BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 6, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk; Robert W. Lundy; [email protected]; Kevin Cody Subject: Fwd: The BCHD Agreement with Metro is in Breach Date: Sunday, June 4, 2023 2:20:31 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
MM4602.01 A1 EXECUTED (3).pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD is in material breach of its agreement with Metro. The agreement states the following as quid pro quo for the funding. BCHD is fully aware that it will not be able to meet the terms, especially by 9/30/23, the current extension date. BCHD is consuming $1.2M of the $1.8M for only 400-feet of the entire project with no reasonable expectation of completing the rest of the project at all, and certainly no expectation of completing the rest of the project within the $1.8M budget.
cc: Redondo and Torrance City Attorneys via City Clerks. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 11:40 AM
Subject: The BCHD Agreement with Metro is in Breach
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>
BCHD has never had authority to operate in Torrance. Torrance is beyond BCHD's sphere of influence. BCHD has no ability to complete the contract and that is known at this time as Torrance has refused right of way authority.
BCHD was granted $1.8M for the entire project of over 1200 feet. BCHD proposes under 400 feet of work for $1.2M and is well outside the parameters of reasonableness for cost.
Both the Metro Board and County Board of Supervisors must intervene and stop this egregious failure of contract reasonableness and enforcement.
FTIP#: N/A
Subregion ID: South Bay
Project ID#: MM4602.01
Amendment No. 1
FA#: 9200000000M460201
Rev: 04.05.2022 1 Measure M MSP FA Lapsing Extension Amendment AMENDMENT No. 1 TO MEASURE M FUNDING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
This Amendment No. 1 to the June 1,
2022 by and between the Beach Cities Health District ("GRANTEE") and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("LACMTA").
RECITALS:
A. GRANTEE and LACMTA entered into that certain Funding Agreement No. 9200000000M460201, dated January 10, 2020, (the "Existing FA"), which Existing FA provides for the Diamond St to Flagler Lane Bicycle Lane, B. WHEREAS, the LACMTA Board on September 23, 2021, delegated administrative authority to staff to extend the funding lapsing date of the Measure M Funds previously approved to meet design and construction time frames; and C. WHEREAS, LACMTA administratively approved minor changes to the Scope of Work; and
D. WHEREAS, GRANTEE and LACMTA desire to extend the lapsing date of the Project funds programmed for FY 2019-20 to September 30, 2023; and E. WHEREAS, the parties desire to delete Attachment E Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Sheet and all references thereto; and F. GRANTEE and LACMTA desire to amend the Existing FA as provided herein.
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÔÛÔÎ
FTIP#: N/A
Subregion ID: South Bay
Project ID#: MM4602.01
Amendment No. 1
FA#: 9200000000M460201
Rev: 04.05.2022 2 Measure M MSP FA Lapsing Extension Amendment AGREEMENT:
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Part II, Section 9.1 (vi) of the Existing FA is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the (vi) All Funds programmed for FY 2019-20 are subject to lapse by September 30, 2023.
3. Attachment B of the Existing FA is hereby replaced by Attachment B-1, attached.
4. Attachment C of the Existing FA is hereby replaced by Attachment C-1, attached.
5. The parties have agreed that the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Sheet is no longer required and therefore, Attachment E and all references thereto are hereby deleted.
6. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Existing FA remains in full force and effect as originally executed. All rights and obligations of the parties under the Existing FA that are not expressly amended by this Amendment shall remain unchanged. ›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÓÛÔÎ
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÏÛÔÎ
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÎÛÔÎ
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÍÛÔÎ
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÈÛÔÎ
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ËÛÔÎ
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÁÛÔÎ
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÔðÛÔÎ
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÔÔÛÔÎ
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÔÓÛÔÎ
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÔÌÛÔÎ
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÔÏÛÔÎ
›±²½±Æº Û ‹±½´³ª²¨ ×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“à ÔÎÛÔÎ
Œª½±Æº ±º Õ·¹²·²¹
Õ·¹²ªº ©·¨¸ ©©©Ú½±²½±Æº²±©Ú½±³
⁄±Æ
“ø³ª
÷¨¥ª
Õ·¹²ªº ±² ÓðÓÓÛðÍÛÌð ððÊÌÈÊÎÎ Ÿ”Ã
Í»½«®»¼ ¾§ ݱ²½±®¼
‹±½´³ª²¨×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“Ã
Õ·¹²·²¹×‹Ê ”‹ µÆ¶¤Ì«¶×¨«¶
Õ·¹²·²¹ ºø¨ªÊ ÍÒÌðÒÓðÓÓ
×– flººÆªÊ ÔÈÏÚÓðÏÚËÚÌÍ
¤³ø·¥Ê ¨±³Úæøµø¥ß‡æ½¸ºÚ±Æ¹
⁄±Æ
“ø³ª
÷¨¥ª
Õ·¹²ªº ±² ÓðÓÓÛðÈÛðË ÓÌÊÎÌÊðË Ÿ”Ã
Í»½«®»¼ ¾§ ݱ²½±®¼
‹±½´³ª²¨×‹Ê ”ÓŒ¥“Ó×Γõ¨“Ã
Õ·¹²·²¹×‹Ê “¶¸¥Æ‹«Ì“Ÿ«¨Æ…
Õ·¹²·²¹ ºø¨ªÊ ÈÒËÒÓðÓÓ
×– flººÆªÊ ÈÍÚÔÍÁÚÓÎÏÚÓÎÓ
¤³ø·¥Ê Æ¥´²ºß‡¸ªø¥¨¸Û¥ø©Ú½±³
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; info; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Vanessa I. Poster; Michelle Bholat; Jane Diehl; [email protected]
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; [email protected] Subject: LA Times Letter to the Editor - BCHD"s $250 per inch Bike Path Folly Date: Saturday, June 3, 2023 2:36:30 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Below is an LA Times letter to the editor. The Times was a supporter of Measure M and concerned with reasonable use of funds.
"Metro's Measure M is a sales tax to fund county-wide transit projects. Metro allocated $1.8M in M funds to Beach Cities Health District to create 1200-feet of bike lanes in Torrance and Redondo Beach. That's $125 per INCH.
Health districts have no expertise in roads, but Metro should. Isn't $125 per inch a poor use of taxpayer funding? It turned out BCHD didn't have approval from Torrance, so now it only plans to complete 800-feet of bike path on a 4-lane cul-de-sac and in an alley for $1.2M.
That's $250 per inch.
Tiffany & Co sells a nice 16-inch gold necklace for $600. That's only $40 per inch. Does NO ONE care about taxpayers any more? BCHD needs to refund the $400,000+ it has taken from Metro and turn this worthwhile project over to the cities for experienced execution. $250 per inch for a bike path destroys any taxpayer confidence in Measure M and Metro's oversight."
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
Formal Complaint to Metro IG Gorman
Formal Complaint to LA County IG Huntsman
Public Comment to Metro Board, County Board of Supervisors, other Electeds Public Comment to Torrance and Redondo Beach City Councils and Public Works Departments
FYI Only to BCHD
References
California Policy Council - $511 per FOOT for single lane free addition UNC Chapel Hill - $50 to $100 per FOOT for bike paths per project surveys BCHD Proposal in Redondo Beach - $3000 per FOOT to put bike path on a 4-lane developed culdesac past 6 homes and in a paved 2-lane alley.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Sheila Lamb; Gale Hazeltine; Gwenn Godek; Douglas Boswell; Robert Gaddis; Matthew Hinsley; RDG Update; Planning Redondo
Subject: Public Comment - RDG Revision - For inclusion as public comment in Agenda Packet for Distribution Date: Monday, June 5, 2023 2:00:48 PM
Attachments: RDG Comments for Planning Commission (6-5-23).pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment for City Council and Planning Commission The attached PDF of comments is provided well in advance of the meeting in order to be included as public comment in the Agenda Packet. In short, the many individual RDGs that were discarded due to lack of quantification must be returned to the document in their prior property owner and residence protective manner from the prior RDGs. That cannot simply be cast to the void with the assumption that somehow protections of residential property owners will not be seriously degraded.
Mark Nelson
Retired VP and Planning Director
Expert Witness
REVISED RDGS FAIL TO PROTECT EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS
For 20 years, the ResidenƟal Design Guidelines (RDGS) have served to protect exisƟng neighborhoods from excessive residenƟal and mulƟ-family development. The current revision fails to provide the same protecƟons.
REVISED RDGS MUST INCLUDE SUBJECTIVE LANGUAGE WHERE OBJECTIVE QUANTIFICATION HAS FAILED
The conclusion that those valuable subjecƟve guidelines that failed to be translated into numbers or otherwise so-called “objecƟve” criteria were thrown away is an error. In the case of currently discarded criteria, they must conƟnue to be included as subjecƟve to allow the Planning Commission, City Council and property owners the right that they deserve to protect neighborhoods. The current implementaƟon is a failure.
STRONG PROPERTY OWNER PROTECTIONS HAVE BEEN DISCARDED
Planning states "Guidelines in the 2003 Design Guidelines that cannot be translated into ObjecƟve Standards have been removed and the ObjecƟve ResidenƟal Standards apply." Basically, Planning admits that it simply removed the RDGs that were subjecƟve but funcƟoned effecƟvely for 20 years when it failed to translate those guidelines into objecƟve standards.
The Planning Department has taken the easiest, yet worst performing path for property owners as it aƩempts to update the prior RDGs. Planning is aƩempƟng to develop so-called "objecƟve" guidelines from subjecƟve criteria when convenient. Public comments have been made to use descripƟve staƟsƟcs, staƟsƟcal distribuƟons, and other objecƟve measures to assure compaƟbility, common character protecƟon, mass, volume, view block, among other damaging aƩributes, are avoided in new construcƟon or significant modificaƟons. However, those suggesƟons were discarded and instead that which was too difficult was jeƫsoned instead of being retained as subjecƟve.
Just because a task is difficult, doesn't mean it should be ignored. Furthermore, the obvious alternaƟve aŌer failing to develop objecƟve criteria is to leave the subjecƟve ones in force in order to protect other property owners from wholesale development chaos. There is ample Ɵme to replace them with objecƟve standards in the future when the work has been completed. For now, the exisƟng standards in those areas are far superior to NO STANDARDS as Planning has proposed. That approach has also been suggested in comments.
Planning has removed the strongest criteria in the mulƟfamily residenƟal and the results will allow developers, such as the Catalina project, to have their way with surrounding property. That is clearly not the intent of the RDGs, nor it is appropriate for the billions of dollars of exisƟng property to be degraded due to a lack of standards.
SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNER SAFEGUARD RDGS THAT WERE CAST AWAY I understand the intent of moving from subjecƟve to objecƟve criteria. I am formally trained in engineering and quanƟtaƟve methods, so I prefer quanƟficaƟon when possible. At the same Ɵme, I recognize that the pornography standard was effecƟvely “I’ll know it when I see it” or “local standards” due to a lack of ability to quanƟfy it.
When faced with hard issues, such as, subjecƟve criteria requiring respect of the surrounding properƟes or avoidance of overwhelming scale, the authors apparently chose not to aƩempt to quanƟfy – and more problemaƟc – they simply abandoned the subjecƟve with no aƩempted objecƟve measure. The next page shows a number of those cases.
As a first step, the document should be redlined and all subjecƟve criteria that were not specifically quanƟfied should be returned into the RDGs. This document can then be circulated for comment and the team and public can work harder at quanƟfying.
Typical staƟsƟcal methods such as means, medians, variances, etc. can you used in many cases to quanƟfy scale, bulk, mass, etc. Respect is a term that is oŌen used in design, such as, respecƟng nearby neighborhoods and structures. Again, a set of characterisƟcs can be used staƟsƟcally such as mean volume, mean height, mean FAR, etc. to provide a semblance of objecƟveness.
Given the work product that is put forward, I recommend the Planning Commission reject it and send the team back to salvage the many places where subjecƟve consistency in character, respect, and scale were cast away with the subjecƟve guidelines unƟl such Ɵme objecƟve guidelines to PROTECT THE PUBLIC are completed.
Mark Nelson
ReƟred VP & Director of Planning for SCE and Subsidiaries Expert Witness
Experienced Developer
Below are prior comments on the draŌ that are sƟll relevant and acƟve. The final version that is proposed carried through with the “threat” of simply ignoring many, highly protecƟve RDGs.
I understand the intent of moving from subjecƟve to objecƟve criteria. I am formally trained in engineering and quanƟtaƟve methods, so I prefer quanƟficaƟon when possible. At the same Ɵme, I recognize that the pornography standard was effecƟvely “I’ll know it when I see it” or “local standards” due to a lack of ability to quanƟfy it.
When faced with hard issues, such as, subjecƟve criteria requiring respect of the surrounding properƟes or avoidance of overwhelming scale, the authors apparently chose not to aƩempt to quanƟfy – and more problemaƟc – they simply abandoned the subjecƟve with no aƩempted objecƟve measure. The next page show a number of those cases.
I would require that all subjecƟve criteria that were “punted” remain in the subsequent document. They can be removed when they are quanƟfied, but unƟl that Ɵme, they need to remain in order to protect both the intent of the RDGs and the public’s very clear intent for protecƟon of character and consistency.
As a first step, the document should be redlined and all subjecƟve criteria that were not specifically quanƟfied should be returned into the RDGs. This document can then be circulated for comment and the team and public can work harder at quanƟfying.
Typical staƟsƟcal methods such as means, medians, variances, etc. can you used in many cases to quanƟfy scale, bulk, mass, etc. Respect is a term that is oŌen used in design, such as, respecƟng nearby neighborhoods and structures. Again, a set of characterisƟcs can be used staƟsƟcally such as mean volume, mean height, mean FAR, etc. to provide a semblance of objecƟveness.
Given the work product that is put forward, I recommend the Planning Commission reject it and send the team back to salvage the many places where subjecƟve consistency in character, respect, and scale were cast away and re-enter them into the RDGs to protect property owners.
Mark Nelson
ReƟred VP & Director of Planning for SCE and Subsidiaries Expert Witness
Experienced Developer
From: Vanessa I. Poster
To: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; info; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat; Jane Diehl; [email protected]
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; [email protected] Subject: Re: LA Times Letter to the Editor - BCHD"s $250 per inch Bike Path Folly Date: Sunday, June 4, 2023 1:50:18 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Mark,
Thank you so much for your interest in the bike path and your active involvement in civic issues.
For more information on the bike path please see these links:
https://www.bchd.org/healthpolicy
https://www.bchd.org/BikePathImprovements
Vanessa Poster
President, Board of Directors, Beach Cities Health District 310-374-3426
Healthpolicy | Beach Cities Health District
Beach Cities Health District
www.bchd.org
Bike Path Improvements Move Forward on Diamond Street in Redondo Beach | Beach Cities Health District
Beach Cities Health District
www.bchd.org
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2023 2:35 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Holly J. Mitchell <[email protected]>; info <[email protected]>; Noel Chun <[email protected]>; Martha Koo <[email protected]>; Vanessa I. Poster <[email protected]>; Michelle Bholat <[email protected]>; Jane Diehl <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]>; Kevin Cody <[email protected]>; Lisa Jacobs <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: LA Times Letter to the Editor - BCHD's $250 per inch Bike Path Folly
EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
Below is an LA Times letter to the editor. The Times was a supporter of Measure M and concerned with reasonable use of funds.
"Metro's Measure M is a sales tax to fund county-wide transit projects. Metro allocated $1.8M in M funds to Beach Cities Health District to create 1200-feet of bike lanes in Torrance and Redondo Beach. That's $125 per INCH.
Health districts have no expertise in roads, but Metro should. Isn't $125 per inch a poor use of taxpayer funding? It turned out BCHD didn't have approval from Torrance, so now it only plans to complete 800-feet of bike path on a 4-lane cul-de-sac and in an alley for $1.2M.
That's $250 per inch.
Tiffany & Co sells a nice 16-inch gold necklace for $600. That's only $40 per inch. Does NO ONE care about taxpayers any more? BCHD needs to refund the $400,000+ it has taken from Metro and turn this worthwhile project over to the cities for experienced execution. $250 per inch for a bike path destroys any taxpayer confidence in Measure M and Metro's oversight."
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
Formal Complaint to Metro IG Gorman
Formal Complaint to LA County IG Huntsman
Public Comment to Metro Board, County Board of Supervisors, other Electeds Public Comment to Torrance and Redondo Beach City Councils and Public Works Departments
FYI Only to BCHD
References
California Policy Council - $511 per FOOT for single lane free addition UNC Chapel Hill - $50 to $100 per FOOT for bike paths per project surveys BCHD Proposal in Redondo Beach - $3000 per FOOT to put bike path on a 4-lane developed culdesac past 6 homes and in a paved 2-lane alley.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR; Robert W. Lundy; info; Michael Webb; CityClerk Subject: Re: CPRA
Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 12:40:19 AM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
As BCHD is fully aware, during the LAFCO hearing, Commissioner Lesser clearly contradicted LAFCO Staff's errant opinion that BCHD could not require residency for services. In fact, Commissioner Lesser clearly stated that BCHD has no requirement nor preclusion from requiring residency in the same manner that West Basin Municipal Water District requires residency within its District for programs.
Therefore, BCHD's response is that it relies on outdated information and have no foundation for not requiring residency within the District.
cc: Redondo Beach Council, Planning Commission
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 5:45 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records request received 5/24/23 that reads:
Please provide documents or citations demonstrating that BCHD's assertion that correct.
Specifically document supporting the BCHD statement that requiring residency would be "contrary to State law".
Please see Agenda Item 7.b, Staff Report citation, page 44 for “Issues raised in the public comments, and staff’s response,…”
LAFCO September 14, 2022 - Agenda & Staff Report
Further, you can find the entire LAFCO MSR review determination dated September 22, 2022, starting on page 32 for the District.
LAFCO Municipal Service Review
Please note that if records you are seeking do not exist, BCHD has no obligation to create new records, or to obtain records from other sources, unless those sources are considered “prepared, owned, used by, or retained by” by the District.
If you believe we have not correctly interpreted your request, please resubmit your request with a description of the identifiable record or records that you are seeking.
Please note that the District may not respond to questions or comments included with your request that are not themselves requests for identifiable public records under the California Public Records Act. The lack of response by the District to any such questions or comments, including follow-up questions and comments, is not an indication of the District’s position on any topic or item, and should not be presented as such to any person.
Thank you.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 7:59 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA
EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
Please provide documents or citations demonstrating that BCHD's assertion that correct.
Specifically document supporting the BCHD statement that requiring residency would be "contrary to State law".