/ 1 Green Low Medium Low Redondo Florence, 2 Blue; Purple High Small High Westlake 103rd Street 1 Blue High Small Low Vermont, Avalon, Red; Green; Moderate Small Low Lake Avenue 3 Gold Wardlow, Blue; Gold; Gold; Low Small High Fillmore, Indiana, Gold; Gold Lincoln Heights, Heritage Square 5 Mission, Gold; Green Low Small Moderate Douglas/ 2 Rosecrans El Segundo 1 Green Low Small Low Source: Audit calculation based on Metro data. (a) Metro line colors are indicated in the order that train stations are listed. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 191 III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES Due to the vastness of the possible inquiry and time constraints, the CGJ narrowed its focus to the availability of parking around selected Metro light rail/bus-rail transit stations. As the primary provider of bus and rail transportation in Los Angeles County, Metro has made efforts to increase ridership by providing parking and transit alternatives. Metro’s success or failure would provide a reasonable litmus test from which conclusions and recommendations could be drawn. The CGJ employed the services of an audit firm to provide an operational audit of Metro’s parking supply relative to the demand for parking spaces at certain Metro stations. The Audit and its findings are attached and incorporated in this report. IV. FINDINGS 1. Parking availability at metro stations does not necessarily increase ridership. 2. Jurisdictions have requested modifications to planned parking availability. 3. Jurisdictions have implemented local efforts to supplement Metro ridership. 4. High parking utilization does not necessarily indicate a desire by jurisdictions for increased capacity. 5. In planning for parking needs, parochial rather than regional views dominate the thinking of local jurisdictions. 6. Local jurisdiction reliance that parking facilities elsewhere will “take care of” parking needs may be wishful thinking. 7. The lack of available land for parking expansion and the general high cost associated with constructing parking structures may inhibit provision of such facilities. 8. Many stations are close to current transportation infrastructure (highways and roads) preventing Metro’s ability to increase parking. 9. Local land use, community concerns, strategic goals and visions for growth impact the provision of parking. 10. Financial constraints impact the provision of parking. 192 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 11. It is unrealistic for local jurisdictions to attempt social re-engineering by means of the reduction of traffic lanes, increase of bicycling lanes, and reliance on alternative transportation (e.g., Über, Lyft), while ignoring the estimated 7.8 million registered vehicles currently on roads in Los Angeles County, with its vast geographic area and lack of easily accessible, reliable public transportation. 12. Currently there are 60 different Metro stations that offer parking with a total of 90 Park-and-Ride facilities. Of the 90 facilities, 15 are parking garages or structures, and 75 are parking lots. 13. In general, parking is provided at “origin” stations (where riders board at the start of their transit journeys to go to work, such as Culver City or Norwalk), and not provided at “destination” stations (where most riders disembark, such as downtown Los Angeles or Hollywood). 14. Parking facilities at Metro stations are owned and operated by a wide range of public agencies, cities, and private parties. 15. The 90 different parking facilities have 16 different owners, and 11 different operators. The divided ownership of these facilities can lead to conflicting mandates, different enforcement, or lack of resources. 16. Although parking garages increase parking capacity on limited available land, there are significant expenses associated with their construction and maintenance.11 17. Metro currently provides over 25,000 parking spaces at its stations and facilities, of which approximately 86% are free. 18. Of that amount, there are 3,588 paid parking spaces, located at 18 different stations, which comprise 14% of total parking. 19. Nearly 70% of paid parking spaces are located at North Hollywood, Union Station, and Universal City.12 11 Audit, pp. 208-209. Audit, p. 210. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 193 V. RECOMMENDATIONS The CGJ makes the following recommendations which should be read along with the details provided in the attached Audit. 10.1 The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) should focus on monitoring and evaluation of supply/demand at nine stations: North Hollywood, Universal City, Norwalk, Culver City, Sierra Madre, Aviation, Del Amo, Lakewood and Atlantic. These stations currently have high utilization and high ridership, which might warrant the usage of additional parking management tools. 10.2 Metro should monitor, specifically to track ridership increases that may warrant the usage of additional parking management tools, utilization at six stations: Union Station, Willow, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Artesia and Harbor Freeway. 10.3 Metro should identify tools to better inform park-and-riders of supply constraints and alternative parking opportunities. 10.4 Metro should, in collaboration with local and regional partners, consider how to expand policy and planning goals to incorporate increased employment density around transit stations. 10.5 Metro should evaluate and take advantage of opportunities for re-striping at high utilization parking lots in order to expand existing capacity, and negotiate to do so with local and regional partners where required. 10.6 Metro should explore opportunities to supplement parking for Metro riders at those stations with high parking utilization. 10.7 Metro should ensure that adequate and visible signage is available at parking lots, especially those with low utilization. 10.8 Metro should reevaluate, specifically to determine whether the leases need to be modified or renegotiated, parking at two shared parking stations: Expo/Crenshaw and Pierce College. 10.9 Metro should evaluate the benefit of including in the Preferred Parking Program the following stations: Culver City, Aviation/LAX, Lakewood, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Harbor Freeway, and Union Station. 10.10 Metro should explore ownership/transfer opportunities or alternative management arrangements of Caltrans properties at Norwalk, Lakewood, and Aviation/LAX. 194 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 10.11 Metro should ensure that the tools, models, data, and recommendations of its master planning process for parking are incorporated throughout Metro’s Countywide Planning Department. 10.12 Metro should continue exploring relationships with ride-sharing companies upon the expiration of its agreement with Lyft, including evaluating whether more comprehensive data-sharing and institutional partnerships might be appropriate. 10.13 Metro should incorporate into its future planning all findings from the Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan Study with regard to the impact of technological and demographic trends on parking. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses to recommendations shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). Responses shall be made in accord with Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Responses are required from: Metropolitan Transportation Authority: 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, 10.13. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 195 VII. ACRONYMS BRT Bus Rapid Transit CGJ Civil Grand Jury EIR Environmental Impact Report Metro/MTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Bart Benjamins Co-Chair Victor H. Lesley Co-Chair Judy Goossen Davis Edna McDonald Arun Sharan Lorraine Stark 196 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ATTACHMENT A: AUDIT OF PARKING SUPPLY AT METRO STATIONS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY April 7, 2016 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) provides bus and rail services throughout the County. Despite perceived efforts to increase ridership by providing parking and transit alternatives, there is evidence of a shortage of parking supply relative to the demand for parking spaces at certain Metro stations. To understand the extent of this problem, and Metro’s effectiveness at addressing station parking issues, the scope of this audit included: 1. An initial assessment of existing and projected parking supply and ridership data for Metro stations along major existing and planned transit lines. 2. A review of Metro’s plans, policies, and procedures with respect to parking at Metro stations, with a particular focus on facilitating increased access and ridership. 3. The selection of Metro stations for in-depth analysis of existing or planned parking supply, parking supply history, and related land use developments in local jurisdictions surrounding Metro stations. 4. A literature review to identify key sources for understanding the links between parking supply, transit ridership, and transit revenues. This would also include an evaluation of demographic, social, and technological changes that may affect parking needs in the next five, ten, or fifteen years. 5. An assessment of the effectiveness of Metro’s planning process for parking, as well as its parking policies and procedures, and identify recommendations for improvement. For an in-depth review of practices and operations at the local level, the audit team selected six existing stations with parking lots, and three planned stations, as noted below: 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 197 Table 1: Selected Stations for Analysis Status Station Name Municipality Metro Line/Extension Existing 103rd and Watts Los Angeles Blue Existing Aviation/LAX Los Angeles Green Existing Culver City Culver City Expo Existing Expo/Crenshaw Los Angeles Expo Existing Fillmore Pasadena Gold Existing North Hollywood Los Angeles Red/Orange Planned Arcadia Arcadia Gold (Extension) Planned Downtown Santa Monica Santa Monica Expo (Extension) Planned Inglewood Inglewood Crenshaw/LAX Corridor In general, the audit team found that there are many factors other than the availability of parking that impact transit ridership, and estimates indicate that increasing the amount of parking would result in significant costs with relatively modest impacts on ridership. The audit team did find opportunities to monitor utilization and expand parking management tools in order to maximize use of the existing facilities. Key recommendations to Metro include:  Focus monitoring and evaluation of supply/demand at nine stations— North Hollywood, Universal City, Norwalk, Culver City, Sierra Madre, Aviation, Del Amo, Lakewood and Atlantic—which currently have high utilization and high ridership  Explore opportunities to redirect park-and-riders from highly utilized lots to underutilized lots nearby, where possible  Evaluate the need for improved signage, lot re-striping, and shared parking at existing stations to maximize capacity  In collaboration with local and regional partners, consider how to expand policy and planning goals that incorporate increased employment density around transit stations, which the literature shows to be a primary factor in increasing transit ridership 198 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT II. BACKGROUND A. Metro History and Organization Created in 1992 by State of California Assembly Bill 152, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) serves as transportation planner and coordinator, designer, builder, and operator. Through bus and rail services, Metro provides transportation options for more than 10 million people across its 1,433-square-mile service area. Under the leadership of the Chief Executive Officer, and governed by a Board of Directors, the agency is divided in to 11 divisions, including: Engineering & Construction, Planning & Development, Operations, Finance & Budget, Information Technology, Vendor/Contract Management, Communications, Labor Relations, Program Management, Corporate Safety & Risk Management, and LA Metro Protective Services. B. Metro Annual Budget For Fiscal Year 2015-16, Metro’s total budget was over $5.5 billion, including all operations, capital projects, administrative costs and financing. The table below details sources of funds, as budgeted for the year. Table 2: Budgeted Revenues for FY 15-16 Revenue/Source FY 15-16 Amount Passenger Fares $376,000,000 TDA/STA $487,500,000 Proposition A - Cent Sales Tax $763,500,000 Proposition C - Cent Sales Tax $763,500,000 Measure R - Sales Tax $763,500,000 Federal and State Grants $950,300,000 Bond Proceeds $1,317,200,000 Other System-Generated Revenue $146,900,000 Total Revenues/Sources of Funds $5,568,400,000 Source: Metro As shown, the largest source of funds comes from bond proceeds. Passenger fares and other system-generated revenue represent the lowest sources of funds in Metro’s annual budget. The table below details the agency’s uses of funds, as budgeted for the year. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 199 Table 3: Budgeted Expenditures for FY 15-16 Expenditure/Use FY 15-16 Amount Bus Operations $1,050,400,000 Rail Operations $399,200,000 Regional Activities $22,800,000 Measure R Transit Capital $1,525,200,000 Operating Capital $469,200,000 Regional Rail Capital $46,600,000 Highway Capital $90,300,000 Subsidy Funding Capital $1,373,100,000 Congestion Management $93,100,000 General Planning & Programs $169,800,000 Debt Service $328,700,000 Total Expenditures/Uses $5,568,400,000 Source: Metro As shown, the areas of highest expenditures include Measure R Transit1, Subsidy Funding, and Bus Operations. Metro is responsible for the distribution of local, state and federal transportation funds in Los Angeles County. Over the next ten years, transportation funds available to local jurisdictions through local return sales tax revenue (i.e., Proposition A, Proposition C, Measure R), gas tax, and federal STP-L are estimated to reach over $10 billion. Metro uses a Call for Projects process for programming regional funds to cities, the County, and local agencies. C. Metro Services and Ridership As noted above, Metro provides bus and rail transit service for the County. The bulk of those operations are for the bus program, which serves a significantly larger footprint across the County, and thereby a larger number of riders. The table below provides a brief summary of basic operations for Metro’s bus and rail services. Measure R was a 2008 ballot measure to provide a half-cent sales tax for transportation projects. The Measure R Expenditure Plan funds seven transportation categories as follows: 35% to new rail and bus rapid transit projects, 3% to Metrolink projects, 2% to Metro Rail system improvement projects, 20% to carpool lanes, highways and other highway related improvements, 5% to rail operations, 20% to bus operations, and 15% for local city sponsored improvements. 200 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Table 4: Bus and Rail Service Summary Bus Rail Stops/Stations 15,967 86 Miles in Service Area 1,433 98.5 Number of Bus Routes/Rail Lines 170 6 Source: Metro To demonstrate ridership throughout the system, the following charts show bus, rail, and total transit (including both bus and rail) boardings over the past twelve years. Exhibit 1 below illustrates this change over time for annual ridership across the system. Exhibit 1: Annual Ridership on Bus and Rail Lines, 1991-2014 600,000,000 500,000,000 400,000,000 300,000,000 Bus Rail 200,000,000 Total FY Boardings 100,000,000 - Source: Metro As shown above, bus ridership has declined since 1991-92, although it slightly rebounded from a marked drop in 2003-04. Bus ridership leveled off in recent years at around 350,000,000 annual boardings, but experienced another slight decline in 2013- 14, the latest year of data. Conversely, rail ridership has experienced a slow but steady increase since 1991-92, with a similar but much less drastic decline during 2003-04. In total, rail ridership represents a fraction of total annual Metro ridership, roughly 20 percent. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 201 The exhibit below shows the same measures across the same time period for average weekday ridership. Exhibit 2: Average Weekday Ridership on Bus and Rail Lines, 1991-2014 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 Bus 800,000 Rail 600,000 Average Weekday Boardings 400,000 200,000 - Source: Metro Again, bus ridership has declined over time, while rail ridership has slowly but steadily increased. The percentage of average weekday rail ridership of the total ridership is approximately 28 percent—slightly higher than its portion of the annual ridership. According to a recent study, "Rail investments tend not to increase overall transit ridership in most cities; rather, most rail transit commuters are former bus commuters, not former drivers, and the main effect of rail investment may be giving transit users a faster transit option rather than reducing VMT and associated emissions (Baum-Snow and Kahn, 2005)." This could be a plausible explanation of ridership trends in Los Angeles, as total ridership has remained relatively flat while bus ridership has declined and rail ridership has increased. Metro conducts an annual rider survey to measure customer satisfaction and collect demographic information on riders. The two questions commonly asked that are most relevant to this audit include:  Do you have a car available for this trip?  How did you get to the first bus or train of this trip? Results from these survey questions over the past five years can be seen below. 202 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Table 5: Customer Satisfaction Survey Responses, 2011-2015 Car available for trip? How did you get here? Total Year Yes No Walked Dropped Off Drove Biked Other Responses 2011 25% 75% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 14,921 2012 19% 81% 83% 8% 3% 3% 3% 21,873 2013 21% 79% 80% 9% 4% 4% 3% 17,377 2014 31% 69% 84% 6% 3% 3% 4% 21,536 2015 22% 78% 79% 9% 5% 4% 3% 19,793 average 24% 76% 82% 8% 4% 3% 3% 19,100 Source: Metro According to the responses received over the past five years, no more than 5 percent of bus and rail transit riders drove to their first trip—presumably because an average of 76 percent of these riders did not have a car available for the trip. In each year, the overwhelming majority of riders walked to the first bus or train of the trip. D. Metro Mission and Policies According to its mission statement, “Metro is responsible for the continuous improvement of an efficient and effective transportation system for Los Angeles County”. The agency’s core goals include: Goal 1: Improve transportation services. Goal 2: Deliver quality capital projects on time and within budget. Goal 3: Exercise fiscal discipline. Goal 4: Provide leadership for the region’s mobility agenda. Goal 5: Develop an effective and efficient workforce. Goal 6: Secure local, state, private sector, and federal funding. Goal 7: Maintain open lines of communication. Goal 8: Enhance a safety-conscious culture with employees contractors and customers. Goal 9:Sustain the environment with energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve these goals while ensuring effective management of the fare and operating system, Metro outlined several strategies as part of the FY 15-16 budget process in order to improve operating/organizational efficiencies, reduce operating costs, strengthen cost controls, and explore opportunities for generating alternative revenues. These include:  Safety and security  Transit service quality improvements  Delivery of rail and highway projects 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 203  Bike programs  Technology enhancements  New initiatives including first last mile As it defines its own goals, Metro must take into account guidance and mandates from other levels of government. Federal, state, regional and local policies support increased use of public transportation as a means to ease roadway congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and support economic and physical health in communities. The State of California, in particular, has taken several steps to urge local jurisdictions to adopt policies and practices that promote modes of transportation that reduce the environmental impact.  California Department of Transportation’s Deputy Directive 64-R1 emphasizes all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.  The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) sets a mandate for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) requires emissions reductions through coordinated regional planning that integrates transportation, housing, and land-use policy. Achieving the goals of these laws will require significant increases in travel by public transit, bicycling, and walking. Metro’s policies are adopted by the Board of Directors and implemented by Metro employees. Recent major policy documents produced by Metro include  2009 Long Range Transportation Plan: in response to SF 375, Metro adopted this plan to “respond to emerging environmental challenges by providing alternatives to driving alone”  2012 Countywide Sustainability Planning Policy and Implementation Plan: to guide the integration of sustainability in the agency’s planning function  2014 First Last Mile Strategic Plan: to outline a specific infrastructure improvement strategy designed to facilitate easy, safe and efficient access to the Metro system  2014 Complete Streets Policy: to support an integrated multimodal transportation system  2015 Active Transportation Strategic Plan (in process) E. Metro Parking Policies Metro’s policies regarding parking are primarily reflected in the 2003 and 2009 Parking Policy documents, and have been summarized by Metro as follows: 204 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Metro recognizes that to support a high level of demand for ridesharing and to make the transition to and from public transit as seamless as possible, adequate parking must be available for patrons to easily move from one mode to the next. Providing parking facilities at key locations is critical to accommodate the growth in usage as the public responds to TDM strategies. Our existing Metro Station parking program helps manage parking resources and anticipates future parking demand. Metro will continue to investigate other options, including technological solutions, to increase the supply of parking facilities in key sites to make this alternative as attractive as possible. This approach may also utilize privately owned parking facilities and develop parking facilities that are located near freeways with carpool lanes or busways. Continuous work is needed to plan the growth of the network of park-and-ride lots that are safe and convenient for travelers to use. Metro’s 2009 Parking Policy also notes: In a region where auto usage represents over 85% of the regional trips, adequate parking near transit facilities is a crucial component of the transit system. This policy applies specifically to Metro facilities. Metro will work with the jurisdictions adjacent to Metro facilities to encourage them to consider and implement the policies included in this document. The parking management policy emphasizes two primary courses of actions, modify demand or increase supply, and in the long term to anticipate the need for both. The primary policy goals outlined in the 2009 document include:  Improving Alternative Access to Transit: This includes strategies that improve walking, cycling, ridesharing, and transit services.  Analyzing, and where appropriate (i.e. parking lots at 75% capacity), including such strategies as: Explore the formation of parking districts or authorities. o Implement charges for parking. o Improve the efficiency of parking. o Pursue lower cost options that increase parking supply in existing facilities. o  Creating off-street parking at high-demand locations near transit facilities and work with local jurisdictions to consider ways to increase on-street parking.  Working with cities to develop better land use and transportation integration. This report discusses specific strategies that Metro has undertaken to implement these policies, and recommends opportunities to more effectively achieve these goals. F. Process for Constructing, Financing and Managing Parking at Metro Stations i. Planning process Under the National Environmental Quality Act (NEQA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Metro is required to complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) when there is substantial evidence that a project will have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose is to inform policymakers and citizens of potential environmental impacts that could result from the project. Examples of impact areas 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 205 include population, traffic, schools, fire protections, archaeological artifacts, and community beauty. As such, Metro has been obligated to prepare an EIR when constructing all light rail lines and stations. These EIRs look at transportation impacts, like traffic flow, congestion, and safety. With regard to parking, Metro’s light rail station EIRs contain estimates of the on-street parking spaces that will be lost, as well as estimates of the increased demand for parking that will result from the opening of the station. The EIRs include a recommended number of spaces to be provided at each station on opening day and several years into the future. In some instances, the estimates of the need for parking vary depending on the particular station design likely to be implemented. Metro and the construction authorities (discussed below) are bound by the EIR to construct the number of recommended parking spaces determined during the EIR process to ensure proper compliance with environmental and other concerns. Municipal representatives and members of the public are invited to weigh in on the recommendations before they are adopted at a requisite number of public meetings held in the municipality. ii. Financing Typically, a significant amount of time passes between the EIR process, and the beginning of construction—primarily due to challenges in securing project financing. Metro line extensions are costly and require the coordination of multiple financing mechanisms. iii. Construction Once financing has been secured, the construction phase can begin. The State Legislature established construction authorities for the purpose of awarding and overseeing all design and construction contracts for completion of the Metro lines and extensions. These construction authorities have been tasked with:  Conducting the financial studies and the planning and engineering necessary for completion of the project;  Adoption of an administrative code, including a specified code of conduct, for administration of the construction authority, in accordance with laws relating to open meetings of public entities, contracting and procurement, contracting goals for minority and women business participation, and political reform; and  Completion of a detailed management, implementation, safety and financial plan for the project, to be submitted to the Governor, the Legislature and the California Transportation Commission. iv. Management Following construction, the project returns to Metro for management and ongoing operations. The parking facilities specifically are managed by Metro’s Parking Management Unit within the Countywide Planning and Development section of Metro’s 206 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Planning and Development Division. Jurisdictions that are planning a new station must work with Metro and the construction authority to determine the appropriate amount of parking spaces to build. Municipalities with existing Metro stations can implement solutions to manage the supply of parking and to mitigate the impacts of parking overflow onto nearby streets. Metro operated over 2,000 parking spaces in 1989. By 2015, that number had grown to over 22,000. When the current expansion programs are completed for Expo and the Gold lines, the total number of parking spaces will total approximately 25,000. According to Metro, “parking is a resource that needs to be effectively managed. Parking is also the first and the last impression for some transit riders. A well-managed supportive parking program will enhance transit riders’ experience.” III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES To complete this audit, the team conducted interviews with Metro staff and staff from the selected jurisdictions, as well as one of the Metro line construction authorities. The team conducted site visits to all of the selected stations. In addition, we reviewed:  Metro ridership data.  Metro parking utilization data.  Economic and demographic data.  Metro policies and procedures.  Selected Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs).  Metro Board agendas and minutes. IV. FINDINGS a. Finding 1 – Parking Utilization Overview and Transit Ridership Data Metro Stations and Parking Facilities There are currently 60 different Metro stations that offer parking with a total of 90 Park- and-Ride facilities, as seen in the Table below. Of the 90 total parking facilities, 15 are parking garages or structures and 75 are parking lots. Some stations have only one parking garage or lot, while others have several parking lots. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 207 Table 6: Number of Metro Stations with Parking and Metro Parking Facilities (2016) No. of Stations No. of Parking Metro Line with Parking Facilities Blue Line 7 11 Expo Line (incl Phase II) 7 7 Gold Line (incl Phase II) 15 17 Green Line 12 18 Orange Line (BRT) 8 15 Red/Purple Line 4 9 Silver Line (BRT) 7 13 Total 60 90 Source: Metro Of the stations shown above, there are 15 stations on Metro’s BRT lines with a total of 28 parking facilities and 45 stations on the light/heavy rail lines with a total of 62 parking facilities. As described further below in this section, not every Metro station has parking facilities. In general, parking is provided at “origin” stations, where riders board at the start of their transit journeys, such as commuters boarding at Culver City or Norwalk in the morning to go to work. Parking is generally not provided at “destination” stations, where more riders disembark, including stations in downtown Los Angeles or Hollywood, for example. Parking facilities at Metro stations are owned and operated by a wide range of public agencies, cities, and private parties, as seen in the table below. Across the 90 different parking facilities there are 16 different owners and 11 different operators. Metro is the largest owner of parking facilities at 45, followed by Caltrans at 28. Metro is also the largest operator of parking facilities at 60, followed by Caltrans at 20. Of the 45 different facilities owned by Metro, 10 are parking garages and 35 are parking lots. As will be explained further in the below section, “Ongoing Parking Management and New Parking Initiatives”, the relatively divided ownership of Metro parking facilities can create management challenges due to conflicting mandates, differential enforcement, or lack of resources. In addition, although parking garages increase parking capacity on limited available land, there are significant expenses associated with their construction and maintenance. 208 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Table 7: Owners and Operators of Metro Parking Facilities (2016) Owned Operated Owner/Operator Facilities Facilities Metro 45 60 Caltrans 28 20 City of Los Angeles 3 2 Southern California Edison 2 - City of Culver City 1 - City of El Monte / Metro 1 - City of El Segundo 1 1 City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment 1 1 Agency City of Pasadena 1 1 City of South Pasadena 1 1 County of Los Angeles 1 1 Fillmore Raymond MOB LLC 1 1 Lake Avenue Church 1 1 Lease Joint Effort/Metro, Foothill Transit, City of Azusa 1 - Los Angeles Community College 1 - West Los Angeles Church of God 1 1 Total 90 90 Source: Metro The 90 different Metro parking facilities are located in 23 different jurisdictions in Los Angeles County, as shown in the Table below. Over half of these parking facilities are located in the City of Los Angeles. As with the ownership of parking facilities, the large number of separate jurisdictions that facilities are located in creates planning challenges. As described further in the below section, “Sample Station Analysis”, individual jurisdictions have significant input in the planning process for Metro parking facilities, and different jurisdictions may have different assessments of what their parking needs are, what the parking requirements should be, or willingness to invest their own resources in providing parking supply. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 209 Table 8: Los Angeles County Jurisdictions with Metro Parking Facilities (2016) No. of No. of Metro Parking Jurisdiction Stations Facilities Los Angeles 30 47 Pasadena 4 4 Azusa 2 2 Compton 2 2 El Segundo 2 2 Gardena 2 2 Long Beach 2 5 Arcadia 1 2 Culver City 1 1 Downey 1 2 Duarte 1 1 El Monte 1 5 Hawthorne 1 1 Inglewood 1 2 Irwindale 1 1 Lynwood 1 2 Monrovia 1 1 Norwalk 1 2 Redondo Beach 1 2 Santa Monica 1 1 South Pasadena 1 1 Torrance 1 1 Wilmington 1 1 Total 60 90 Source: Metro Metro Parking Supply & Utilization As seen in the Table below, Metro currently provides over 25,000 parking spaces at its stations and facilities, of which approximately 86 percent are free. The 3,588 paid parking spaces are located at 18 different stations and comprise 14 percent of total parking. Nearly 70 percent of all paid spaces are located at just three stations, however: North Hollywood, Union, and Universal City. 210 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Table 9: Free and Paid Parking Spaces by Metro Transit Type (2016) Free Paid Total Metro Transit Parking Parking Parking Type Spaces Spaces Spaces Light/Heavy Rail 13,404 3,579 16,983 BRT 8,069 9 8,078 Total 21,473 3,588 25,061 Source: Metro Prior to the recent Foothill Expansion on the Gold Line and the pending opening of the Expo Line Phase II, there were 50 stations with park and ride lots with a total of 79 parking facilities. Of these, 35 stations were along rail lines with a total of 51 facilities. Because Metro ridership data is most comprehensive for rail stations, these 35 stations and associated facilities form the bulk of the analysis below with respect to Metro ridership data. In addition, 2014 was the last year Metro completed a comprehensive assessment of parking utilization at Metro stations; parking supply and ridership data are therefore evaluated using 2014 data.2 BRT data is presented wherever available. As seen in the table below, in 2014 Metro had a total of 23,222 parking spaces with an average estimated daily parking utilization of 14,399 spaces, or 62 percent. This indicates that on any given day there could be close to 9,000 available parking spaces somewhere in the Metro system. Utilization is highly variable by Metro Line, however, ranging from a high of 87 percent on the Red Line subway to a low of 31 percent on the BRT Orange Line. Table 10: Parking Spaces and Utilization by Metro Line (2014) Total Average Daily Parking Estimated Daily Parking Metro Line Spaces Parking Utilization Utilization Rate Red Line 2,072 1,800 87% Blue Line 2,036 1,683 83% Gold Line 2,476 1,860 75% Expo Line 1,521 994 65% Silver (BRT) 3,631 2,256 62% Green Line 5,451 3,347 61% Red/Purple Line 1,878 1,153 61% Orange (BRT) 4,157 1,306 31% Total 23,222 14,399 62% 2 According to Metro’s utilization report: parking counts “were conducted during the summer months of June through August… [and] were conducted during the morning peak parking demand hours, between 8:30a.m. and 11:30 a.m. The data was collected on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays during non- holiday weeks.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 211 Source: Metro; estimated daily parking utilization calculated by audit team The below summary by transit type shows that parking supply on light/heavy rail lines is generally much more heavily utilized than parking at BRT stations, with an average daily utilization rate of 70 percent across compared to 46 percent utilization for BRT. Table 11: Parking Spaces and Utilization by Metro Transit Type (2014) Total Average Daily Metro Transit Parking Estimated Daily Parking Type Spaces Parking Utilization Utilization Rate Light/Heavy Rail 15,434 10,837 70% BRT 7,788 3,562 46% Total 23,222 14,399 62% Source: Metro; estimated daily parking utilization calculated by audit team Parking Utilization By Metro Station Even with different parking utilization levels observed by Metro lines, and the additional distinction between rail and BRT, there is also significant variation between stations along the same lines. To demonstrate this, we categorized Metro stations with parking into three primary utilization groups:  18 “Low Utilization” stations, where less than 45 percent of parking spaces were occupied during Metro’s assessment;  14 “Medium Utilization” stations, where between 45 and 85 percent of parking spaces were occupied;  16 “High Utilization” stations, where 85 percent or more parking spaces were occupied, indicating that Metro patrons could face difficulties securing a parking spot. The below exhibit provides a graphical representation of where stations with Low, Medium, and High parking utilization are located in the Metro transit system. As can be seen, there are several notable patterns. For instance, many high utilization stations are located at the terminus of their respective Metro lines, including Sierra Madre Villa and Atlantic on the Gold Line, Norwalk on the Green Line, North Hollywood on the Red Line, and Culver City on the Expo Line. Low utilization stations are particularly concentrated along the Green, Silver, and Orange lines. In addition, high utilization stations are often adjacent to low or medium utilization stations, including stations along the Gold, Expo, Blue, and Green Lines. This indicates a mismatch of parking supply and parking demand that could be resolved through better public information. These patterns and potential solutions will be discussed further below in this section. 212 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 3: Parking Utilization by Metro Station (2014) Source: Metro, notations by audit team 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 213 Parking Utilization by Station Parking Supply It is important to note that parking utilization is not dependent on the total parking supply at any given Metro station. It could be, for example, that all stations with high utilization of parking supply are relatively small (which would indicate low parking supply relative to demand), or that all low utilization parking facilities are relatively large (which would indicate excess supply relative to demand). In order to test this, parking supply at Metro stations was grouped into three categories of approximately equal size:  17 “Large” stations with between 492 to 1,915 parking spaces.  15 “Medium” stations with between 227 to 491 parking spaces.  16 “Small” stations with between 18 and 226 parking spaces. As seen in the Table below there are instances of Low, Moderate, and High parking utilization among all three parking supply categories. For example, approximately 46 percent of all rail stations are classified as High Utilization but these 16 stations are split between Small, Medium, and Large stations. Alternatively, 54 percent of Metro rail stations have either Low or Moderate Utilization of parking, but these 19 stations are nearly evenly divided between Small, Medium, and Large stations. By contrast, there are no BRT stations with High Utilization, regardless of whether the facilities are Small, Medium, or Large. This indicates that levels of parking utilization at Metro stations are largely driven by factors other than the relative amounts of parking supply. Table 12: Parking Utilization by Relative Size of Station Parking Supply High Parking Moderate Low Parking Supply by Utilization Parking Parking Total # of Transit Type (# of Stations) Utilization Utilization Stations Rail Stations Large 5 3 3 11 Medium 4 4 2 10 Small 7 2 5 14 Rail Subtotal 16 9 10 35 BRT Stations Large - 4 2 6 Medium - 1 4 5 Small - - 2 2 BRT Subtotal - 5 8 13 All Stations Large 5 7 5 17 Medium 4 5 6 15 Small 7 2 7 16 Metro Total 16 14 18 48 Source: Audit team calculations based on data from Metro 214 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Parking Utilization by Station Ridership As can be seen in the Table below, the highest ridership is on the oldest lines in Metro’s rail system, including the Red, Purple, and Blue lines. These three lines represent approximately 70 percent of average weekday boardings for Metro but account for approximately 40 percent of parking supply and utilization. The Expo, Green, and Gold Lines, by contrast, account for approximately 30 percent of average weekday boardings and approximately 60 percent of parking supply and utilization. Table 13: Daily Ridership and Parking Supply by Metro Line (2014) Average Total Estimated Daily Average Total Daily Parking Weekday Parking Parking Utilization Metro Line Boardings Spaces Utilization Rate Purple Line 9,027 Expo Line 28,237 1,521 994 65% Green Line 42,294 5,451 3,347 61% Gold Line 42,678 2,476 1,860 75% Red Line 60,799 2,072 1,800 87% Blue Line 85,943 2,036 1,683 83% Red/Purple Line 89,535 1,878 1,153 61% Total 358,513 15,434 10,837 70% Source: Metro; estimated daily parking utilization calculated by audit team To further investigate the relationship between ridership and parking supply, the audit team broke out the ridership data by each individual Metro station and grouped them into three ridership categories of approximately equal size:  27 “High Ridership” stations, which averaged over 3,548 weekday boardings  26 “Moderate Ridership” stations, which averaged between 1,705 to 3,547 weekday boardings  27 “Low Ridership” stations, which averaged less than 1,704 weekday boardings As seen in the Table below, of 80 total stations in Metro’s rail system, only 44 percent, or 35 stations, have parking facilities. As with parking lot size, there is a range of parking utilization levels for different ridership categories. Of the 12 stations that provide parking that also have high ridership, seven stations have high parking utilization while five have low or moderate parking utilization. Of the 23 stations that provide parking that have low to moderate ridership, nine stations have high parking utilization while 14 have low to moderate parking utilization. This suggests that parking at high ridership stations is more heavily utilized, on average, than parking at stations with low to moderate ridership, although as can be seen there are examples of high parking utilization at all ridership levels. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 215 Table 14: Parking Utilization by Relative Station Ridership Levels (2014) High Station Ridership Parking by Total Average Utilization Moderate Low Stations Stations Weekday (# of Parking Parking with without Total Boardings stations) Utilization Utilization Parking Parking Stations High Ridership > 3,548 7 4 1 12 15 27 Moderate Ridership 1,705 to 3,547 4 2 6 12 14 26 Low Ridership < 1,704 5 3 3 11 16 27 Metro Rail Total 16 9 10 35 45 80 Source: Audit team calculations based on data from Metro Metro Stations Requiring Evaluation or Monitoring Finally, we created a rubric that scores each station that provides parking according to the combined three categories of Parking Supply, Ridership, and Parking Utilization, as summarized below. Parking Utilization  18 “Low Utilization” stations with less than 45 percent of parking spaces occupied  14 “Medium Utilization” stations with between 45 and 85 percent of parking spaces occupied  16 “High Utilization” stations with 85 percent or more parking spaces were occupied Parking Supply Size  17 “Large” stations with between 492 to 1,915 parking spaces  15 “Medium” stations with between 227 to 491 parking spaces  16 “Small” stations with between 18 and 226 parking spaces Ridership  27 “High Ridership” stations averaging over 3,548 weekday boardings  26 “Moderate Ridership” stations averaging between 1,705 to 3,547 weekday boardings  27 “Low Ridership” stations averaging less than 1,704 weekday boardings 216 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT As can be seen in the Table below, there are nine highlighted stations that have medium to large parking supply, moderate to high ridership, and high parking utilization.3 These nine stations should be further evaluated by Metro assess whether the high level of utilization and ridership indicates a demand for additional parking. Actions to be considered could include adding more paid parking spaces to effectively manage parking demand, exploring shared parking opportunities, establishing leases with outside parties, providing direction to drivers to access other available Metro parking, validating parkers at these stations to ensure they are Metro riders and not “poachers”, adding greater levels of parking enforcement, or exploring other expansions of supply in concert with the appropriate local jurisdiction. Metro is currently exploring many of these options, which will be discussed further in the section below, “Ongoing Parking Management and New Parking Initiatives”. North Hollywood (Red/Orange), Universal City (Red), Norwalk (Green), Culver City (Expo), Sierra Madre Villa (Gold), Aviation (Green), Del Amo (Blue), Lakewood (Green), Atlantic (Gold) 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 217 Table 15: Matrix of Parking Supply, Ridership, and Parking Utilization by Station (2014) Parking Parking # of Supply Ridership Utilization Stations Station Names North Hollywood, Universal City, LARGE HIGH HIGH 4 Norwalk, Culver City Large High Moderate 2 Union, Willow Large High Low - LARGE MODERATE HIGH 1 Sierra Madre Large Moderate Moderate 1 Long Beach Large Moderate Low 2 Crenshaw, Hawthorne Large Low High - Large Low Moderate - Large Low Low 1 Del Mar MEDIUM HIGH HIGH 1 Aviation Medium High Moderate 2 Willowbrook, Artesia Medium High Low - MEDIUM MODERATE HIGH 3 Del Amo, Lakewood, Atlantic Medium Moderate Moderate 1 Harbor Freeway Medium Moderate Low 1 Expo/Crenshaw Medium Low High - Medium Low Moderate 1 La Cienega Medium Low Low 1 Marine/Redondo Small High High 2 Florence, Westlake Small High Moderate - Small High Low 1 103rd Street Small Moderate High - Small Moderate Moderate - Small Moderate Low 3 Vermont, Avalon, Lake Avenue Small Low High 5 Wardlow, Fillmore, Indiana, Lincoln Heights, Heritage Square Small Low Moderate 2 Mission, Douglas/Rosecrans Small Low Low 1 El Segundo Source: Audit team calculations based on data from Metro There are an additional six stations with medium to large lots and moderate to high ridership that are currently at a moderate level of parking utilization, including Union, Willow, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Artesia, and Harbor Freeway. Although there are currently a sizable number of available parking spaces at these stations, Metro should monitor for additional activity, and take action according to existing or planned policies if parking utilization increases to “High”. 218 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT At this time, there is less need to focus on stations that otherwise have significant available parking capacity and are therefore able to accommodate more riders. Smaller parking lots in general, even those that have high levels of utilization, should also not be an area of focus because parkers at these stations comprise a very small percentage of overall ridership. For example, although available parking supply is heavily utilized at some of the smaller parking facilities along the Gold Line, these stations have among the lowest ridership of any stations in the Metro system. Even significant relative expansions of parking supply at these stations are unlikely to have major impacts on the overall number of Metro riders. As will be illustrated further in the sections below, “Characteristics of Metro’s Rail Riders” and “Literature Review on the Determinants of Transit Ridership”, parkers at these stations comprise a relatively small number of an already-limited pool of riders, and ridership is likely relatively low along the Gold Line for reasons besides parking availability. Finally, as discussed in the next subsection, there is also available parking capacity adjacent to some Gold Line stations with high parking utilization. Mismatches of Supply and Demand Referring again to Exhibit 3 above on parking utilization by station, it can be clearly seen that many high utilization parking facilities are directly adjacent to low or moderate utilization facilities. With better public information and communications, park-and-ride commuters could be made aware of supply constraints and alternative parking opportunities in advance of their trips and directed to the nearest available facility. The below table lists some of these stations, including several where the distance between facilities are two miles or less and likely a relatively short automobile trip. While this will not be an ideal solution for many riders, it could be a good option for at least some transit users depending on their origin. Table 16: Distance Between Stations with Parking Shortages and Stations with Parking Capacity Distance Metro Station with High Adjacent Metro Station(s) with Between Parking Utilization Available Parking Capacity Stations Fillmore (Gold) Del Mar, South Pasadena 0.6 mi, 1.8 mi Culver City (Expo) La Cienega Jefferson 1.0 mi Wardlow (Blue) Willow St. 1.1 mi Aviation/LAX (Green) Hawthorne/Lennox 1.7 mi Del Amo (Blue) Artesia 2.7 mi Lakewood Blvd (Green) Long Beach Blvd 4.7 mi Source: Audit team calculations based on data from Metro Metro recently issued a Request for Proposal for a “Parking Guidance System” that will have some of the recommended capabilities suggested above. This RFP will be discussed further in the section “Ongoing Parking Management and New Parking Initiatives”. Metro should explore alternatives as directed above for other high capacity 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 219 stations that are not near stations with available capacity, including the terminus stations of North Hollywood, Sierra Madre Villa, Atlantic, and Norwalk. a. Finding 1B – Characteristics of Metro’s Rail Riders Metro completes annual surveys of its bus and rail riders to gather information including age, income, and race, as well as their riders’ means of transportation to Metro stations and stops. As can be seen in the below table, there are significant differences between Metro’s rail customers and the overall population of Los Angeles County. Comparing 2014 Metro Rail survey data with 2014 Census data for the County, Metro riders are more male and comprised of more working-age adults than the County as a whole. In addition, Metro Rail serves a diverse group of riders, as shown in Table 17 below. Finally, Metro riders have considerably lower median and average household income. These results are generally consistent with what is established in the transit literature regarding the characteristics of transit users, as described further in the section below, “Literature Review on the Determinants of Transit Ridership”. Table 17: Los Angeles County Pop. and Metro Rail Rider Characteristics (2014) Category Los Angeles County Metro Rail Riders Gender Male 49% 54% Female 51% 46% Age Less than 18 years 23% 5% 18 to 64 years 65% 93% Over 65 years 12% 3% Race White 27% 17% Black 8% 18% American Indian 0.2% <1% Asian/Pacific Islander 15% 12% Latino 48% 47% Other 2% 6% Median Household Income $55,746 $21,980 $83,104 $37,142 Average Household Income Source: 2014 American Community Survey (ACS); Metro In Metro’s 2014 “First Last Mile Strategic Plan & Planning Guidelines” document, Metro summarized the findings from their 2011 Metro On-Board survey as follows: “One of the surprising findings from the Metro survey data is the small number of transit riders parking at stations. Though highly visible in communities, parking facilities support only 6.2% of Metro Rail users, and only 3.8% of Metro BRT users. Of this relatively small user group half live close enough to walk or bike to stations.” The report further elaborated that 91 percent of Metro Rail and BRT users walk, bike, or take buses to stations while 9 percent drive and park or are dropped off stations. 220 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The results from Metro’s Customer Satisfaction Survey produce different figures for a similar but slightly altered question. As seen in the Table below, Metro survey data from 2012 to 2015 shows that an average of 15 percent of Rail survey respondents stated they drove to get to the first bus or train of their rail trip, compared to 4 percent across the entire Metro transit system (including buses). According to the 2014 Rail survey results, 76 percent of Rail riders walked, biked, or used other means to get to the first bus or train of their trip, while 15 percent drove and nine percent were dropped-off. These figures therefore do not separately account for rail riders who arrived at their station via bus. Table 18: % of Survey Respondents Who Drove “to the first bus/train of this trip” Year System-wide Rail Only 2012 3% 15% 2013 4% 17% 2014 3% 15% 2015 5% 12% Average 4% 15% Source: Metro Customer Survey Data The reasons for the discrepancy between the figures in Metro’s Strategic Plan and the raw results of the Customer Satisfaction Survey are not known at this time. However, the figures noted above are generally consistent with audit team estimates, depending on whether and how round-trips are accounted for. As provided in the Table below, combining weekday boarding data with average parking utilization data, we estimate the percentage of boardings by station likely to be attributable to drivers and their passengers.4 Although these estimates are consistent with some limited Metro data on the percentage of riders who park at specific stations5, they are for illustrative purposes only and should not be interpreted as scientific. The figures have many clear limitations, including the fact that they cannot account for “poachers” (drivers who use Metro parking without riding transit), distinguish between one-way trip boardings versus round- trip boardings, or account for natural turnover among parking spots (parking spots that support multiple riders over the course of a single day). They can, however, provide a sense of scale and clarify important differences between stations. As can be seen, park-and-riders may account for as few as an estimated 0.2% of all boardings at Westlake to as many as an estimated 37 percent of all boardings at Norwalk and 35 percent of boardings at Sierra Madre Villa. Many of the stations where park-and-riders account for an estimated 10 percent or more of all boardings were previously identified in our matrix as high-priority stations for continued monitoring and evaluation. Based on an average vehicle occupancy of 1.103. Metro Data (“Paid Parking Pilot Program” PowerPoint, Feb. 10, 2016) vs HMR Estimate: North Hollywood (9% to 7%); Universal City (13% to 12%); Atlantic (8% to 13%); Culver City (15% to 15%) 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 221 Table 19: Parked Vehicle Passengers as Percentage of Boarding by Metro Station Total Avg No. of Park-and- Average Utilized Riders as Weekday Parking Estimated % Metro Line Station Boardings Spaces of Boardings Green NORWALK 4,571 1,523 37% Gold SIERRA MADRE VILLA 2,784 888 35% Blue WILLOW 4,119 737 20% Expo LA CIENEGA/JEFFERSON 1,659 247 16% Green LAKEWOOD 2,654 389 16% Gold HERITAGE SQR/ARROYO 821 116 16% Expo CULVER CITY 4,179 580 15% Gold DEL MAR 1,599 214 15% Gold ATLANTIC 2,031 247 13% Red UNIVERSAL CITY 7,806 862 12% Green AVIATION 3,767 402 12% Blue DEL AMO 3,353 352 12% Green LONG BEACH 3,099 291 10% Gold FILLMORE 1,528 139 10% Green MARINE/REDONDO 1,180 101 9% Expo EXPO/CRENSHAW 2,180 167 8% Green CRENSHAW 3,120 226 8% Gold MISSION 1,668 112 7% Gold LINCOLN HEIGHTS 1,327 86 7% Green HAWTHORNE 2,811 174 7% Red NORTH HOLLYWOOD 16,671 1,031 7% Green HARBOR FREEWAY 3,057 172 6% Blue ARTESIA 4,051 226 6% Blue WARDLOW 1,688 90 6% R/P/G UNION 33,775 1,135 4% Green EL SEGUNDO/NASH 878 27 3% Green DOUGLAS/ROSECRANS 821 20 3% Gold INDIANA 1,484 36 3% Blue FLORENCE 4,745 100 2% Gold LAKE AVENUE 1,753 22 1% Blue WILLOWBROOK/ROSA 19,729 187 1% Green AVALON 2,886 14 1% Green VERMONT 3,321 8 0.3% Red/Purple WESTLAKE 9,218 18 0.2% Blue 103RD STREET 3,635 - 0% Source: Metro; estimated daily parking utilization and estimated boardings calculated by audit team 222 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Regardless of which estimates are used, at most 1 in 7 Metro rail riders are driving and parking at stations, whereas at least 6 out of every 7 riders are accessing stations via other means. The fact that the majority of Metro users walk, bike, or take the bus to access rail is consistent with what is known in the transit literature regarding the general characteristics of transit users and the primary determinants of transit ridership, as described further in the next section. b. Finding 1C – Literature Review on the Determinants of Transit Ridership There are many studies that have examined the various factors influencing transit ridership, including transit use in California and Los Angeles, but no conclusive studies on the role of parking supply in driving overall ridership. Although definitive statements are thus not possible, the available literature offers insights to explain the characteristics of transit use in Los Angeles. The literature suggests that parking availability is, at most, one of many factors that influence overall ridership in a regional transit system – and likely a much less significant factor than employment and population density, household income, race, age, levels of private vehicle ownership, fare levels, or service frequency.6 These insights are consistent with the information and findings presented in this report. The Primary Determinants of Transit Ridership A team of transportation researchers analyzed transit use across 265 urban areas in the United States and found that most of the variation in transit ridership can be explained by factors outside the control of transit agencies, including7:  Regional geography: population and employment density, urbanized area, total population.  Metropolitan economy: personal and household income.  Population characteristics: age, immigrant status, race.  Auto/highway system characteristics: percent of carless households, non- transit and non-vehicle trips (i.e., walking, biking). The researchers determined that transit agencies do have control over certain transit policies that can make a difference: for example, 26 percent of the variation in per capita transit use observed by researchers could be explained by fare levels and service frequency. As the research team summarized: low fares attract passengers and infrequent service pushes passengers away. The exhibit below summarizes the researchers’ findings regarding the determinants of transit demand. 6 “Nature and/or nurture? Analyzing the determinants of transit ridership across US urbanized areas”. B.D. Taylor et al., Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 60-77. 7 (Ibid.) 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 223 Exhibit 4: The Determinants of Transit Ridership from Taylor et al. Source: “Nature and/or nurture? Analyzing the determinants of transit ridership across US urbanized areas”. B.D. Taylor et al., Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 60-77. These findings are consistent with the results from the Metro customer survey provided above, namely that factors such as income, race, age, and access to a private vehicle all influence who rides transit. Further, there is evidence that Metro ridership peaked in 1985 following a fare reduction from $0.85 to $0.50 in 1982 as authorized by a County sales tax measure. Ridership increased rapidly over the three-year period of reduced fares prior to falling after fares increased again in 1986.8 A report from the Public Policy Institute of California delved into further detail on transit, density, employment, and ridership specifically for stations in California.9 This report shed light on many of the specific areas identified above, including residential and employment density, proximity to stations, travel patterns, and transportation mode choices. Below we present some key findings from the report, along with commentary on implications for Metro and Los Angeles County. Residential & Employment Density Residential and employment density are both key factors in determining the utility of transit: the more residents living near stations and the more jobs accessible by transit, the bigger the potential pool of transit customers. Of the two factors, however, the 8 “Railtown: The Fight for the Los Angeles Metro Rail and the Future of the City”, Ethan Elkind, 2014. 9 “Making the Most of Transit: Density, Employment Growth, and Ridership around New Stations”, Kolko et al, Public Policy Institute of California, February 2011. 224 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT research suggests that employment density is more strongly associated with transit ridership than residential density. Table 20: Residential and Employment Density Findings from PPIC & Other Literature Implications & Relevance for Metro 1. Employment densities at trip destinations 1. This was confirmed in the audit team’s affect ridership more than residential densities analysis, which discovered a moderate at trip origins. In fact, the relationship is nearly relationship between employment density twice as large. within 1-mile of stations and ridership. This relationship was stronger than the relationship observed between residential density and ridership. 2. Compared to metropolitan areas 2. Residential density in Los Angeles nationwide, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa County is already high but employment Ana are 2nd in population, 2nd in residential density is relatively low. The PPIC authors density, but only 23rd in employment density. concluded: "California's relatively low San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, by contrast, employment density [presents] a challenge are 12th in population, 3rd in residential density, for supporting transit investments and and 3rd in employment density. raising ridership." Metro and other regional policies have not been specifically oriented towards the issue of raising employment densities near transit stations. 3. Metropolitan areas where employment is 3. The dispersion of jobs and lack of more centralized in downtowns have higher centralized employment highlights transit ridership. 7 percent of employment is additional challenges for rail in Los concentrated within the Los Angeles CBD, Angeles: only a fraction of the region's compared to 21 percent of employment in the total employment is located in the CBD, San Francisco-Oakland CBD. Over twice as although most existing transit lines are many people commute via transit in San oriented towards downtown. Francisco compared to Los Angeles. 4. Employment density was highest around 4. This explains the audit team’s earlier stations that opened prior to 1992. finding that ridership is still highest on Metro's oldest rail lines (see Table 13) Source: Public Policy Institute of California; implications by audit team Proximity to Station Transit ridership is also heavily dependent on proximity to transit, although, as with density, proximity to employment matters more than proximity to residence. - 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 225 Table 21: Proximity to Station Findings from PPIC & Other Literature Implications & Relevance for Metro 1. Transit ridership falls sharply as distances 1. This aligns with Metro customer survey from transit stations increase, particularly data that shows the majority of rail users walk past ¼ or ½ mile. to their stations. It was also confirmed in the audit team’s analysis, which discovered only a weak relationship between ridership and residential density at distances of 1, 2, and 3 miles. 2. Workplace proximities to transit matter 2. The finding on proximity to employment more than residential proximities for ridership also makes sense because commuters purposes. generally have fewer transportation options available at their destination stations compared to their origin stations. This further highlights the importance of increased employment density around transit stations. Source: Public Policy Institute of California; implications by audit team Travel Patterns and Transportation Mode Choice Finally, proximity to transit does not in and of itself guarantee high ridership and investments in transit do not always lead to expected changes in travel behavior. Table 22: Travel Patterns and Transportation Mode Choice Findings from PPIC & Other Literature Implications & Relevance for Metro 1. Within a half-mile of a transit station, 7 1. This confirms Metro’s experience and the percent of residents and workers commute data provided above, which shows that even via fixed-line transit such as subway or in areas where there is ample available street-cars. Beyond a half-mile, only about 1 parking, commuters are not being attracted to percent of residents and workers commute ride transit. People who own vehicles in by fixed-line transit. Three-quarters of general are less likely to use transit, simply workers within a half-mile of a transit station because they have access to a car and drive alone to work. especially if their place of employment is not easily accessible by transit. 2. Rail investments do not always increase 2. This finding could explain Metro data overall transit ridership in most cities presented in the Background section of this because most rail riders are former bus report, which shows that while rail ridership riders and not former drivers. has been increasing, bus ridership has been decreasing. 3. Transit investments may not reduce 3. VMT and congestion reduction have been overall Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). major policy drivers for Metro and other Transit investments are generally designed regional planning agencies; however, the to serve commuters, but commuting academic literature suggests these reductions accounts for only 27 percent of VMT. In may be difficult to achieve solely through addition, congestion improvements often transit investments. induce more driving. Source: Public Policy Institute of California; implications by audit team 226 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Implications for Metro Parking Supply & Policy Considerations The evidence from the literature does not suggest that parking availability and supply are significant enough factors to override the other inputs that drive transit ridership including household income level, accessibility to employment, and access to a private vehicle. Because the pool of riders who have access to a vehicle, who live near a transit station, whose employment is easily accessible by transit, and who are willing to ride transit is already limited, the literature indicates that parking availability will not have a significant impact on ridership if viewed in isolation from other factors. Instead, parking supply and demand should be actively managed by Metro based on pre-established criteria and priorities such as location, land use, density, and ridership. Further, due to the costs of building and maintaining parking facilities (see Finding 4 “Barriers to Parking”, below), and the fact that most Metro parking is provided for free or below-cost, most drivers who park at Metro facilities are receiving an additional subsidy on top of their already subsidized transit fares. There are many legitimate reasons in terms of both policy goals and customer service that Metro may provide this subsidy. However, if Metro’s primary goal were to significantly increase ridership using measures under its direct control, the literature suggests that Metro should cut fares or increase the frequency of existing service. Finally, the above findings from the literature suggest that Metro and its regional and local partners should incorporate the facilitation of increased employment density around transit stations as a more explicit goal in relevant policy and planning documents. This is likely to be an effective land-use change that would facilitate increased transit ridership. Looking Ahead The transit literature would also predict that the biggest ridership impacts are likely to result from pending or in-progress major Metro projects that will connect more employment centers and facilitate faster regional travel. In particular,  The Purple Line west-side extension project, which will travel through the jobs- rich Wilshire corridor and terminate at UCLA, a major regional employment center  The Regional Connector, which will create new stations in the jobs-rich downtown and connect more origins and destinations without the need for transfers (i.e., from Azusa to Santa Monica, or Long Beach to Pasadena, etc.)  The pending Expo Line Phase II, which terminates in Santa Monica, a major regional destination The ridership impacts from these extensions are likely to be larger compared to other recent expansions of the transit system, including the first phases of the Expo and Gold light rail lines, and the Silver and Orange BRT lines. Regarding transit ridership and parking utilization, we recommend that Metro: 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 227 1.1 Focus monitoring and evaluation of supply/demand at nine stations— North Hollywood, Universal City, Norwalk, Culver City, Sierra Madre, Aviation, Del Amo, Lakewood and Atlantic—which currently have high utilization and high ridership. Actions to be considered could include adding more paid parking spaces to effectively manage parking demand, exploring shared parking opportunities, establishing leases with outside parties, providing direction to drivers to access other available Metro parking, validating parkers at these stations to ensure they are Metro riders and not “poachers”, adding greater levels of parking enforcement, or exploring other expansions of supply in concert with the appropriate local jurisdiction. 1.2 Monitor utilization at six other stations—Union, Willow, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Artesia and Harbor Freeway—to track increases that may warrant the usage of additional parking management tools. 1.3 Identify tools to better inform park-and-riders of supply constraints and alternative parking opportunities, such as directing them to a nearby available facility. 1.4 In collaboration with local and regional partners. consider how to expand the policy and planning goals to incorporate increased employment density around transit stations, which the literature shows to be a primary factor in increasing transit ridership. c. Finding 2 – Sample station analysis As noted above, for our in-depth analysis we selected six existing Metro stations with parking, and three planned Metro expansion stations. Selection criteria used for the existing stations included: size of lot, rate of utilization, and geographic representation. Planned stations were selected based upon recommendations from the Grand Jury Committee, as well as geographic representation. Table 23: Sample Stations, with Parking Availability and Utilization Total % Ridership Free Paid Space Parking Metro Station Metro Line Spaces Spaces s Utilized Aviation/LAX Green 390 - 390 102% 3,767 Culver City Expo 586 - 586 100% 4,179 North Hollywood Red/Orange 619 333 952 95% 16,671 Fillmore Gold 130 30 160 88% 1,528 103rd /Watts Blue 63 - 63 0% 3,635 Expo/Crenshaw Expo 450 - 450 37% 2,180 Arcadia Gold 300/600 Downtown Santa Monica Expo 0 Inglewood Crenshaw/LAX Source: LA Metro 228 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 5: Sample Station Maps Arcadia Expo/Crenshaw Aviation/LAX North Hollywood Culver City 103rd Street/Watts 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 229 i. Outreach to Sample Sites The audit team also conducted outreach to all station jurisdictions, successfully reaching five of the six10 jurisdictions: Arcadia, Culver City, Inglewood, Pasadena and Santa Monica. Contact persons in these jurisdictions varied, but typically included Transportation Directors, Planning Department staff, and/or Public Works officials. The audit team also interviewed the Chief Project Officer at the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority. General areas of inquiry for jurisdictions included:  History of collaboration with Metro/Construction Authority during EIR and planning process  Current collaboration with Metro regarding parking management at the station  Local assessment of station parking needs  Impact of excess demand (if applicable) on local community  Local efforts to manage parking and/or promote alternative access modes (bikes, buses) to station Below is a summary of major findings from the investigation of the sample locations.  Jurisdictions have requested modification to planned parking structures.  Jurisdictions have implemented local efforts to support increased Metro ridership.  High parking utilization does not necessarily correspond with a need or desire for more parking. Local Efforts to Modify Planned Parking Facilities Arcadia: The 2007 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Gold Line Foothill Extension project modeled a demand for 300 parking spaces on opening day during Phase I of the Gold Line development, when the line runs from Pasadena to Azusa, and a demand for up to 800 parking spaces by 2025 once the line is completed and continues from Azusa to Montclair. However, when the City received design plans for Phase 1 development, the parking structure proposed did not have the capacity for expansion to accommodate the Phase 2 parking supply (800 spaces) as presented in the EIR. On May 15, 2012, the Arcadia City Council passed Resolution 6834 requesting that the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority design and construct the Phase 1 Gold Line Station Parking Structure to allow for future expansion of up to 800 spaces, as recommended in the EIR document. As a result of this Resolution and Arcadia’s efforts generally, the 10 Four stations are located in the City of Los Angeles – Aviation/LAX, North Hollywood, Fillmore, 103rd/Watts. Despite exhaustive efforts, the audit team was unable to contact anyone at the City of Los Angeles (LADOT, City Planning), who could answer our questions regarding parking at the Metro stations. 230 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Construction Authority designed the columns of the parking garage so that they would be able to hold additional decks of parking that might be built in the future. Santa Monica: Following the EIR and planning process for the three proposed Metro stations, Santa Monica city officials expressed concerns regarding the proposal to provide 70 parking spaces at the 17th Street Station, as presented by the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority. Because of the city’s density and walkability—with an estimated 50 percent of city residents living within a 10-minute walk of one of the three proposed Metro stations—Santa Monica city officials believed that additional parking was unnecessary, and would negatively impact quality of life by increasing traffic congestion. A s an alternative, the City of Santa Monica proposed expansions of the Big Blue Bus services, as well as the construction of bike parking facilities at the stations. However, Construction Authority officials were unwilling to eliminate the provision for the 70 parking spaces, citing the approval for the spaces in the EIR. There will be no additional parking11 provided at the planned downtown Santa Monica station, and City officials stressed that this is by design and in alignment with the City’s extensive long-term planning strategies for growth, development and sustainability. Local Efforts to Support Ridership at Metro Stations Santa Monica: As noted above, the City of Santa Monica has invested in route expansions for the Big Blue Bus, which provides bus service around Santa Monica to locations throughout LA County. Arcadia: The City of Arcadia converted its previous dial-a-ride transit system to a fixed ride system to coincide with Metro’s opening and to make stops at several points of interest, such as the race track, the shopping mall, and the hospital. Culver City: Installing bike racks and bike lockers at Metro stations continues to be a priority for the municipalities interviewed. In Culver City, for example, there were ten bike lockers at the station, as well as bike racks, and an additional ten bike lockers and fifteen bike racks were added recently. Inglewood: As it anticipates the need for more parking once this planned station becomes operational, the City of Inglewood is exploring opportunities to provide supplemental parking in the area by making existing lots available for a fee. It should be noted that there will be additional parking available at stations in between Culver City and Santa Monica, including Sepulveda. Sepulveda was not selected for the sample so is not addressed in more detail in this report. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 231 High Utilization of Parking Does Not Necessarily Indicate a Need/Desire for Increased Capacity Culver City: A 600-space temporary parking lot at the Culver City Metro Station will soon be eliminated to make way for a transit-oriented development project. Construction for the project will begin in 2017, and will include a six-story, 1,500 space parking lot which will have 300 parking spaces reserved for Metro. According to both Metro’s utilization data and this audit team’s site observations, the current 600-space temporary is heavily utilized. However, the local jurisdiction has determined that the benefit of the transit- oriented development outweighs the need to meet parking demand. ii. Site Visits and Observations In addition to reviewing ridership and parking utilization data, the audit team conducted site visits the existing stations in the selected sample, plus Arcadia which opened during the course of this audit. We recorded informal observations of parking lot activity and potential opportunity for improvement or expansion, with a focus on the following categories:  Utilization: what level of usage was observed at the time of visit?  Re-striping: were parking spaces striped in order to maximize availability?  Shared Parking: were other lots located nearby with the potential for a partnership with Metro to expand capacity for park-and-riders?  Signage: were signs for the lots adequate to ensure awareness and access? Our observation of these factors at each station visited is shown below: Table 24: Sample Station Observations Station Utilization Re-Striping Shared Parking Signage North Hollywood High Completed Possible, Lots Nearby Adequate Aviation/LAX High Possible Unlikely Adequate Watts/103rd St Unknown Unknown Possible, Lots Nearby Inadequate Arcadia Medium Not Necessary Possible, Lots Nearby Excellent Expo/Crenshaw Medium Not Necessary Possible, Lots Nearby Inadequate Culver City High Possible Possible, Lots Nearby Adequate While our observations and sample jurisdiction research were limited, they did point to important opportunities for Metro to consider enhancements at parking stations for expanding capacity or increasing utilization. We recommend that Metro: 2.1 Evaluate opportunities for re-striping at high utilization parking lots in order to expand existing capacity at minimal cost. 232 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2.2 Explore opportunities to supplement parking for Metro riders with access to existing lots near stations, with a focus on those stations with high utilization. 2.3 Ensure that signage is adequate and visible at parking lots, particularly those with low utilization, to increase access and usage. d. Finding 3 – Barriers to expanding parking supply To expand the supply of parking, Metro must take into account three major factors: physical constraints, land use and local community issues, and financial constraints. Physical Constraints As development in Los Angeles County continues, available land for parking expansion is in increasingly short supply. Around most existing Metro stations, the adjacent lots and areas have already been significantly developed, often in such a way that would prevent the addition of parking facilities. Many stations are located close to other transportation infrastructure, such as highways and roads, further impeding Metro’s ability to increase parking at existing stations and lots. And while vertical expansion of existing parking structures may be an option to explore in some locations, air rights may limit this opportunity and must be considered. Land Use and Local Community Concerns Additional challenges to expanding parking supply can be land use issues and local community concerns. The addition of parking may or may not align with the local jurisdiction’s long-term strategic goals and vision for growth. As noted in the Background of this report, local governments must accommodate federal and state mandates regarding environmental protections and sustainability. These mandates may not allow for additional parking, in cases where existing infrastructure and environmental conditions may be negatively impacted. Financial Constraints As with most public projects, the primary constraint to expanding parking supply is the cost. Particularly because parking at transit stations has historically been offered at no cost, it represents a significant subsidy to riders and the public. These costs, detailed below, include construction, operations, and long-term financing which is often made possible through bonds. These costs carry obligations that can extend 20-25 years, potentially tying up funds that could be used for other purposes. Examples of costs for recently constructed Metro parking facilities are shown below. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 233 Table 25: Construction Costs for Planned Metro Stations Cost Per Station Spaces Cost Space Notes Arcadia 300 7,000,000 $ 23,333 Garage & lot Monrovia 350 8,000,000 $ 22,857 Garage Duarte 125 500,000 $ 4,000 Lot Irwindale 350 11,500,000 $ 32,857 Garage Azusa Citrus 200 8,500,000 $ 42,500 Garage Total (all) 1325 35,500,000 $ 26,792 Total (structures only) 1170 34,880,000 $ 29,812 Source: Metro To understand the impact of long-term financing on a parking construction project, the audit team calculated the amortized cost of a bond valued at $8,720,000 to build 293 parking spaces. The financing assumptions for the cost of amortization model include: Bond amount $ 8,720,000 Annual interest rate 4.00 % Loan period in years 30 Start date of loan 1/1/2016 At these rates, Metro would pay approximately $6.4 million in interest over the 30 years, and the average daily cost per space would total roughly $5.00. This amount includes only the costs of construction and financing; it does not include costs for the purchase of the land, or ongoing maintenance and operations costs. To illustrate these costs even further, the audit team estimated the costs of doubling Metro’s 2014 parking supply at rail stations from 14,452 parking spaces to 28,904 using the same financing assumptions outlined above. Assuming that the land available for parking lot expansion is constrained and that garages would be required to achieve a supply increase on this scale, the audit team estimates it would require a $390 million bond to build 14,452 new parking garage spaces, with close to $287 million in interest payments over 30 years. The average daily cost per space would total roughly $4.30 per day. As before, these cost estimates do not include land purchases or maintenance and operations costs. The ridership impacts of such an expanded parking supply are also unclear. If it were assumed that each new space were to attract one vehicle carrying new riders, that each new space were occupied, and that all new passengers were to complete round trips via transit, it is estimated that this would result in close to 16,000 new riders and 32,000 additional weekday boardings. Compared to 2014 average weekday rail boardings of 359,000, this would represent a total ridership increase of close to 9 percent. As described in previous sections, however, it is unlikely that all parking spaces would be utilized and also unlikely that every rider attracted to newly available parking would be a new rider. Assuming instead a parking utilization rate of 70 percent and that only 234 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 50 percent of the parkers were new Metro customers, it is estimated that Metro would attract about 11,000 new customers resulting in an additional 22,000 weekday boardings. This would represent a ridership increase of 3 percent compared to 2014 rail data. Either scenario would require significant financial investments for relatively modest ridership increases. $390 million would comprise nearly seven percent of the agency’s FY 2015-16 budget and would equal nearly the entirety of the FY 2015-16 rail operations budget. Further, if Metro continued to provide primarily free parking these costs would constitute significant additional subsidy for a relatively limited customer base. As previously stated, the academic literature suggests that Metro would likely be able to achieve more significant ridership increases by reducing fares, increasing service frequency on its existing routes, or significantly increasing employment density around transit stations. e. Finding 4 – Ongoing Parking Management & New Parking Initiatives Consistent with Metro’s existing parking policy, Metro has engaged in a variety of parking management efforts to expand supply and manage demand at stations. These efforts have generally occurred on an ad-hoc basis and have included shared use parking agreements, parking leases, restriping parking lots at existing facilities, and expanding paid parking. Metro’s newly formed Parking Management Division is also spearheading several new initiatives to formalize parking policies and fees, develop an overall agency strategic plan for parking, more effectively manage demand at high-utilization parking lots, collect real-time data on parking utilization, and provide improved public information regarding parking availability. Many of these initiatives will address issues raised in previous sections of this report. Ongoing Parking Management Shared Use & Parking Leases Shared parking programs allow Metro to partner with local jurisdictions or entities in order to provide parking. The advantage of these agreements is that parking is available to Metro patrons but the agency’s construction, maintenance, and operating costs are mitigated. Metro currently has approximately 815 shared use spaces along the Gold Line Stations of South Pasadena, Fillmore, Del Mar, and Lake, representing about 3 percent of Metro’s total parking supply. These facilities are owned and operated by other entities including the City of South Pasadena, Fillmore Raymond MOB LLC, the City of Pasadena, and the Lake Avenue Church, respectively. Metro also leases two parking facilities for Metro patron parking. The Expo/Crenshaw parking facility on the Expo Line is owned and operated by the West Los Angeles Church of God. The original lease provided 450 spaces to Metro customers at an annual lease cost of approximately $795,000, including a base annual lease payment of 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 235 $282,000 and annual operating expenses of $513,000—totaling approximately $1,767 annually per vehicle, or about $4.84 per vehicle per day. The facility, however, was poorly patronized and had a utilization rate of only nine percent. Metro has since reduced the lease to 225 spaces, but utilization remains low, at 37 percent. As noted in Finding 3, this utilization may be related to poor signage. Metro also leases 373 spaces at the Pierce College station on the Orange Line BRT which has a 55% utilization rate. The lot is owned by Los Angeles Community College, and was secured through a prepaid lease payment of $5.3million. These leased spaces represent about two percent of current Metro parking supply. As noted, however, both facilities have low to moderate parking utilization and neither are high-ridership stations. Metro should reevaluate how parking need was estimated for both facilities, determine whether the leases should be modified or renegotiated, and determine whether funds could be better directed towards parking agreements at other appropriate high-ridership or high-utilization stations. Restriping of Existing Facilities Metro has also completed or initiated several projects to “re-stripe” existing parking facilities, including at Norwalk on the Green Line, Wardlow and Artesia on the Blue Line, and North Hollywood on the Red/Orange Line. These are lots whose original configurations were not designed to maximize the number of cars which could fit within the station area. Completed work at Norwalk’s West Lot increased parking capacity from 198 to 306, an increase of 55 percent. Proposed work at Wardlow will increase parking capacity from 89 to 134, an increase of 51 percent. North Hollywood work added a new parking lot within the station area, creating an additional 191 spaces. This increased parking capacity at the station by 8 percent. Finally, although estimates were not available for the Artesia re-striping plans, a 50 percent increase on the order of Norwalk and Wardlow would increase parking capacity by about 149 spaces to 447 total spaces. With the exception of Wardlow (which the audit team classified as a low ridership station with a small parking lot) the above stations were all previously identified for further evaluation or continued monitoring. Metro should consider evaluating whether Del Amo, Lakewood, Universal City, and Aviation are good candidates for re-striping, although as discussed below Caltrans ownership may complicate action at certain lots. In addition, not all lots are likely to yield efficiency gains on the order described above; Metro’s existing parking policy predicts typical gains on the order of five to 15 percent. 236 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Preferred Parking Program Metro’s Preferred Parking Program was adopted in July of 2003 to start adding paid parking spaces at parking lots where utilization reaches or exceeds 90 percent. It allows patrons who register and pay online to secure a space prior to 11 a.m. After 11 a.m., the spaces are then available to others Metro riders. The Preferred Parking Program is currently in operation at 15 stations, as shown in the table below. Approximately 21 percent of the total spaces at these stations, or 976 out of 4,708, are paid. Monthly rates for preferred parking spaces range from $20 to $59 and daily rates for paid spaces are generally about $4, although both monthly and daily rates are higher at a few stations. Monthly passes are currently sold out at seven of the 15 stations. Table 26: Metro Stations Participating in the Preferred Parking Program Free Paid Total Parking Parking Parking Monthly Station Name Metro Line Spaces Spaces Spaces Fee Status Artesia Blue Line 266 32 298 $ 25 Available Atlantic Gold Line 260 24 284 $ 29 Available Balboa Orange Line 264 9 273 $ 20 Available Del Amo Blue Line 338 61 399 $ 25 Available Fillmore Gold Line 125 30 155 $ 29 Available Florence Blue Line 95 20 115 $ 25 Available Heritage Square Gold Line 118 11 129 $ 20 Sold out Indiana Gold Line 37 5 42 $ 29 Available Lake Gold Line 28 22 50 $ 29 Available Lincoln Heights Gold Line 79 15 94 $ 25 Sold out North Hollywood Red Line 735 375 1,110 $ 59 Sold out Sierra Madre Gold Line 841 124 965 $ 29 Sold out Universal City Red Line 633 195 828 $ 55 Sold out Wardlow Blue Line 72 17 89 $ 25 Sold out Willow Blue Line 817 36 853 $ 25 Sold out Total 4,708 976 5,684 Source: Metro Many of these stations were previously identified in this report for continued evaluation or monitoring. Or, as in the case of most Gold Line stations, action was not recommended because despite high utilization the facilities are relatively small and ridership is low. Exceptions include Balboa on the Orange Line and Lake on the Gold Line, both of which have low utilization of parking. In accordance with current policy, Metro should re-evaluate whether paid spaces are required or necessary at these stations. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 237 Currently utilization levels for the paid preferred spaces identified above do not exceed 90 percent anywhere, which indicates that the paid rationing of spaces is effective at keeping at least some parking spots open at high-demand facilities for those willing to pay. Finally, we identified seven stations for evaluation or continued monitoring (see Finding 1) which are not currently part of the Preferred Parking Program, including Culver City, Aviation, Lakewood, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Harbor Freeway, and Union. The Union parking garage facility is owned and operated by Metro but all 1,860 spaces are unreserved paid spaces; the garage is currently classified as moderate utilization. Parking is free at high-utilization Culver City, although these spaces will eventually be replaced by a Transit-Oriented-Development, as described in the Finding 2. The remaining five stations are all owned by Caltrans, however, and are prohibited from charging for parking. Three of these stations are currently at high levels of parking utilization including Norwalk (85 percent), Lakewood (98 percent), and Aviation/LAX (103 percent). Metro should continue exploring ownership transfer opportunities or alternative management arrangements of these lots, as well as continued opportunities to implement paid parking or other effective demand management techniques at these high utilization lots. New Measures & Initiatives As previously noted, there are currently several parking-related initiatives occurring at Metro. These include the recent passage of the agency’s first parking ordinance and parking rate resolution, the initiation of a parking master planning process to culminate in the agency’s first Strategic Plan for parking, the impending start of a paid parking pilot program, and a recently issued request-for-proposal for the development of a parking guidance system, which will facilitate improved signage, data collection, and public information. Parking Ordinance and Parking Rate & Permit Fee Resolution Metro’s Parking Ordinance, Parking Rate Resolution, and Permit Fee Resolution were adopted in September 2015 to facilitate the agency’s impending master planning process. Metro had previously been operating without a parking ordinance, parking rate resolution, or permit fee resolution, which created enforcement challenges. The ordinance did not contain significant changes from previous law, policy, or practices, but instead served as a compilation of existing rules and regulations. The purpose was to enable Metro transit security to provide more effective enforcement at Metro’s parking facilities. The parking rate and permit fee resolution standardized existing parking fees on a station-by-station basis. 238 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The new ordinance is expected to be leveraged as a tool to implement future enforcement strategies and operations. Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan In fall 2015 Metro’s Board of Directors approved a contract to conduct the Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan Study on behalf of Metro’s Parking Management Unit. The purpose of the master plan is to serve as a system-wide comprehensive parking study, with two major objectives: (1) to present findings to Metro’s Board that will inform the Board’s decision to continue Metro’s existing parking program as is, or to increase the use of technology, incorporate more demand-management tools, and expand paid parking; and (2) produce a Strategic Plan to be adopted by Metro’s Board, which will include a 5-10 year parking implementation plan, the adoption of an updated parking policy, and the identification of capital and technology projects. The major components of the first phase of this study will include surveys and data collection, an assessment of the current program, public outreach and stakeholder meetings, and a range of analysis. Below are excerpts from the master plan statement of work, to highlight key activities that will take place over the course of the study, which is currently in progress and is expected to be completed later this year:  An assessment of all parking facilities. Identify locations with high demand and evaluate re-design potential. o Identify locations with low utilization and explore opportunities. o Evaluate pricing and its potential policy impacts. o Identify locations for preferred parking for car share and van pools. o Improve pedestrian and bike access plus facilities. o Enhance way finding and parking guidance. o  A ridership and parking demand model. The consultant will build a model to estimate parking demand under o different scenarios, enabling calculation of revenue projections and parking fee recommendations, as well as allowing the agency to calculate changes in parking demand when there are near-by changes in land-use, occupancy, income, and so on.  A supply and demand analysis and projection of future parking needs.  An evaluation of revenue projections, costs, and the feasibility of establishing a parking enterprise fund.  An evaluation of Metro’s parking enforcement, management, organizational structure, and maintenance schedule. Based upon this study, Metro’s Board will decide on continuing Metro’s existing parking program “as is” with free and preferred parking, or to increase the use of technology, expand enforcement and paid parking, and incorporate more demand-management tools. Once the Board has determined the parking program’s future policy direction, a strategic plan will be developed, which will include a 5-10 year parking implementation 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 239 plan, the adoption of an updated parking policy, as well as the identification of capital and technology projects. Many of the tasks identified in this master planning process could help mitigate or better manage several of the issues identified earlier in this report. As Metro moves forward, however, it will be important to ensure that the tools, models, data, and recommendations that result from the master planning process are incorporated throughout Metro’s Countywide Planning Department, and do not remain solely within the Parking Management Division. For example, planners who are involved on the front- end of parking planning at stations should have access to the future ridership and parking demand model, to ensure consistency and act as a check on internal models currently used for estimation purposes. Paid Parking Pilot Program In March 2016 Metro’s Board of Directors approved a parking management pilot program to be implemented by the end of this year. Since the March Board meeting, as new Gold Line stations have opened, Metro has revised the list of stations for the Paid Parking Pilot Program, in order to reflect changes in parking utilization that have occurred with the opening of the Gold Line extension. Specifically, the Sierra Madre and Culver City stations have been replaced by APU/Citrus and Irwindale as seen in the Exhibit below. The program will include 7,826 parking spaces and will first be implemented at new stations along Phase II of the Expo Line. The primary purpose of the program is to help distinguish between transit users and parking “poachers” who use Metro facilities for free or at low-cost without using transit. “Poachers” have been previously identified as a major enforcement challenge for the agency. The program will use TAP Card readers to verify whether patrons had paid fares within the previous 96 hours, and charge differential rates accordingly. 240 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT As shown in the Exhibit below, daily parking rates will be approximately $2 a day for transit users. Exhibit 6: Metro Stations Participating in the Paid Parking Pilot Program Source: Metro The locations above were selected based on capacity, terminus locations, utilization and recent facility assessment findings. Atlantic, Universal, and North Hollywood, as well as the optional locations of Norwalk, Lakewood, and Aviation, were all identified in this report for evaluation and continued monitoring (see Finding 1); the Paid Parking Pilot Program could assist with demand management and enforcement issues at all stations. Metro has also stated the program will help fight the perception of non-drivers who believe they are subsidizing parking. Currently parking operations are maintained through Metro’s annual budget without sufficient revenue to recover costs. Metro estimates the pilot program will generate about $400,000 in net revenue in FY 2016-17. Staff is expected to monitor implementation and update Metro’s Board in September 2016. Parking Guidance System Finally, Metro Parking Management recently issued a Request for Proposal seeking a supplier for the development and installation of a parking guidance system at 83 of Metro’s parking facilities. The guidance system will allow Metro to maintain a real-time inventory of parking utilization at all Metro facilities, provide enhanced digital signage at facilities, and enable the dissemination of parking availability information to customers via mobile phone applications or the web. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 241 Metro states the guidance system will help patrons minimize their parking search and travel time and also reduce congestion. The parking guidance system could also help resolve issues identified above with respect to the parking supply and demand mismatches of high-demand and low-demand facilities located directly adjacent to each other. Overall, the guidance system will likely result in improved signage, improved data, and improved public information and communications. The contract is expected to begin July 1, 2016, with the full system in place by June 30, 2019. Regarding the implementation of its ongoing and new initiatives, we recommend that Metro: 4.1 Reevaluate how parking need was estimated at Expo/Crenshaw to determine whether the shared parking lease should be modified or renegotiated, and whether funds could be better directed towards parking agreements at other appropriate high- ridership or high-utilization stations. 4.2 Evaluate whether Del Amo, Lakewood, Universal City, and Aviation are good candidates for re-striping, and if so, consider ways to take action under agreement with Caltrans. 4.3 Evaluate the benefit of including seven additional stations in the Preferred Parking Program, including Culver City, Aviation/LAX, Lakewood, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Harbor Freeway and Union. Explore ownership transfer opportunities or alternative management arrangements of Norwalk, Lakewood and Aviation/LAX lots, which are currently owned by Caltrans. 4.4 Ensure that the Parking Management division is included in the EIR process, particularly as Metro moves forward with the master planning process for parking. For example, planners who are involved on the front-end of parking planning at stations should incorporate the future ridership and parking demand model, to ensure consistency and act as a check on internal models currently used for estimation purposes. f. Finding 5 – Impact of demographic, social and technological changes on future parking needs There are a number of demographic, social, and technological trends emerging that could impact future parking needs. The impacts of these trends on commuting, travel patterns, and vehicle ownership are still developing, however, and not yet well- understood in the academic literature. The likely impacts on future parking needs are therefore still unclear at this time. Below we present a few developments and trends worth watching. Ride-Sharing Technologies 242 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Ride-sharing technologies such as Uber and Lyft provide on-demand access to vehicles through smart-phone applications at relatively modest prices. Many commentators have suggested that ride-sharing is an ideal solution to the “First-Last Mile” transit challenge of getting riders to and from destinations that aren’t within easy walking distance of a station. Ride-sharing could provide transit users with the convenience, range, and speed of automobile travel while potentially lessening the need to provide parking on- site at Metro stations. According to a recent report in the Los Angeles Times, “Metro is negotiating an agreement with Lyft aimed at learning more about ride-share trips that begin and end at key Metro stations.” The agreement could shed light on how many, where, and when transit users take advantage of ride-sharing services in order to access transit. Lyft states that transit stops are “passengers’ most common drop-off location” and that the most requested transit destination in Los Angeles isUnion Station. Metro should continue exploring relationships with ride-sharing companies upon the expiration of its agreement with Lyft, and evaluate whether more comprehensive data- sharing and institutional partnerships might be appropriate. If Metro determines upon further study that ride-sharing services are facilitating transit travel for an increasing or significant share of its riders, the agency may need to evaluate whether relevant stations are optimized to handle the increase in pick-up and drop-off activity. Stations might need to be reconfigured or redesigned to facilitate more efficient transfers and limit congestion impacts upon surrounding communities, for example. Ride-sharing services could also lessen the demand for vehicle ownership, although there is not sufficient evidence to establish whether this is happening yet. Trends in Vehicle Ownership As seen in the Table below, the number of people and the number of vehicles in Los Angeles County have both grown from 2000 to 2014. Following an increase from 2000 to 2004, the number of automobiles per person and total vehicles per person remained relatively constant for the next 10 years. There is no evidence in this data that there are relatively fewer cars on the road, or that there is a trend towards fewer vehicles per person in the County. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 243 Table27: Vehicles Per Person in Los Angeles County, 2000-2014 Total Los Angeles Autos Vehicles County Other Total Per Per Year Population Autos Vehicles Vehicles Person Person 2000 9,543,000 5,134,168 1,385,966 6,520,134 0.54 0.68 2001 9,635,000 5,296,141 1,403,585 6,699,726 0.55 0.70 2002 9,718,000 5,529,023 1,480,822 7,009,845 0.57 0.72 2003 9,777,000 5,498,554 1,506,468 7,005,022 0.56 0.72 2004 9,808,000 5,881,156 1,633,087 7,514,243 0.60 0.77 2005 9,804,000 5,850,140 1,664,776 7,514,916 0.60 0.77 2006 9,761,000 5,917,189 1,672,054 7,589,243 0.61 0.78 2007 9,735,000 5,933,335 1,653,447 7,586,782 0.61 0.78 2008 9,779,000 5,859,407 1,639,315 7,498,722 0.60 0.77 2009 9,848,000 5,785,091 1,616,459 7,401,550 0.59 0.75 2010 9,826,000 5,810,035 1,600,590 7,410,625 0.59 0.75 2011 9,885,000 5,805,760 1,554,813 7,360,573 0.59 0.74 2012 9,952,000 5,904,847 1,517,407 7,422,254 0.59 0.75 2013 10,020,000 6,079,057 1,530,460 7,609,517 0.61 0.76 2014 10,117,000 6,197,573 1,521,787 7,719,360 0.61 0.76 Source: Los Angeles County DMV; American Community Survey The implications for transit and parking at Metro stations, however, are less clear. On the one hand, this might indicate that there are just as many cars as ever in the County, and that transit agencies will have to continue accommodating vehicles via on-site parking. On the other hand, as previously shown in Tables 5 and 18, most transit users do not drive to stations and a significant portion of Metro riders do not have access to an automobile. In addition, vehicle ownership in general makes individuals less likely to use transit at all. There is also evidence that Vehicle-Miles-Travelled (VMT) per capita is decreasing, as shown in the Exhibit below. This would suggest that there has been a trend towards people driving less, even if the number of vehicles per capita is remaining relatively constant. 244 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 7: Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled in Los Angeles County, 2000- 2014 Source: Metro Again, the implications for transit and parking at Metro stations are not clear and the reasons behind the overall VMT reduction in the County are not well understood. Travel Changes Among Young Adults A recent dissertation12 from the University of California Los Angeles established that “[y]oung people in the 2000s traveled fewer miles, owned fewer vehicles, and were less likely to hold a driver’s license than young people in the 1990s.” The article examined whether travel behaviors had fundamentally changed, including increased use of non- automobile travel or the increased use of communication technologies. The paper found no evidence that young people’s preferences for “car-less” lifestyles were driving the changes in travel behavior. Instead, the paper found the economic constraints, deferred marriages and child-bearing, and racial/ethnic compositional changes were the prime explanations of travel behavior over the period examined. This would suggest that these travel changes might be reversed once economic conditions have sufficiently improved or family formation trends increase. As with the discussion above, the implications for transit and parking at Metro stations are not clear. Many of these factors have been included in Metro’s Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan Study, and Metro should incorporate all findings with regard to the impact of technological and demographic trends on parking into its future planning. To understand the impact of demographic and technological changes on parking needs, we recommend that Metro: 12 “Stalled on the Road to Adulthood? Analyzing the Nature of Recent Travel Changes for Young Adults in America, 1995 to 2009”. Kelcie Ralph, University of California Los Angeles. 2015. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 245 5.1 Continue exploring relationships with ride-sharing companies upon the expiration of its agreement with Lyft, and evaluate whether more comprehensive data-sharing and institutional partnerships might be appropriate. 5.2 Incorporate all findings from the Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan Study with regard to the impact of technological and demographic trends on parking into its future planning. 246 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT POLITICS 101: OBSERVATIONS ON LOS ANGELES COUNTY GOVERNANCE POLITICS 101: OBSERVATIONS ON LOS ANGELES COUNTY GOVERNANCE “No man undertakes a trade he has not learned, even the meanest; yet everyone thinks himself sufficiently qualified for the hardest of all trades, that of government.” Socrates I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the past nine years, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (BOS) has changed the county’s governance structure twice: in 2007 it provided a strong appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and, in 2015 repealed its 2007 action, reverting to a decentralized/weak CEO model. The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) was interested in determining the impact of these actions and conducted interviews with current and past officials at all levels. The Los Angeles County Charter does not provide for an independent elected-at-large executive accountable to county residents for the functioning of the county. Prior to May 2007 the county operating structure was decentralized with appointed department heads reporting directly to BOS.1 In May 2007 the county operating structure was centralized through the creation of an appointed chief executive to be a single point of contact for department heads and accountable for the implementation and management of county programs.2 In July 2015 the county operating structure reverted to the previous decentralized structure and department heads again report directly to BOS.3 The CGJ found that while it may be premature to determine the long-term impact of the change in governance structure, the structure’s short-term impact is to displace long- term goals. The CGJ found that, under the present system enacted in July 2015, BOS intended that the direct communication between it and county departments would lead to more efficient conduct of public business. BOS motions proliferate, however, and departments find it difficult to adjust to BOS’ constantly changing priorities. The CGJ found that the CEO no longer tempers the heat of BOS - say no - or to advocate on behalf of departments. The CGJ found that there is no structured form of communication between BOS and department heads, nor does BOS meet with all departments on a regular basis. Chief Administrative Office, Los Angeles County Administrative Governance Transition Report, May, 2007, p. 10. Chief Administrative Office, op. cit., pp. 5-6. Chief Executive Office, County Governance, July 7, 2015, p. 1. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 247 The CGJ found that the county lacks an updated strategic plan as well as a meaningful structure for measuring management performance. Nearly all of the next most populous counties in the country elect a county chief executive. Two previous Grand Juries made recommendations that the county adopt an elected chief executive officer and increase the number of supervisors. This CGJ finds both concepts need to be revisited and provides appropriate recommendations for the 2020 county-wide election. 248 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT II. BACKGROUND Reorganization of the structure of county government is not a topic that readily engages most citizens. Their concerns are more basic. They care only that county services are provided well. The CGJ looked at the recent change in the structure of the governance of Los Angeles County from the perspective of citizens concerned with the efficient application of public money to county responsibilities. A. May 2007 Centralization of County Governance Structure In 2007, BOS adopted a strong CEO model replacing a decentralized organization structure in which 34 appointed Department Heads reported independently to BOS. The “hallmark principles” of the strong CEO model included:4 • “Benefits to County residents: With the day-to-day operation of the County vested in the CEO, BOS was able to partner with residents and communities in focusing on studying and developing strategies to address the complex social, economic, and environmental issues that impact the quality of life in Los Angeles County. The CEO’s accountability for implementing BOS policy direction to improve outcomes for residents through service and resource integration and enhanced service accessibility was to result in significant benefit for County residents.” • “Strengthen the Board’s policy role: BOS’s role was strengthened through the creation of the CEO as a single point of contact accountable for implementation and management of Board direction.” • “Focus on outcomes: The County would systematically focus on the needs of County customers – children, families, senior citizens, other residents and the communities they live in – and on improving outcomes for customers.” • “Service integration: Focus on the needs of County customers would be implemented through integration of County services, the optimal use and/or blending of resources, and continuously working to improve the County’s organization and its operating processes.” The 2007 ordinance adopting the strong CEO model included a non-intrusion clause which reinforced BOS as exclusively vested with the responsibility for county policy, regulations, and organizational directions. Individual BOS members and their staff continued to seek information and assistance from county department heads and employees. Chief Administrative Office, Los Angeles County Administrative Governance Transition Report, May 2007, pp.5-6. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 249 B. July 2015 County Governance Structure Reversion On July 7, 2015, BOS adopted a revised county governance structure aiming to improve the (a) effectiveness of service delivery, (b) efficient utilization of limited resources, and (c) timely implementation of Board policy directives. The new governance structure was further intended to balance “flexibility, accountability, transparency and efficiency.”5 The justifications provided for this action included:6 • “The new structure will provide for more Board interaction with departments, more effective decision making, and additional opportunities for policy discussions.” • “Ad hoc initiatives, housed within the CEO will provide for greater energy, focus, and interdepartmental collaboration on Board initiatives, with the flexibility to quickly adjust to new priorities.” • “The CEO will evaluate the placement and composition of CEO and County functions to provide for efficient operations and effective and innovative constituent services.” III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ researched and reviewed governance and best practices sources. Interviews were conducted with current and past county officials at all levels. IV. FINDINGS A. Checks and Balances: The CGJ found that the Los Angeles County Charter does not provide for an executive accountable to county residents for the functioning of the county. The underlying governmental structure of the United States is a separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches, known as checks and balances. No branch of our government can gain absolute power or abuse its powers with impunity. Chief Executive Office, County Governance, July 7, 2015, p. 1. Ibid., p. 2. 250 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT • The legislative branch proposes and enacts the laws, adopts the budget, and may overturn an executive veto. Each representative represents but a small portion of the nation, but collectively Members of Congress can be seen as reflecting the popular will. • The executive branch is intentionally structured as the guardian of the national interest: elected at large, commander in chief of the military, responsible for proposing the annual budget, wielding the veto, and managing the national bureaucracy. • The judicial branch declares the law of the land in accord with the Constitution, and in response to legislative and executive actions. Federal judges must be confirmed by the Senate and, like all elected federal officials, may be impeached. Although not perfect, this tri-partite arrangement is ingrained in the national psyche as a model for all government in the United States – except in California at the county level, where there is no separation of the executive and legislative functions.7 Section XI of the State Constitution and Article II of the Charter of the County of Los Angeles provide for a five-member supervisorial structure. County voters can take advantage of the discretion given them in the County Charter by making changes in the county’s governing board, officers, and employees such as:8 • increasing the number of county supervisors, • electing county supervisors at-large, • appointing fewer county officers and specifying their duties, • contracting out for any service (subject to certain state contracting rules), and • specifying a process to fill a supervisor vacancy. Our County Charter does not provide for an elected executive function in spite of the enormity of our population or the budget and bureaucracy providing services to it. Los Angeles County is a $27.1 billion enterprise,9 with 37 departments and 108,000 employees, representing a population of 10.1 million (in fact, Los Angeles County, standing alone, would be the eighth most populous state in the country),10 governed by a five member board. The governance structure in Los Angeles County is the same as that in every other California county except for San Francisco, which has an elected executive. Amendments to the State Constitution and the County Charter have not addressed this basic governance structure, which reflects the State’s agrarian and early 20th century reform history. 7 “Unlike the separation of powers that characterizes the federal and state governments, the Board of Supervisors is both the legislative and the executive authority of the county (except San Francisco City and County). It also has quasi-judicial authorities.” California State Association of Counties, County Government in California: An Introduction to California Counties, http://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/tab_2_-_county_government_in_california.pdf 8 Ibid. 9 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Adopted Budget. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Population Data. http://www.census.gov/popfinder/ 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 251 In the opinion of the CGJ, an organization on this scale cannot be effectively governed and managed by a board or committee. It is not unreasonable to wonder if BOS has the time not only to govern, but also to manage the county departments. B. County Governance Structure Prior to May 2007: The CGJ found that prior to May 2007 the county operating structure was decentralized with 34 appointed department heads reporting directly to BOS. BOS has made several attempts to find an optimal governance structure to meet the needs and aspirations of the electorate. Prior to May 2007, the county’s operating structure was characterized as a “… decentralized structure in which 34 appointed department heads report independently to the Board.”11 A 1995 article on the county’s government structure noted: • “The five-member board doesn’t work. Responsibilities for setting policy and actual administration of the county are so intertwined that there is no discipline in the system. Additionally, there is a confusion of priorities among jurisdictions within the county, which leads to conflict and unnecessary waste.”12 • “As a five-member Board, the Board of Supervisors is too small to allow for shifting coalitions, too big to allow any single member to emerge as a leader because no one is willing to allow his or her colleague to step out in front. Nor are there enough members to seriously represent the county’s diversity, whether ethnic or geographic.”13 • “. . . there is no constituency for saying ‘no.’ And there is little courage to stand up for the broader picture beyond one’s district.”14 C. May 2007 Centralization of the County Governance Structure: The CGJ found that in May 2007 the county operating structure was centralized through the creation of an appointed chief executive to be a single point of contact for department heads and accountable for the implementation and management of county programs. The following are observations from current and past county officials: Positive Observations  “Fan of previous structure where deputy CEO attempted to integrate all BOS views and department views.” 11 Chief Administrative Office, Los Angeles County Administrative Governance Transition Report, May 2007, p. 10. Kayden, Xandra, “Behind the County Health Woes: An Outmoded Government: A last minute federal rescue should not lessen the need to reinvent a deeply flawed structure of governance.” Los Angeles Times, September 24, 1995. http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-24/opinion/op-49458_1_l-a-county 13 Ibid. Ibid. 252 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT  “The CEO acted as a filter to bounce ideas off and finesse proposals before transmittal to BOS.” The May 2007 governance structure addressed those issues by “… the creation of the CEO as a single point of contact accountable for implementation and management of Board direction.”15 Specifically, the CEO would be “… the one person in the governing structure who would consider and propose policies and resource allocations with all of the people in the county in mind – especially the underserved and marginalized residents.”16 In effect, the action provided for a “checks and balances” on BOS by separating governance and management (executive) functions in the operation of the county. The CEO filled the executive function, handling the county’s day-to-day operations and acting as a filter by dealing with “every-day” and “ordinary” issues. Significantly the CEO was expected to wield independent executive power, even providing push-back to BOS where appropriate, while serving at BOS’s pleasure in an appointed position.17 Given this conflicting dual nature of the CEO’s position, it can be no surprise that the CEO developed into and was seen as an independent power center, the “sixth, unelected Supervisor.”18 The CEO’s power rested on intimate knowledge of the County’s day-to-day operations and ability to influence the good will of at least three of the Supervisors. The CGJ believes that such inherent structural conflict between BOS and the CEO resulted in the July 2015 action. D. Return to Decentralized Pre-2007 Governance Structure: The CGJ found that in July 2015 the county operating structure reverted to the decentralized structure in which department heads report directly to the board. Additionally, the CGJ found that BOS intended the direct communication between it and county departments to more efficiently further the conduct of the public’s business. The following are observations from current and past county officials: Positive Observations  “Philosophy was different between CEO and BOS.”  “BOS is not to be minimized.”  “BOS wants increased level of communications.”  “New structure compels policy as a priority and is streamlined.”  “There should be no impediments to process of getting information.”  “A strong commitment to do the public’s business efficiently.”  “BOS wants more input in policy decisions.”  “New focused initiatives (priorities) are staffed across departments – working more together than ever before.” 15 Chief Administrative Office, Los Angeles County Administrative Governance Transition Report, May, 2007, pp. 5-6. Yaroslavsky, Zev, “Reflections on Four Decades in Office,” Bollens-Ries-Hoffenberg Lecture, University of California, Los Angeles, April 7, 2015. Observations from current and past county officials. Observations from current and past county officials. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 253 Negative Observations  “Structure was seen as cause so just changing CEO was not solution – BOS always had the power.”  “There was a bad relationship between prior CEO and BOS, BOS wants CEO to downsize.”  “There was a conflict with the prior CEO who acted like a sixth supervisor.” By changing the CEO’s function back to the pre-May 2007 governance structure, the “new” operating structure again blurs the boundaries between governance and management. In an article on the re-restructuring, the Los Angeles Times noted: • “The change back to a weaker executive has many wondering whether the supervisors’ new power will result in more streamlined, decisive management or simply create more meddling by the elected officials and politicize the workings of government.”19 • As Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas commented at the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum in 2015: “Politics 101, ladies and gentlemen, never give away your power.”20 Within the first year of the new governance structure, BOS adopted a series of sweeping actions to address long standing and urgent needs: • Allocated $100 million for each of three years, to construct and maintain affordable housing (October 27, 2015); • Consolidated public health care functions of the Departments of Public Health, Mental Health, and Health Services (January 21, 2016); • Created the Homeless Initiative to coordinate county strategies to reduce homelessness through an intensive, inclusive planning process (January 21, 2016); and • Delayed the construction of and reduced the size of the new Men’s Central Jail (June 9, 2015). E. Impact of Return to Prior Decentralized Governance Structure: The CGJ found that, under the present system enacted in July 2015, BOS intended that the direct communication between it and county departments would lead to more efficient conduct of public business. BOS motions proliferate 19 Sewell, Abby, “L.A. County supervisors move to consolidate power by weakening CEO’s job,” Los Angeles Times, July 7, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0708-county-ceo-20150708-story.html 20Editorial Board, “New thinking at the L.A. County Board of Supervisors,” Los Angeles Times, December 24, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-county-supervisors-20151223-story.html 254 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT however, and departments find it difficult to adjust to BOS’ constantly changing priorities. The following observations are from current and past county officials: Positive Observations  “Less interference since deputy CEO is gone.”  “Issues discussed directly with BOS deputies.”  “Department has reorganized to provide flexibility in answering BOS needs.” Negative Observations  “Lots of motion sickness.”  “More effort involved in responding to BOS motions.”  “Planning and priorities are messed up.”  “Sustainability of management by motion is unknown.”  “BOS determines department priorities – not interested in department concerns, it’s difficult to plan.”  “Need an entity to coordinate information going to BOS.”  “Reorganization changed nothing, but changes in BOS members and removal of deputy CEOs increased business – now everything is hot.”  “No impact except more direct instructions (via motions) by BOS.”  “Deputy CEO used to absorb BOS demands on department heads, new CEO is not doing that.”  “Deputy CEO (DCEO) did not stop BOS from contacting department heads directly.”  “DCEO used to chair cluster meetings, no longer; CEO finance person just sits in.” BOS has addressed pressing issues by establishing task forces composed of county employees taken from various departments involved in various aspects of the issues addressed. Relying on the cross-department knowledge and experience of its members, each task force is intended to address pressing issues with a global perspective. This action breaks down the self-imposed barriers of intra-department prerogatives and concerns (also known as silo-ization) with an inter-department viewpoint to address issues of common interest. Commendable as this action is, it has its downside – personnel taken from their regular assignments to address task force issues, are not replaced, leaving vacuums, staffing shortages and the possible inability of those departments to meet their mandated budget and program goals. The enactment of priority motions (also known as “motion sickness” or “management by motion”) without proper consideration of the impact on short-term policy decisions, sacrifices long-term goals and needs. The short-term interests change with each new priority issue.21 BOS direct decision making approach is not limited at the management level, but in some cases reaches down to the lowest levels of county operations. Instead of letting 21 Observations from current and past county officials. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 255 managers manage, BOS dictates departmental priorities and goals, and is not interested in a department’s concerns. Departments are forced to work on the priority issues to the exclusion of their regular mandated work.22 This makes it very difficult for a department to do any meaningful future planning. It stifles management initiative and necessary pushback where warranted (e.g., budget, program, legal, or other mandated considerations), and fosters a climate of insecurity – officials never know when their job is on the line (also known as “living Tuesday to Tuesday).23 The CGJ is very concerned about the future of the county’s administrators – how will the county attract and keep quality people when their every decision may be second guessed? BOS’ discretionary authority, its opaque decision making processes, and the degree to which it is insulated from direct political controls, often deflects the brunt of public discontent and accusations of waste and mismanagement of scarce resources. Direct management action by BOS in the county’s operations should mean that BOS will be directly responsible for the results. Instead, department heads suffer the consequences. The CGJ is concerned that although the impact of term limits has not been felt yet, each Supervisor’s emphasis on parochial interests will only increase as their term in office is limited. As noted in an editorial in the Los Angeles Times: “… county government is not a game. It’s the chief provider of human services and vital infrastructure to a region of 10 million people. Who’s in charge? With the five-member committee that is the Board of Supervisors, who knows? The members make up a sort of legislature with no executive, yet at the same time they are a kind of five-headed executive with no legislative oversight. They are a family of squabbling brothers and sisters trying to manage the house in the absence of their parents, each sibling sniping about the others while forming, breaking and re-forming alliances in order to move their various agendas. They are a comically constituted group with deadly serious business to perform for their constituents.”24 F. Management Issues: The CGJ found there is no structured form of communication between BOS and department heads, including lack of a meaningful structure for measuring management performance. BOS does not meet with all departments on a regular basis. Further, the county lacks an updated strategic plan. The following are observations from current and past county officials: Positive Observations 22 Ibid. Ibid. Editorial Board, “Grading L.A. County,” Los Angeles Times, March 12, 2016. http://graphics.latimes.com/grading-la-county-2016/ 256 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Negative Observations  “Before reorganization, departments only had to convince the CEO; now, they need to convince three out of five BOS members and the CEO is no longer involved.”  “No structured communication between BOS and management, departments with departments.”  “BOS needs to meet with all departments on a regular basis, visit departments at least once per year.”  “No updated long-term strategic plan.”  “No meaningful structure for measuring departments’ and their management performance.”  “No clear chain of command between BOS, CEO, and department heads with clearly defined responsibilities.” One stated reason for BOS’s 2015 reversion is the intent to ensure direct communication between it and county departments, which in turn leads to more efficient conduct of public business. The CGJ found that although the “filtering” layer of Deputy CEO’s (DCEO) was eliminated, departments now report to Supervisors’ deputies.25 Instead of one reporting site, departments now have to report to five. There appears to be no communication clearing house to coordinate information requests, schedule structured regular communication meetings among the Supervisors’ deputies, and/or schedule communications meetings with and among department heads. The CGJ found that BOS must develop an up-to-date county-wide long-term strategic plan, and allow feedback, refinement and updates by department heads. Departments should develop their plans in support of the strategic plan, including levels of service and outcomes from BOS to department heads, and department heads to “street level” operations. G. Role of CEO: The CGJ found the CEO no longer tempers the heat of BOS, “say no,” or to advocate on behalf of departments. The following are observations from current and past county officials: Positive Observations  “While seen as beneficial by some departments, BOS felt isolated from department heads and wanted first-hand information.”  “BOS felt CEO was making decisions without them, believed they had to go through CEO before talking to department heads.” 25 Observations from current and past county officials. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 257 As noted by former Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, “…our current system puts a premium either on parochial or consensus based decision making.”26 The CGJ is concerned that without an executive function to oversee the day-to-day operations of the county, and ensure the long-term fiscal health and viability of its programmatic needs and goals, there is a real possibility that such concerns will be overlooked or forgotten. A major impetus of the May 2007 governance structure was the impending retirement of then Chief Administrative Officer David E. Janssen, who expressed concern that no replacement could be found for him while the county continued to operate without a strong CEO.27 The current governance structure eviscerates the recent function of the CEO by limiting its operations to budget and labor relations. BOS did not test whether Janssen’s fears were warranted by conducting an executive search. It determined to strip the appointed CEO of independence and authority, and quickly appointed its own Executive Officer to fill the diminished post.28 On March 29, 2016, BOS took further action that limited the CEO’s function to its “core mission” and transferred non-“core mission” functions to other departments (e.g., photo and graphics, health and wellness, Work Place Programs, Employee Assistance Program, Occupational Health, Leave Management, and Real Estate).29 The CGJ is concerned that the new role of the CEO appears to be one of insisting on form over substance. Responding to a reporter’s question as to why no additional resources had been provided for the Department of the Medical Examiner-Coroner (DMEC) in the 2016-2017 County Budget, the CEO stated: “…the request was not granted because the department had not submitted required paperwork documenting its justification for the added positions.”30 H. Case Study: The CGJ found that problems in the DMEC were due in part to a lack of communication. DMEC’s staffing and funding concerns were not heard by the CEO, which, in turn, asked why those concerns had not been transmitted. DMEC’s responses to a Corrective Action Plan were not accepted by the CEO prompting the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner (CMEC) to resign. BOS challenges in attempting to act in its executive function, are illustrated in the recent resignation of the CMEC, as noted in CGJ’s April 21, 2016, interim report Who Cares for the Dead When The Dead Don’t Vote? 26 Yaroslavksy, Zev, “Reflections on Four Decades in Elected Office,” Bollens-Ries-Hoffenberg Lecture, UCLA, April 7, 2015. Observations from current or past county officials. Sewell, Abby, “L.A. County Supervisors vote to make interim chief executive permanent,” Los Angeles Times, October 6, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-county-chief-executive-20151006-story.html 29 Chief Executive Officer, “Chief Executive Office Organization Redesign,” March 29, 2016, pp. 1-2. Sewell, Abby. “$28 billion L.A. County budget proposal aims to address homelessness, improve jails,” Los Angeles Times, April 11, 2016. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-county-budget-20160411-story.html 258 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT DMEC’s problems can be attributed to years of insufficient staffing levels, due to a number of factors: • Too few budgeted positions; • Not enough available qualified candidates to fill the needs of the department (e.g., forensic pathologists); • Toxicology reports are six to seven months behind schedule; • Salary constraints that inhibit recruitment and retention of qualified professionals; • BOS requests for immediate processing of selected cases, thereby negatively impacting DMEC’s internal prioritization of investigations; and • The sheer geographic and population size of the county and its resultant workload. Insufficient staffing has led to the following results: • Worker fatigue and burnout; • Extended time required to complete autopsy reports; • Suspension of a number of operations, including gunshot residue, scanning electron microscopy, and Law Enforcement/Officer involved shooting case review; • No cushion to absorb extra work generated by catastrophes and extended leaves of absence (e.g., maternity or bereavement leave, illness); • Possible loss of accreditation from The National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME), Institute of Medical Quality/California Medical Association (IMQ/CMA), and the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ACSLD/LAB). The loss of accreditation may have significant impact in terms of challenging the credibility and validity of the Medical Examiner-Coroner findings in court. Repeated requests by the CMEC to BOS for appropriate funding for DMEC to meet its statutorily-mandated goals went unheeded. During the 2016-2017 Budget process, BOS and the CEO provided a “current level budget” and imposed a “Corrective Action Plan” which in great detail set out steps to address the various issues facing DMEC, and requested responses from the Medical Examiner-Coroner. In follow- up meetings with the CEO and BOS, DMEC’s responses to the Corrective Action Plan were refused for consideration. Since he did not receive adequate resources to address DMEC’s significant needs, the CMEC submitted his resignation on March 11, 2016. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 259 I. Independent County Executive Function: The CGJ found that nearly all of the next most populous counties in the country elect a county chief executive. The counties, listed by their relative sizes per population, are: (2) Cook County, IL (pop. 5.2 million), (3) Harris County, TX (pop. 4.4 million), (7) Miami-Dade County, FL (pop. 2.7 million), (8) Kings County, NY (pop. 2.6 million), (9) Dallas County, TX (pop. 2.5 million), (11) Queens County, NY (pop. 2.3 million), (13) King County, WA (pop. 2.1 million), and (15) Tarrant County, TX (pop. 2.0 million). The exceptions to the elected county executive trend are the following large counties, most of which are in California: (4) Maricopa County, AZ (pop. 4.1 million), (5) San Diego (pop. 3.3 million), (6) Orange (pop. 3.1 million), (10) Riverside (pop. 2.3 million), (12) San Bernardino (pop. 2.1 million), and (14) Clark County, NV (pop. 2.0 million). Prior CGJ reports (1972-1973; 1996-1997) have recommended the creation of a strong independent executive function. Their recommendations are supported by organizations such as the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the League of Women Voters, and the Los Angeles County Economy and Efficiency Committee. The 1972- 1973 CGJ report also recommended that BOS membership be expanded so that each Supervisor would represent only one million residents. This CGJ agrees with that recommendation. Given that the County’s current 10.1 million population is growing, BOS membership should therefore increase to 10 or, if an odd number is required 11. The cost of additional Supervisors should be a zero sum game by taking the current budgeted amount for the Supervisors and their staff, and dividing that by 11. Currently each Supervisor’s office budget is $3.4 million or $17 million for all five.31 This CGJ believes that the time has come to (a) revisit the creation of a strong independent elected chief executive function, and (b) increase BOS membership to a minimum of 11 Supervisors. Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors. 260 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT J. County CEO Response to Prior CGJ Recommendations: The CGJ found that two previous Grand Juries made recommendations that the county adopt an elected chief executive. The County’s CEO’s response to the CGJ’s 1996-97 recommendation was that voters defeated the proposals: • In 1992, by a margin of 57 to 43 percent. • In 1978, by a margin of 53 to 47 percent. The response also indicated that adding such a proposal to the ballot would cost in excess of $1 million. In both elections, opponents of the issue noted that it would just add another layer of bureaucracy at additional costs to the taxpayers. The question that needs to be asked is whether the public is served by the current structure of five czars controlling the fate of the county without any checks and balances. Adding an independent elected chief executive (at an estimated four million dollar cost, approximately 0.015%) in a $27.1 billion budget to provide the necessary checks and balances seems a small price to pay. V. RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 That Los Angeles County, , create a structured communication system between the Board of Supervisors and all department heads, and across departments, between department heads, through a centralized clearing house, so that information is transmitted clearly and efficiently. 11.2 That Los Angeles County ensures that the Board of Supervisors tour each county department and meet management there, at least once per year. 11.3 That Los Angeles County, , establish a published county chain- of-command with clearly defined responsibilities. 11.4 That Los Angeles County, within one year, develop and implement a long-term strategic plan for the county and for each county department. 11.5 That Los Angeles County, within one year, establish for each department, levels of service with measurable goals and outcomes, allowing for feedback, refinements and updates by department management. 11.6 That Los Angeles County approve and place before the electorate for the 2020 election an amendment to the County Charter that provides for a County Chief 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 261 Executive, elected on a county-wide basis, with the powers and duties substantially similar to those provided in the May 2007 county governance structure. 11.7 That Los Angeles County approve and place before the electorate for the 2020 election an amendment to the County Charter to provide six additional supervisory districts in Los Angeles County, created based on equal proportions of the county’s population, within the current budget, as adjusted for inflation. Such amendment should include provision for adding supervisory districts as the populations grows. 11.8 Los Angeles County should establish a Citizens’ Ad Hoc Committee on government reform and report back to the Board of Supervisors no later than April 1, 2017, with appropriate language for the amendments recommended in 11.6 and 11.7. 11.9 Los Angeles County should, prior to the 2020 county-wide election, support, explain, and otherwise strongly back the amendments recommended in 11.6 and 11.7, emphasizing the benefits of each to county residents and to the careful furtherance of county government in the public interest. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses to recommendations shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). Responses shall be made in accordance with Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Responses are required from: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors: 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 11.9 262 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT VII. ACRONYMS BOS Board of Supervisors CEO Chief Executive Officer CMEC Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner DCEO Deputy Chief Executive Officer CGJ Civil Grand Jury DMEC Department of the Medical Examiner-Coroner VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Bart Benjamins Co-Chair Bruce A. Berke Co-Chair Judy Goossen Davis Victor H. Lesley Molly Milligan Sandy A. Orton Arun Sharan Bob Villacarlos 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 263 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 264 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT READY OR NOT: ADULTHOOD IS NOW READY OR NOT: ADULTHOOD IS NOW I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “No one expects adulthood to occur overnight, but that is exactly what happens to youth exiting the foster care system. To a youth in foster care, reaching the age of maturity, typically set by states at age eighteen means losing everything.”1 In Los Angeles County the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has over 28,000 youth under its supervision.2 Over 25% of these children reach majority status each year. The statistics concerning the outcomes of Transitional Age Youth (TAY) in California are dismal. “70% of all California inmates have spent time in the foster care system. 50% of all female foster children will become pregnant by age 19. 36% will be homeless after 18 months of emancipation.” 3 There is a disconnect between service providers and Transitional Age Youth that has doomed these children to a life of poverty and homelessness. DCFS attempted to address several of the issues facing these children. DCFS has programs for housing, education, transportation and health services, but they go unused for a variety of reasons. The TAY youth tend to leave the system without a clear plan for the future. Many of these youth simply don’t want anything to do with the system which reminds them of their foster care history. It is important that we as guardians of these children address this disconnect. The stakeholders, such as DCFS and the Department of Mental Health (DMH), should enlist social media to make TAY youth aware of all the available resources at their disposal. The County of Los Angeles and DCFS should develop and maintain a mobile app. To ensure that individuals have easy access to a comprehensive directory of foster-related services, the 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) is proposing the development of a mobile-friendly website. This site will automatically change its appearance depending upon whether a visitor is using a smartphone or a computer. The website will display a collection of foster-related services. Each listing will provide a complete set of necessary information—name of the service, location, contact information and services provided. The listings can be sorted, filtered and searched using a variety of different techniques. Visitors will be able to view resources by type (i.e. transportation resources). Visitors will also be able to enter their zip code and the 1 Atkinson, Melinda, “Aging Out of Foster Care: Towards a Universal Safety Net,” Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review, (Vol. 43, Winter 2008), p. 183. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol43_1/183-212.pdf 2Alliance for Children’s Rights, kid-alliance.org/facts-stats 3“Mission Statement” from United Friends of the Children www.unitedfriends.org 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 265 website will then display a list of nearby resources. Each listing will contain a collection of appropriate keywords to make searching easy. The website will also contain a collection of web based; password-protected authoring tools so that appropriate individuals can manage all of the listings, create new listings, edit existing listings or remove outdated listings. II. BACKGROUND TAY youth present the DCFS and other attendant agencies with a perplexing and complex set of issues. When children are removed from their families or guardians for cause, they become “wards” and “de jure” children of the state. We as a society assume the responsibility for their total well-being. We become responsible for the healthcare, education and morality of these children. In many cases, the county and the state are the only civic safety net keeping these children afloat. This is no small task. A. Prior CGJ Recommendations Several preceding CGJs have looked at the plight of TAY youth. The most comprehensive of these reports was written by the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury. Their recommendations, reproduced in part IV of this report, need to be looked at again with fresh eyes and renewed vigor. Those recommendations included establishing a partnership with all the agencies that interface with foster care youth. It also pointed DCFS toward additional and better training of foster parents, group home operators and social workers. This CGJ applauds these efforts and adds its voice that these recommendations be fully implemented. B. Reasons For Disconnect DCFS has been tasked by the county with helping our foster youth attain the age of maturity with some measure of success. Through research and several interviews with personnel from DCFS, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the Department of Health Services (DHS), it has become abundantly clear that TAY youth are still underserved or underinformed regarding available benefits. Many of these children who find themselves at the doorstep of adulthood are poorly equipped to take advantage of the resources which are available to them. DCFS has myriad benefits that go unused. TAY youth’s lives are burdened with the stigma of being a foster child and all the emotional baggage that entails. Many of these children have had experiences that make them mistrust any adults. The April 7, 2016 indictment of four case workers involved in the death of an eight year old foster child in Palmdale is a clear example of the potential neglect that causes mistrust with the custodial system. Plenty of county officials including the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) had a chance to intervene and save that child.4 4 Dilworth, M., “Palmdale boy dies after abuse, mother and boyfriend arrested,” Antelope Valley Times, May 5, 2013. 266 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The system has sometimes dropped the ball where TAY youth are concerned. There are many examples and plenty of blame to go around. The LAUSD, before this current school year, had only three dedicated counselors assigned to assist over 7,000 foster children. It now has a dedicated program with 80 counselors.5 Hopefully, this will begin to improve academic outcomes. The fact that over 36% of TAY youth become homeless after 18 months of emancipation is an indication that DCFS and other county agencies are failing our children. III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES CGJ conducted several interviews with staff personnel from the DCFS, DHS, and Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), LAUSD, and Congresswoman Karen Bass, California’s 37th District. The CGJ researched several past CGJ reports concerning the status of TAY youth in Los Angeles County. The CGJ also used information gleaned from newspapers and the internet. IV. FINDINGS Often alone and usually adrift is one way of describing foster youth that are aging out of the Los Angeles County foster care system. One day they are seventeen and in a foster home or group home. On their eighteenth birthday “poof,” they are expected to perform as adults. Most are woefully unprepared to navigate the complexities of adulthood. They do not have many (if any) marketable skill sets. They have precious little, if any, life skills such as budgeting, saving, cooking, interview skills and resume writing. By and large, the system and most of the adults in their short lives have failed them. The failure is a result of a multitude of reasons: parents or guardians who have either abused or abandoned them, the broken and overcrowded foster care system, inadequate education, as well as overworked and stressed case workers. Then, there are the government officials who are reactive and not proactive in the protection of our TAY youth. These politicians respond only when there is a media firestorm around an egregious child injury or death. Politicians who show up a day late and millions of dollars short spouting the same old rhetoric in media sound bites and yet, they bring nothing in the way of solutions to the myriad problems of the broken system. The example of Los Angeles County’s lack of support for these children can be seen by the tepid support it gave to recommendations made by its own Blue Ribbon 5 Interview with LAUSD staff and DCFS staff. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 267 Commission. This commission investigated the death of eight year old Gabriel Fernandez in Palmdale. In December 2013, the commission recommended hiring hundreds more social workers, increasing standards of training and constructing a cross agency database so social workers could more adequately check medical and criminal files of foster parents. There was even a discussion about a child welfare Czar with powers to cut across agencies. When it was time for the rubber to meet the road, the only recommendation that the Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved was to install a member of law enforcement at local DCFS offices to expedite background searches for emergency placement foster parents.6 Since children do not vote and do not make campaign contributions, it appears that they are an afterthought of most politicians. As soon as the media frenzy is over, politicians return to business as usual. There are, however, ways to improve and enhance the lives of TAY youth. We must begin earlier in their lives introducing them to all of the resources available to them. The team concept should be developed to ensure that the youth do not fall through the cracks. The team should consist of the youth, guardian and/or parent, caseworker, school counselor and psychologist. The current CGJ would like to reiterate and re-emphasize the 2007-2008 CGJ recommendations and the DCFS 2008 responses to them. Recommendation 1: A county leadership team under the direction of the Deputy CEO and including DCFS, DPSS, Probation, DMH and LACOE should develop a new strategic plan to refocus TAY programs on integration, efficiency and effectiveness. “The Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) supports this recommendation and is currently working in partnership with the other agencies. DCSF co-chairs the partnership meeting. In addition, there are community stakeholders that attend the monthly partnership meeting.” Recommendation 2: The Deputy CEO should develop and implement a regular and systematic process of program review and evaluation for TAY programs which include a goal of periodic streamlining of operations in DCFS, Probation and DMH. “The Department supports this recommendation and recommends that TAY programs be reviewed and evaluated via a systematic process to be developed by the Deputy CEO in collaboration with DCSF, Probation, and DMH.” 6 www.blueribboncommissionla.com 268 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Recommendation 3: DCFS, Probation, DMH and DPSS should develop and implement innovative programs to target high risk families and high risk children for proactive early intervention. “The Department has committed to targeting high-risk families and high-risk children for early intervention as part of our prevention strategy by devoting Title IV-E funds for the purpose of Alternate Response, Upfront Assessment and Point of Engagement. Alternated Response targets those families identified by members of the community as being at risk, but who do not meet the criteria for an in-person response by the Department. Rather than not responding to the these families, the Department has partnered with Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to refer families for intervention.” Recommendation 4: DCFS, Probation, and DMH should develop a multifaceted organizational plan including a comprehensive mentoring program that increases each child’s level of trust of the system. “The Department supports this recommendation and is working with Probation and DMH in collaborative efforts to provide care for the children under out supervision and improve the level of trust of the system.” “FY 2007-08 the Department and Probation issued a Request for Proposals for Community-Based Mentoring Programs intended to serve both the Department and Probation youth, in recognition of the need for and importance of a continuous, positive relationship with an adult. In addition, to support the commitment to provide needed services to youth in care, DMH entered into agreements with our Department and Probation, co-locating staff in the Department’s regional offices and at Juvenile Hall to provide assessments for youth and to assist staff.” Recommendation 5: The Directors of DCFS, Probation, DMH and LACOE should design and implement jointly a curriculum that addresses practical educational skills to better prepare them for independence. “The Department supports this recommendation. The Department will meet with Probation, DMH, and LACOE in order to formulate comprehensive strategies for better meeting the educational needs of TAY youth with the goal of designing a process whereby the departments work together to formulate joint curriculum plans for each youth after assessing his/her to be independent. A standard core curriculum focused on achieving independence should be coupled with a strategic plan individually designed for each youth based on 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 269 his/her strengths and needs. With the collaboration of all involved departments the resources, services and supports within each department can be better leveraged on a short-term and long-tear strategic basis.” Recommendation 6: Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS. Probation, DPSS and DMH, improved programs should be provided to youth 18 to 25 who have left the system. “The Department supports this recommendation. We recommend that the involved agencies collaborate to develop an individual plan for each TAY prior to and/or after termination of jurisdiction. In addition, a seamless process enabling both pre and post TAY to access services should be enhanced to ensure improve outcomes for the population being served. Additional employment opportunities should also be considered with this recommendation.” Recommendation 7: Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation and DMH in consultation with LACOE and other school districts, should develop a plan and a timetable for a comprehensive information system to capture all records on all children in the system. The plan should include: cost elements to develop and operate the system, a proposal for funding and a timetable for implementation. Progress on development and implementation should be reported every four months to the Board of Supervisors. “The Department agrees with the above recommendation and recommends that school records be made easily accessible to DCSF and Probation. The Department currently has our own system that tracks the educational assessment, referrals to life skills classes and completion, any financial assistance, including transportation to college, even out of state, and appliances CIO/CEO regarding time frames for such automated system.” 270 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT V. RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 County of Los Angeles and the Department of Children and Family Services should establish more non-Department of Health Services Transitional Age Youth drop in centers which provide showers, meals, internet access, peer support groups, linkage to educational services, employment assistance, medical treatment information and transportation. This should be completed 12.2 Los Angeles County and the Department of Children and Family Services should create financially driven incentive programs which are tied to the academic performance of foster youth. For example, the Department of Children and Family Services should reward foster care providers whose wards graduate from each level including elementary, middle and high school with a “B” average or better. This should be accomplished 12.3 Los Angeles County and the Department of Children and Family Services should create a mobile app which will allow Transitional Age Youth to access the multitude of services available to them. This should be completed 12.4 Los Angeles County and the Department of Children and Family Services should immediately start to reanalyze and implement the recommendations made by the Civil Grand Jury of 2007-2008 pertaining to foster care youth. These recommendations are still valuable. Implementation of these recommendations will ensure greater success for Transitional Age Youth. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). Responses shall be made in accordance with Penal Code Sections 933.05 (a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 271 Responses are required from: Los Angeles County: 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4 Department of Children and Family Services: 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4 VII. ACRONYMS BOS Board of Supervisors CGJ Civil Grand Jury DCFS Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services DHS Los Angeles County Department of Health Services DMH Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health LACOE Los Angeles County Office of Education LAUSD Los Angeles Unified School District TAY Transitional Age Youth VIII. COMMITTEE Rene Childress Co-Chair Rita Hall Co-Chair Heather Preimesberger Secretary Francine DeChellis Edna McDonald Patricia Turner 272 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT RENTER OR LANDLORD: WHO BENEFITS? RENTER OR LANDLORD: WHO BENEFITS? I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Los Angeles (City) has an ambitious program that requires a building code inspection of every residential rental unit in the City at least once every three years.1 The Systematic Code Enforcement Program (SCEP) is administered by the Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department (HCIDLA). Since inception of SCEP in 1998, the inspection of each unit has not been completed as frequently as the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) requires. An annual fee to fund SCEP is assessed to the owner of each residential rental property in the City.2 Landlords are permitted to pass on 100% of the fee to their tenants, whether or not a rental unit is inspected on schedule, according to the LAMC.3 Residential rental units in the City that were constructed before 1978 are generally subject to rent control under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO).4 The LAMC allows automatic annual increases in rental rates by 3% and up to 8% annually depending on economic conditions.5 The percentage increase amount generally correlates with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). There is a 3% floor on annual rent increases because the RSO permits a 3% increase in annual rent even if the CPI is below 3%.6 II. BACKGROUND The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) reviewed the SCEP.7 The focus of the investigation was on the frequency of SCEP inspections. Additionally, the CGJ reviewed the RSO, in particular the provision that defines the amount of annual rent increases that a landlord may charge a tenant in a rent stabilized unit.8 1 LAMC §§161.301 and 161.353. LAMC § 161.352. LAMC § 151.05.1. LAMC §§ 151.00 through 151.30. LAMC § 151.06 (Automatic Adjustments); based on the CPI based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County area (hereafter “RSO allowable rent increases”). See RSO allowable rent increases. LAMC §§ 161.201 through 161.604. See RSO allowable rent increases. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 273 A. Systematic Code Enforcement Program Before SCEP was initiated in 1998, rental units were not required to be routinely inspected by the City for critical habitability problems that violated state and local building codes.9 The City’s stated goal in enacting SCEP was, “…to eliminate substandard housing conditions in rental units.”10 HCIDLA is responsible for administering SCEP. The aspirations of SCEP were recognized in 2005, when it earned the City the Innovations in American Government Award.11 Problems such as defective water heaters, poor plumbing and mold are addressed during inspections. CGJ witnessed habitability deficiencies first hand when they accompanied a HCIDLA building inspector on inspections in various locations throughout the City. CGJ noted that many units passed inspection because they were well-maintained by conscientious landlords and tenants. If the SCEP inspector discovers deficiencies, the owner will receive a Notice to Comply with City and state codes. If the violations are not corrected in a timely manner,12 the city will place the property into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP).13 When a property is in REAP there may be reductions in the rent that the landlord may collect from a tenant.14 Additionally, a REAP notice is recorded against the property title, and administrative fees are charged to the landlord. The most serious consequence is referral to the Los Angeles City Attorney.15 1. SCEP inspections are behind schedule An inspection of each rental unit is required “...at least once every three years.” 16 There is no authority for longer intervals between inspections. However, according to HCIDLA, after a rental unit is inspected, it takes more than three years to perform a subsequent inspection. HCIDLA has informed the CGJ that SCEP inspections are behind schedule because the department does not have a sufficient number of staff qualified to perform such inspections. California Civil Code § 1941.1.1 et seq. LAMC § 161.353 et seq. (Added by Ordinance No. 172,108, Effective July 15,1998). Presented by the Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center for Democratic Governance. Rent Stabilization Bulletin-THE SYSTEMATIC CODE ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN, p. 3 (“The Owner will be allowed up to 30 days to make the repairs (depending on severity of the deficiencies).” 13 LAMC §§ 162.00-162.12. LAMC § 162.05. LAMC § 162.04. Ibid. 274 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Example: A building passed a SCEP inspection in 2006, the next mandatory inspection was completed in 2011, more than 2 years late. Moreover, the next inspection, due in 2014, was not performed until 2015, according to the LAMC. See Figure 1. Figure 1. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS OF AN ACTUAL SAN FERNANDO VALLEY APARTMENT PROPERTY Cycle Inspection Date Time Since Last Inspection I No data - II 2/19/06 - III 6/13/11 5 years and 4 months IV 3/06/15 3 years and 9 months Source: CGJ with data provided by HCIDLA. HCIDLA publishes a Rent Stabilization Bulletin (Bulletin) to inform the public about various provisions of the program. However, the Bulletin does not inform the public about the three year deadline, “Under SCEP, HCIDLA thoroughly inspects the City’s residential rental properties once every four years.”17 (The Bulletin should accurately inform the public that inspections of each rental unit are required in intervals of every three years.) Alternately, the city should amend the section of the LAMC that defines the mandatory frequency of intervals between SCEP inspections. See LAMC, section 163.353. 2. Accelerated schedule Inspections may also be complaint-based.18 Complaint-based inspections are put on an accelerated schedule, when there are serious risks to health and/or safety such as no heat, gas or water.19 The CGJ witnessed complaint-based inspections first hand and found certain tenant’s living conditions to be deplorable. According to information provided by HCIDLA to the CGJ, once a complaint inspection has confirmed violations, the unit is placed on an accelerated SCEP inspection cycle. 3. 100% of inspection fees may be “passed-through” to tenants The annual SCEP fee for each residential rental unit in the city is $43.32. The fee is assessed to the landlord. However, the LAMC allows a landlord to “pass-through” 100% of the fee to the tenant as a charge of $3.61 per month, in addition to rental payments.20 Information provided to the CGJ by HCIDLA, indicates that a total of 17 Rent Stabilization Bulletin-THE SYSTEMATIC CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (SCEP), p.1. hcidla.lacity.org/system/files_force/documents/SCEP_English.pdf? 18 LAMC § 161.351. LAMC § 161.353. See also HCIDLA Rent Stabilization Bulletin # 52-3.25.2015; Telephone number for complaints is 866-577- 7368; online complaints may be filed at the HCIDLA website at: http://hcidla.lacity.org in-person at HCIDLA Public Information Counter. Rent Adjustment Commission Regulations § 370.00; Fee allowed provided landlord is not delinquent in the payment of annual fee to HCIDLA; landlord must serve the tenant a 30-day written notice. http://161.149.40.43/hcidla- library?field_document_category_tid=145&combine=RAC+&date_filter%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=01%2F01%2F1999&date_filter _1%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F20%2F2015 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 275 approximately $42.5 million in SCEP fees and nearly $500,000 in delinquent fees were collected in the first 4 months of 2016. Property owners are charged the $43.32 fee annually for each rental unit, whether or not the units are inspected in the current year of payment.21 For example, if a unit is inspected once every three years, $129.96 will have been collected. (Calculation: 3 yrs. x $43.32= $129.96.) If the inspection is once every four years, $173.28 in fees will have been collected for each unit. According to HCIDLA the SCEP Trust Fund has not been audited in years. The CGJ interviewed key staff members of the Los Angeles City Controller (Controller), who stated that due to budget constraints and limited staffing of auditors, periodic audits have not been conducted. The CGJ recommends that the City either allocate sufficient funds so that the Controller may begin to perform periodic audits of the SCEP Trust Fund; or amend section 161.352 of the LAMC which sets the frequency of SCEP inspections. B. Rent Control In Los Angeles Rent rate increases in residential rental units in the City built before 1978 are subject to rent control under RSO. Rental units constructed after 1978 are not subject to rent control. Approximately 641,000 units in the city are under rent control.22 1. Allowable automatic rent increase Landlords may increase the rent under RSO by 3% annually, even when there is a downturn in certain economic conditions. When the economy is very strong the annual rent increase percentage may be up to 8%.23 The annual rent increase adjustment normally mirrors the CPI,24 however, there are exceptions. For example, in years when the CPI is below 3%, or even negative, a tenant still may receive a 3% rent increase, at the landlord’s discretion. For example, a tenant with a $2,500 monthly rent may still be subject to a $75 per month increase when the CPI is less than 3% even when it is in negative territory. See Figure 2. LAMC § 161.353. According to data provided to the CGJ by HCIDLA. LAMC § 151.06 (Automatic Adjustments). LAMC § 151.07 A.6. The CPI average for the twelve (12) month period ending September 30 of each year. 276 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Figure 2. ANNUAL RENT INCREASES ALLOWED UNDER THE RSO Beginning % Increased Rent Allowed Rent (July CPI 1 each yr.) 8% $ 2,500 8% $ 2,700 7% $ 2,500 7% $ 2,675 6% $ 2,500 6% $ 2,650 5% $ 2,500 5% $ 2,625 4% $ 2,500 4% $ 2,600 3% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 CPI less than 3% 2% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 1% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 0% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 -1% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 Source: CGJ with data provided by HCIDLA It is not uncommon for the CPI to be below 3%. It has been lower than 3% every year since 2010. For example, in 2010 when the CPI was -.062%, the LAMC authorized a 3% increase in annual rents in rent stabilized units. See Figure 3. Figure 3. ALLOWABLE RENT INCREASES SINCE 2006 YEAR CPI INCREASE ALLOWED 2006 4.45% 4% 2007 4.79% 5% 2008 2.97% 3% 2009 4.14% 4% 2010 -0.62% 3% 2011 1.17% 3% 2012 2.24% 3% 2013 2.10% 3% 2014 1.55% 3% 2015 1.19% 3% 2016 0.80% 3% Source: CGJ with data provided by HCIDLA In the CGJ’s opinion, the 3% automatic increase is unfair to low to moderate income tenants when the CPI is below 3%. 2. Property tax break for landlords for declines in market value Property owners may receive property tax reductions on their real estate when the Fair Market Value (FMV) of their property declines. When the FMV is lower than the 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 277 factored base year value (Proposition 13 value), the Assessor is required to enroll the FMV.25 California assessors refer to this as “Decline in Value.” Example: An 18 unit apartment building in the City of Los Angeles that is under rent control received Decline in Value property tax reductions. For example, in 2014 and 2015, the FMV of the property was lower than the Proposition 13 value. Since property taxes are based on the lower of the two values, the property owner received substantial reductions. In 2014 his property tax bill was reduced by an estimated amount of $5,263.69; in 2015 the savings was approximately $5,560.06. See Figure 4. Figure 4. ACTUAL PROPERTY TAX REDUCTIONS FOR A BOYLE HEIGHTS APARTMENT OWNER (RSO PROPERTY)* Proposition 13 Fair Market Enrolled Value Est. Tax Year Value Value (FMV) (lower of FMV or Prop. 13) Savings 2014 $ 1,727,928 $ 1,296,000 $ 1,296,000 $ 5,263.69 2015 $ 1,762,451 $ 1,296,000 $ 1,296,000 $ 5,560.06 APPROXIMATE SAVINGS IN PROPERTY TAXES IN 2014 AND 2015: $10,823.75 *Note: The amounts in Figure 4 include publicly-available information provided to the CGJ by the Los Angeles County Assessor. According to public records in the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office, in 2014 owners of RSO properties received over $9 million in property tax reductions. In 2015, the reductions were over $6 million. In the same year that a landlord may receive a substantial reduction in property taxes, the tenant may receive an increase in rent. There are no provisions in RSO to reduce a tenant’s rent if the current rent level is higher than current fair market rent. Example: A tenant lives in a large apartment complex of rent stabilized units and the rent has been increased each year under the provisions of the RSO. The rent for his current unit is higher than fair market rent. The choice the property management gives the tenant is to move to another unit in the complex in order to pay fair market rent, or to stay in the unit subject to a 3% increase in the rate, or leave the complex. In this case the tenant had to move within the complex so he would pay fair market rent. California Revenue and Taxation Code § 51(a). 278 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ accomplished the following: • interviewed Housing + Community Investment Department General Manager, senior management and the Director of Code Enforcement, • interviewed senior staff of the Los Angeles City Controller’s Office, • accompanied a Housing Inspector during SCEP inspections, • observed a General Manager’s Meeting, • attended a Rent Escrow Account Program Code Enforcement and Billing Information Workshop, • interviewed property managers and tenants, • reviewed system generated Rent Stabilization Cycle Reports, • reviewed various system generated Inspection Reports, • reviewed Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office public data on the assessed values of properties under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, • reviewed certain HCIDLA procedures, • analyzed Systematic Code Enforcement Program Inspector staffing statistics, • reviewed HCIDLA’s SCEP financial report, • interviewed a Los Angeles City Councilmember, and • reviewed certain sections of the LAMC. IV. FINDINGS 1. SCEP inspections of all rental unit properties in the City of Los Angeles are required at least once every three years per the LAMC. 2. SCEP inspections of each rental unit in the City of Los Angeles have not been performed at least once every three years as required by the LAMC. 3. HCIDLA is responsible for administering the SCEP. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 279 4. The SCEP Trust Fund has not been audited by the Controller in years. 5. The Rent Stabilization Bulletins omit informing the public that SCEP inspections are required at least once every three years, per the LAMC. 6. The SCEP fees are collected annually from the landlord for each rental unit in the City; 100% of the fees may be passed on to the tenant. 7. HCIDLA does not have sufficient staff to perform timely SCEP inspections. 8. HCIDLA disseminates information to the public on SCEP and the RSO in the Rent Stabilization Bulletin. 9. Under the RSO, annual rent increases from 3% to 8%, depending on the current CPI, are permitted in rent stabilized units. 10. Landlords may be eligible for reductions in property taxes on their rental properties when Fair Market Values decline due to economic conditions. 11. The annual rent increases permitted under the RSO may result in rent that is higher than fair market rent. 12. HDICLA does not have a sufficient number of qualified inspectors to perform SCEP inspections at each rental unit in the City every three years as required by LAMC. V. RECOMMENDATIONS 13.1 The City of Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department should inspect each rental unit in the City of Los Angeles at least once every three years as required by the Los Angeles City Municipal Code. or 13.2 The City of Los Angeles should, within three months, amend section 163.352 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code that states the mandatory interval between Systematic Code Enforcement Program inspections. 13.3 The City of Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department should, within three months, accurately inform the public that inspections of each rental unit in the City of Los Angeles are required at intervals of every three years. 13.4 The City of Los Angeles should, re-evaluate the 3% floor on automatic annual rental increases, when the CPI is lower than 3%. Allowable rent increases 280 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT should equal the Consumer Price Index when it is lower than 3% but not below 0%. 13.5 The City of Los Angeles should, within three months, provide sufficient funding to the Los Angeles City Controller so that there will be sufficient audit staff to perform periodic audits of the System Code Enforcement Program Trust Fund. 13.6 The Los Angeles City Controller should audit the System Code Enforcement Program Trust Fund within three months. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses to recommendations shall be made no later than (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). Responses shall be made in accord with Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles. CA 90012 Responses are required from: City of Los Angeles: 13.2, 13.4, 13.5 Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department: 13.1, 13.3 Los Angeles City Controller 13.6 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 281 VII. ACRONYMS CGJ Civil Grand Jury CPI Consumer Price Index FMV Fair Market Value HCIDLA Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department LAMC Los Angeles Municipal Code REAP Rent Escrow Account Program RSO Rent Stabilization Ordinance SCEP System Code Enforcement Program VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Debra Cohen Chair Francine DeChellis Patricia Turner 282 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT S O S AVE UR ENIORS: NURSING HOME INSPECTIONS SAVE OUR SENIORS: NURSING HOME INSPECTIONS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In all counties of California, except Los Angeles County, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) conducts inspections of Nursing Home Facilities (NHF) and investigates nursing home complaints. Most of the people in nursing homes are seniors. In Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) through its Health Facilities Inspection Division (HFID) carries out NHF inspections and complaint investigations in the 396 NHFs located in the county. HFID and Los Angeles County are contracted with the State of California to enforce state and federal laws as they relate to nursing homes. In 2014, two audits were conducted by the State of California and the County of Los Angeles relating to the operations of HFID.1 Both audits made several recommendations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of HFID operations. The audits uncovered a large backlog of complaints that were not investigated, some of which went back several years. In June 2015, a new contract was entered into between the State of California and Los Angeles County.2 This contract attempted to address many of the deficiencies found in the audits. In 2015, incremental funding of $14 million was provided to HFID to hire more personnel. The new contract attempted to reduce, by thirty percent, the workload of Health Facilities Evaluator Nurses (HFEN), also called surveyors. Additional hires would substantially increase HFID’s ability to reduce the backlog of complaints and complete certification and recertification surveys in a timely manner. It is hoped that when the new hires are assigned to various district offices the backlog of complaints will be reduced. The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) reviewed the HFID’s inspection of nursing homes. Our review showed that the number of complaints against the NHFs was larger in 2015 than in 2014. Despite an increase in the number of complaints being investigated, the backlog continues to be high. The data provided by CDPH shows a backlog of 6,514 pending complaints, with some going back to 2011.3 The CGJ feels that significant time savings can be gained by standardizing and systematizing the surveys and complaints investigating process, fully utilizing laptops and setting up a single point for entry of complaints. The use of laptops by surveyors is sporadic, and some senior surveyors are not fully utilizing this technology. The CGJ also finds that efforts need to be made for improving the communication between senior 1 California State Auditor, Sacramento, CA, October 2014, and County of Los Angeles, Department of Auditor-Controller, April 4 and August 27, 2014. Agreement Number 15-00003, July 2, 2015 (hereafter “Contract”). Email to CGJ from HFID, February 29, 2016, “Data Request.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 283 management and the rest of the workforce. Further steps need to be taken to improve the morale of the employees. II. BACKGROUND Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNF), NHFs, and Long Term Care Facilities are all titles used to describe the facilities that have been under review by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), CDPH, and DPH. In California, Medicaid is called Medi-Cal. As a result of the 2014 audit, HFID was transferred to the Environmental Health Division, reporting ultimately to the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS).4 A. Staffing 1. Health Facilities Evaluator Nurse (HFEN) HFENs perform a valuable public service by overseeing the quality of healthcare provided to Californians. HFENs conduct complaint investigations and in-depth surveys of health facilities to determine compliance with state and federal laws, and certification requirements of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Their primary responsibility is enforcement of state and federal laws and rules pertaining to areas affecting total patient care such as nursing, physician care, physical therapy, pharmacy, social services, dental care and related services.5 The HFENs may act as team leaders on surveys and complaint investigations and assist in the training of new staff. They conduct surveys by visiting nursing home facilities, interviewing patients, evaluating the adequacy of patient care through direct observation, inspecting the facility, and reviewing patient and staff personnel records. They evaluate reports prepared by state or county level experts. Survey data is analyzed and recommendations are made to approve or disapprove the certification of nursing homes in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. They issue citations in accordance with deficiencies found.6 2. Registered Environmental Health Specialist (REHS) REHSs work to improve the quality of life and health at nursing homes through environmental and physical inspection of the facility. In accordance with the new contract the REHS cannot now independently conduct surveys.7 4 CDPH website. http//:www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/LNC/pages 5 County of Los Angeles, “Class Specification Bulletin, Heath Facilities Evaluator, Nursing, Class Code 5707,” April 1, 2007. https://agency.governmentjobs./lacounty/default.cfm?action=specbulletin+ClassSpec,1c 6 CGJ interviews with HFID staff. CGJ interviews with HFID supervisors and assistant supervisors. 284 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 3. Health Facilities Supervisors A supervisor is a manager of at least four HFENs at district offices. They engage in supervising surveys for health facility licenses,8 issuing citations and levying civil penalties. Supervisors are involved in determining program flexibility and decisions and reviewing health facilities for participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs. They perform more difficult and complex surveys of nursing homes.9 Supervisors and assistant supervisors are required to review the surveyors’ findings and draft reports to confirm the accuracy of the findings and determine if the evidence supports the findings. Supervisors and surveyors must come to a consensus on the recommended deficiencies found and recommended citations. Surveyors are called to testify when litigation or appeals are made: therefore, it is critical that they are included in all discussions regarding their investigations, especially if their conclusions are changed.10 4. Program Manager Program managers are responsible for overseeing HFID district offices. They may manage individual departments or district offices. B. Complaints Processing 1. Complaints made by the public CDPH has contracted with DPH and HFID to investigate complaints relating to nursing home facilities located within Los Angeles County.11 Complaints are submitted by the general public, family members of residents, staff and residents. In Los Angeles County such complaints are filed with HFID. Complaints made to HFID can be made telephonically, by computer, smart phone, fax and mail. Complaints made electronically to HFID all go to the Information Technology (IT) Center at HFID headquarters in Norwalk, California. At the IT Center, the complaints are entered into the Aspen Complaint Tracking System (ACTS). Complaints made telephonically or by fax, are entered onto an “intake form” and directed to the appropriate district office by the support staff.12 The number of complaints received by HFID in 2014 was 1,527 and increased to 1,866 in 2015. The data shows HFID completed 1,506 complaint investigations in 2014, which increased to 2,235 in 2015.13 See Chart 2. Ibid. CGJ interviews with HFID staff. Ibid. Contract, paragraph A.5.H. CGJ interview with HFID supervisors. Email to CGJ from HFID, February 19, 2016, “Number of Complaints made Each Month, January 1, 2014 – December 31, 2015.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 285 2. Entity Reported Incident (ERI) Under State law and regulations, NHFs must self-report events such as epidemic outbreaks, poisonings, fires, major accidents or other catastrophes, or unusual occurrences which threaten the welfare, safety, or health of residents, staff or visitors.14 Alleged or suspected patient abuses are also to be reported. These self-reported complaints are known as ERIs. HFID investigations of ERIs increased from 1,067 in 2014 to 1,343 in 2015.15 ERIs and complaints made by the public are combined to analyze trends and backlog of complaints.16 HFID classifies and prioritizes complaints based on the severity of the event. Complaints are classified as Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) if a facility’s non-compliance has caused or may cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to the resident. Complaints classified as non-IJ are situations in which the facility’s noncompliance caused or may cause harm that has limited consequence and does not significantly impair the resident.17 California law provides that IJs will be investigated by HFID within 24 hours of receipt of the complaint. Investigation of all other complaints must be started of receipt.18 14 CDPH, Health Consumer Information System, “Health Information General Questions.” http://hfcis.cdph.ca.gov/faq/General.aspx 15 Email to CGJ from HFID, February 26, 2016, “The number of complaints January 1, 2014, 2014-February 22, 2014.” 16 Ibid. California State Operations Manual, Appendix Q, “Guidelines for Determining Immediate Jeopardy,” paragraph II, February 14, 2014, as well as CGJ interviews with HFID staff. California State Auditor Report 2014-111, October 2014, p. 14. 286 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Chart 1 Monthly Trend of Incoming Complaints (2014-2015) 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 complaints received 162 110 112 113 122 125 155 137 127 144 113 107 2015 complaints received 163 149 145 134 157 167 181 161 175 151 146 137 Source: Prepared by CGJ based upon data provided in HFID email dated February 26, 2016. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 287 stnialpmoc fo rebmun 3. Complaints backlogs Despite the increasing number of complaints being investigated, the backlog of complaints continues to be high. The total number of backlogged complaints at the end of 2015 was 6,514 including • 52 complaints from 2011, • 363 complaints from 2012, • 1,146 complaints from 2013, • 2,143 complaints from 2014, and • 2,760 complaints from 2015. Chart 2 is a pictorial representation of the backlog of complaints, created by CGJ based upon information provided by HFID.19 Chart 2 Backlog of Complaints 3000 2500 2000 1500 Backlog of univestigated 1000 complaints 500 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 19 Email to CGJ from HFID, February 22, 2016, “Backlog Pending Investigations.” 288 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT C. Certification And Recertification Surveys In 1986, at the request of Congress, a study was conducted by the federal Institute of Medicine and it found that residents of nursing homes were being abused, neglected and given inadequate care. The Institute proposed reforms be made and subsequently the Nursing Home Reform Act was passed.20 The provisions of the Act were contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987.21 The Act requires that states and the federal government inspect nursing homes to ensure that residents receive quality care and services. The law requires that the states and federal government complete inspections of Skilled Nursing Home Facilities (SNF) and NHFs to certify their compliance. The inspections of SNF and NHF are called surveys and are conducted by HFID.22 Survey teams consist of two or more HFENs and may include REHS, physicians, dieticians and other personnel as needed.23 The initial certification survey of nursing homes focuses on residents and structural requirements.24 The state has contracted with DPH to conduct surveys for recertification and relicensing.25 Recertification surveys are to be completed no later than 15.9 months from the exit date of the previous survey. Over the course of the contract the elapsed time between surveys of each NHF will be reduced so as not to exceed 12.9 months.26 HFID staff is expected to complete two surveys per month.27 D. Citations Under the 2015 contract entered into between the State of California and the County of Los Angeles, DPH and HFID are called upon to issue citations to NHFs when deficiencies are found during inspection (surveys) and complaint investigations.28 The contract also requires HFID to revisit facilities that have received citations to make sure the nursing home has corrected the deficiencies noted.29 Citations are issued by HFID for violations of state or federal law. There are several classes of citations: Class AA – issued when a resident death has occurred and the cause is found to be the responsibility of the nursing home; Class A – issued when a violation presents imminent danger or a substantial probability of death or serious harm; 20 42 CFR § 483.25, “Quality of Care.” 21 Public Law 100-203, December 22, 1987. CGJ interviews with HFID staff. Ibid. Ibid. Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 5.A. Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 6.D.(1)b. CGJ interviews with HFID staff. Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 5.D. Ibid. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 289 Class B – issued for all other violations. Citations issued by HFID personnel are given to the Citation Desk Supervisor, located at the El Monte district office, within five days after they are issued. The supervisor then enters the citation on the computer into the Electronic Licensing Management System (ELMS) which provides information to state officials.30 All A or AA citations go up the chain of command at HFID and DPH legal for approval. The NHF owner is given a copy. Within 24 hours after being given a citation the nursing home owner must prepare a plan of correction for the deficiencies noted in the citation.31 In 2014, HFID issued 25 Class A citations and four Class AA citations. In 2015, the number of citations issued almost doubled, with 49 Class A and seven Class AA citations issued.32 Citations carry monetary penalties, which are collected by the State of California. Class AA violations draw fines of $25,000 to $100,000. Class A and Class B violations fines range from $2,000 to $20,000. Also, any willful material falsification or willful material omission in the health care record of a patient can result in a fine of $2,000 to $20,000 for each violation.33 Appeals from the issuance of a citation are handled by the State of California, Department of Public Health (CDPH). • To uphold a Class AA citation, HFID must prove that: (1) the violation was a direct proximate cause of the death of a patient; (2) the death resulted from an occurrence the regulation was designed to prevent; and (3) the deceased was among the group intended to be protected by the regulation.34 • In order to uphold a Class A citation on appeal, HFID must prove imminent danger from a deficiency that could cause death or serious harm to a patient or a substantial probability of death or serious harm caused to a patient by the deficiency.35 • Class B citations are upheld on appeal if the violation is found to have a direct relationship to the health, safety or security of a patient.36 30 Interview with HFID Citation Desk staff. Ibid. Information provided by HFID, “List of A and AA citations issued 2014-2015.” 33 California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, “CA Nursing Homes: Violations Key, October 22, 2015.” http://www.canhr.org/NH_Data/List_Key/ViolationsKey.html 34 Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 8.D. Ibid. Ibid. 290 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The Citation Desk has one supervisor and two support staff members. The desk should use more staff members to process citations.37 E. Hiring Los Angeles County, in 2015, received $14 million to hire additional staff as a result of the new contract.38 Inadequate staffing had been identified in the audits as a primary cause of the backlog. Los Angeles County has hired 57 new registered nurses for surveyor positions.39 At present, there are 27 HFENs who are ready to be certified by the federal exam to work in the field independently. Management needs to secure supervision and support staff for these new hires. HFID is on track to meet its hiring target. F. Training Proper training is imperative for the HFID staff to be efficient. This will lead to better morale and efficiency. As a result of our interviews it became clearly evident that the department is not properly training its employees. This makes for very low morale within the department. However, the most disturbing result of this failure to train properly is the well-being of residents of NHF that HFID is hired to protect. The voices of the elderly and ill who reside in the nursing homes are silent and clearly their needs are in jeopardy. New hires go through county orientation and learn what it means to be a county employee. They do this by viewing six weeks of webinars before starting the state training. Several state run academies offer state training and usually have a class size of 30. Reservations must be made for the date and location which is most convenient. The training lasts for three weeks and during this time the new hire learns the state regulations that a surveyor will be enforcing.40 Federal training consists of one week of classes given in Los Angeles County to acquaint the surveyor with the federal regulations (Medicare and Medicaid) he or she will be enforcing. Federal training must be completed before the new hire can take the Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test (SMQT). The federal test is only scheduled a few times a year. New hires may conduct complaint investigations with additional supervision, and may accompany qualified nurses on regular inspections. This on-the- job-training continues until federal training is completed and the SMQT test is passed.41 In order for an employee to do their job there are certain factors that the employer must provide. Among these are proper training and mentoring. From discussions with surveyors and supervisors, the CGJ feels that the training provided is not adequate. Interview with HFID Citation Desk staff. Contract, Exhibit B, paragraph 6.A. 41; Contract between California Department of Public Health and County of Los Angeles dated June 15, 2012, Agreement Number 12-10082, Exhibit B, paragraph 5.A. Comparing the information in these documents, the difference is approximately $14 million. Email to CGJ from CDPH, April 14, 2016, “RE: HFID Surveyor’s Count.” 40 Interview with HFID training staff. Ibid. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 291 CGJ interviews with HFID personnel lead to the conclusion that HFID staff feels that their training is grossly inadequate. This leads to the question of how HFID is failing to understand and appreciate this situation. This problem should be immediately corrected. The implementation of the use of laptops for investigations has created additional problems. Laptop training at HFID consists of webinars and about 4 hours of classroom work. The new hires have adapted to the integration of these, but the older employees are still writing reports manually and then entering these reports into the laptop when returning to the office. This is not time efficient. Based upon interviews of senior surveyors, laptop training is not adequate. Since the new contract, one trainer has been added to the staff bringing the total to three. These three trainers support all five district offices in Los Angeles County. With the 57 new hires and the 80 existing surveyors, who need to be kept informed of new and changed procedures, the training department is severely understaffed. Other counties in the state have one trainer for each district office.42 HFID should add a trainer to each district office. With this addition, it is hoped that trainers will have sufficient time to gain feedback from surveyors as to the adequacy of training given. A Quality Assurance Committee has been created, consisting of surveyors, supervisors, and senior management. It meets weekly, if possible, to discuss ways to improve methodology of the activities of HFID.43 Emphasis should be given to the work of this committee and senior management should listen and act upon its suggestions. G. Systems CMS maintains a National Database (ND) in Baltimore, Maryland which is the end repository for, among other information, all data pertaining to nursing homes throughout the country. California’s NHF data is maintained in the State Agency (SA) database in Sacramento which is synchronized with ND on a nightly basis.44 ASPEN is a suite of applications used to input and process local data and to interact with the SA database. Within ASPEN, the Aspen Complaint Tracking System (ACTS) is the entry point for complaint and ERI data which is referred to as an ACTS “intake”. Another application is Aspen Central Office (ACO) which manages licensing and certification and is the main collection point for facility information.45 HFCIS is the software used by HFID to track consumer complaints and ERIs. CMS provides qualified users the Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports 42 Ibid. Ibid. Interview with HFID Staff. Ibid. 292 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT (CASPER) for extracting data from ND and for printing reports.46 ACTS Reports Menu provides the same service for the SA database but is not as functional as CASPER. Other tools are available but their use requires significant technical knowledge. During interviews with nurse surveyors, CGJ noted that they were supplied with new laptops. Further discussion unveiled the fact that the laptops were not being used during investigations due to unfamiliarity with the equipment. Questions to the IT department revealed that the new laptops were HP Revolve 810 Tablet PCs and were loaded with a standard California Department of Public Health System which runs on Microsoft Windows 7. This is a solid platform which has eliminated any software bugs found since its introduction. To use this equipment to its full potential, it should be user friendly, and include a new improved template especially developed for surveyors to use during complaints investigation and surveys. Such a template should be developed with major input supplied by the nurse surveyor end user. This template would be downloaded with data for the site being investigated and would ease the input of boilerplate data with most entries being yes/no or other short responses. Additional data can be entered on screen using the One-Note function of Microsoft Office. This change from pen and paper to electronic data entry could dramatically reduce the workload for entering investigative data, but adequate training must be provided. H. Communication There is a communication disconnect between the managers and the line personnel at HFID. The breakdown in communication is contributing to low morale. Several of the surveyors expressed their frustration with the lack of communication when interviewed by the CGJ. When queried as to policies that could be utilized to enhance communication, they readily responded. The staff felt that it would be extremely beneficial for the department head, managers and supervisors to have an open door policy. Additionally, regularly scheduled meetings should be held to ensure that communication is fluid. Information should travel vertically up and down so that all persons are informed and kept in the information loop. Another form of communication they felt was critical to the success of HFID was that the headquarters’ senior management should visit area offices on a regular basis. This would provide them with a ground level perspective to know which policies are working, which ones need improving and which ones are not working and need to be modified or replaced. Surveyors also felt that headquarters’ senior management should accompany a surveyor to observe the details of the job. It was felt that if the upper echelon had firsthand experience doing surveys, they would understand exactly the complexities of 46 Email to CGJ from CDPH, February 4, 2016, “Federal System Support.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 293 the job and have a more realistic view of the process. Equipped with this knowledge, the headquarters’ senior management would be able to affect policies to assist the surveyors to effectively and expeditiously do their job. All levels of supervision need to seek the input of surveyors when developing any new policies and or procedures regarding the investigation of complaints. And lastly, the headquarters’ senior management needs to ask the surveyors what tools they need to be more proficient in doing their job. I. Morale It does appear to the CGJ that morale and cooperation at HFID is in need of improvement. This situation seems to relate to a backlog of complaints/workload, surveyors RN/REHS hostility and upper management not being promoted from within. Complaint backlog is at approximately 6,500 complaints, some stemming from 2011.47 This, coupled with the survey schedule has put a great deal of pressure on surveyors. It is hoped that the new hires, once they complete their training, will reduce the work hours and pressure REHS were the majority of surveyors in the past, but, especially with the new contract, all new hires for surveyors are registered nurses (RN) licensed to practice in California.48 RNs starting salaries are greater than for REHS surveyors and that is a problem area for REHS individuals.49 Also, only RNs can lead a survey, although a REHS surveyor on the team may have more experience. In addition, the work of REHS surveyors has been cut back to its present level, even though, before RNs were hired exclusively, the REHS surveyors performed the same duties as RNs do now.50 Based upon interviews and discussions with HFID staff it appears to the CGJ that there is a prevailing view among middle to lower level employees at HFID that, since the headquarters’ senior management came from a different division, they have little or no knowledge of what surveyors or supervisors do on a regular basis. It is also apparent to the CGJ that the fact that headquarters’ senior management does not regularly visit district offices, and does not consult with surveyors and supervisors on policies relating to the conduct of surveys, does not help this feeling. Until each of these issues is dealt with and management recognizes the issue, morale will remain a drain on worker cooperation and pride in accomplishment. See footnote 3, supra . Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 5.E. CGJ interviews with HFID staff. Ibid. 294 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ conducted numerous interviews with senior staff, program managers, HFENs and REHS as well as supervisors and assistant supervisors. CGJ also spoke to staff at the IT, Citation Desk, hiring and training areas. The CGJ obtained reports detailing number and backlog of complaints, the number of “AA” and “A” citations as well as the aging of complaints. The requested information was provided by CDPH. Documents relating to audits were obtained and reviewed including quarterly inspection reports with level “AA” and/or “A” deficiencies since January 2014. Nursing home inspection reports conducted by HFID for the last three quarters were reviewed. IV. FINDINGS 1. Complaints submitted electronically are logged in electronically by the IT staff at the Norwalk location. Complaints submitted via telephone, fax or mail, are sent to the appropriate district office and, after review, it is then entered into ACTS by the district staff. 2. There has been no improvement in the time taken for completing surveys for certification or recertification. It still takes two weeks to complete and report on the surveys. 3. Laptops are not being fully utilized by all surveyors. Some surveyors are first writing the report on paper and then entering it into their laptop. This is a duplication of work. 4. Complaint workload is too high. The target of two surveys a month takes 20 plus days to complete. This leaves only regular and weekend overtime to work on complaints and leads to delays and inefficiencies. 5. Some program managers, supervisors and assistant supervisors lack the proper skills to retrieve timely and pertinent data and reports from SA and ND. 6. New hires are not receiving adequate training to competently complete an investigation in a timely and efficient manner. 7. A disparity exists between HFEN and REHS in terms of wages and responsibilities. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 295 8. HFID headquarters’ senior management has a background in environmental health while surveyors are RN’s. Surveyors feel that decisions are made without taking their views into account. 9. HFID top management has not made an effort to let the surveyors know that it cares about the job they want the surveyors to do and to succeed. V. RECOMMENDATIONS During the course of the current contract the following recommendations should be implemented: 14.1. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should develop a process to route all complaints including ERI’s to the IT department in Norwalk to be entered in the ACTS system as they are received. 14.2. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should form a team to develop a new electronic template to be used by surveyors to input complaints information into ACTS. 14.3. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should enhance training of surveyors in the use of laptops. 14.4. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should make it mandatory for surveyors, assistant supervisors and supervisors to use laptops during the conduct of surveys by December 31, 2016. 14.5. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should ensure that program managers, supervisors, and assistant supervisors should receive adequate training in ASPEN and access to and training on CASPER to enable them to produce timely and informative reports. 14.6. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should develop a system to monitor new hire post training needs including compliance with mandatory training requirements and competencies. A post training review process that enables 296 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT HFID managers and supervisors to identify when competencies have not been established and refresher training is needed. 14.7. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should require a senior Health Facilities Evaluator Nurse to accompany a new hire until the new hire feels comfortable completing surveys competently. 14.8. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should hold weekly staff meetings to discuss investigation problems occurring in the field, potential morale issues and any overall concerns that may affect a well-run efficient organization. 14.9. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should initiate a study to determine how to reduce the hostilities between Health Facilities Evaluator Nurses and Registered Environmental Health Specialists due to differential in wages and responsibilities. 14.10. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should make sure a schedule exists for the Chief and Assistant chief of the Health Facilities Inspection Division to visit each district office at least once a month to determine the immediate needs of that office. 14.11. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should make sure that during each visit of the headquarters’ senior management in the Health Facilities Inspection Division to district offices time is set aside for them to discuss with surveyors, on a one-to-one basis, issues regarding the surveyor job. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). Responses shall be made in accord with Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 297 Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Responses are required from: Health Facilities Inspection Division: 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.10, 14.11 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health: 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.10, 14.11 Los Angeles County Department of Health Services: 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.10, 14.11 VII. ACRONYMS ACO ASPEN Central Office ACTS Aspen Complaints Tracking System ASPEN Automated Survey and Processing Environment CASPER Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting CDPH California Department of Public Health CGJ Civil Grand Jury CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services DHS Department of Health Services DPH Los Angeles County Department of Public Health ELMS Electronic Licensing Management System ERI Entity Reported Incident HFCIS Health Facilities Consumer Information System HFEN Health Facilities Evaluator Nurses HFID Health Facilities Inspection Division IJ Immediate Jeopardy IT Information Technology NHF Nursing Home Facility ND National Database REHS Registered Environment Health Specialist RN Registered Nurse SA State Agency SMQT Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test SNF Skilled Nursing Facility 298 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Marina LaGarde Co-chair Arun Sharan Co-chair George Zekan Co-chair Judy Goossen Davis Secretary John Anthony Rita Hall Edna McDonald Heather Preimesberger Stephen Press 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 299 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 300 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND TECHNOLOGY THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND TECHNOLOGY I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California state statutes passed in the last five years resulted in the number of probationers supervised by the Los Angeles County Probation Department (LACPD) to increase significantly. The population of probationers also continues to increase at about 400 to 500 per month. The department has hired new probation officers to deal with the increase in caseload. This report deals with the status of technology used by the department and seeks to determine if it is sufficient to help the department do its job. Computer hardware is adequate at present, but software is old and will need to be updated and reworked in the next few years. Although a goal of the department is to have a paperless office, without a change in software 70% of all work will continue to be done on paper. At this time, the department should issue laptops or tablets, and also smart phones, to probation officers to take to the field with them. This would increase their efficiency and provide a safer environment. II.