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
OCTOBER 17, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Claire Simonich
To: CityClerk
Subject: Vera Institute Public Comment on Bail Policy
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 11:37:32 AM
Attachments: Redondo Beach - Vera Written Public Comment for City Council - Bail Policy.docx (1).pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Redondo Beach City Council Members,
My name is Claire Simonich. I live in Los Angeles and am the Associate Director of Vera California, a local initiative of the Vera Institute of Justice, which advances policies and practices that will make California a model for promoting community safety, ending mass incarceration, and advancing racial justice.
Please see the attachment for my public comment on the court’s new bail policy. If you have any trouble accessing the document, please let me know and I can resend it.
Warmly,
Claire
Claire Simonich
Associate Director, Vera California
Vera Institute of Justice
634 South Spring Street, #300A
Los Angeles, CA 90014
(929) 625-4054
[email protected]
(pronouns: she/her)
October 17, 2023
Redondo Beach City Council:
Via email: [email protected]
Mayor Bill Brand
Councilmember Nils Nehrenheim
Councilmember Todd Loewenstein
Councilmember Paige Kaluderovic
Councilmember Zein Obagi, Jr.
Councilmember Scott Behrendt
Re: Support – Implementation of the Superior Court’s new bail policy, the Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARP)
Dear Redondo Beach City Council,
My name is Claire Simonich. I live in Los Angeles and am the associate director of Vera California, a local initiative of the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) advancing policies and practices that will make California a model for ending mass incarceration, promoting community safety, and advancing racial justice. Vera has worked on pretrial policy across the country—from Michigan to Kentucky to New Jersey—for more than 60 years.
We are writing to share research, data, and factual information regarding the Superior Court’s new bail policy, the Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARP), which is a step forward towards a more fair, just, and safe pretrial system.
The PARP policy rightfully shifts away from money bail and recommends administrative release for people charged with misdemeanors and low-level felonies.
The court’s policy does not represent a radical change in the pretrial system and instead builds off years of similar bail policies and assessment of those policies. For the past three years, the county has had a bail schedule (often called the “emergency bail schedule” or EBS) on and off where many people charged with low-level offenses were released through administrative means, like citations, instead of having traditional cash bail imposed. Like the emergency bail schedule, the PARP policy recommends administrative release for low-level offenses. The policies of having pre-arraignment magistrate reviews and a money bail system for people detained until arraignment continue.
Extensive research demonstrates that reforms like the PARP policy are good for public safety.
Vera analyzed the Los Angeles Police Department’s own data from the EBS period and found that violent crime and property crime in Los Angeles were lower or remained effectively unchanged under the EBS from the two-year period before the policy. As in Los Angeles, studies from around the country repeatedly find that reforms like the PARP policy are not linked to an increase in violent or nonviolent crime. The courts in Harris County, Texas—home to Houston—issued a standing order in 2019 for most people charged with misdemeanors to be released without money bond. An independent federal monitor tasked with analyzing the data found that far more people are now being released pretrial and that these higher release rates did not translate to higher rearrest rates—rearrest rates have stayed largely constant from before and after the policy change.
The Kentucky Supreme Court issued statewide orders similar to what is in the PARP, including release for nonviolent and nonsexual lower level felonies, and found that the data showed releasing more people does not compromise public safety. In 2017, the court mandated administrative pretrial release for most misdemeanors; 92 percent of those released were not rearrested. In 2020, after the policy expanded to include the aforementioned felonies, rearrest remained low and 89 percent of people were not rearrested.
In New York, despite the fearmongering around bail reform, a rigorous academic study found that it reduced overall re-arrest and felony re-arrest among people released under the new law, compared to a pre-reform comparison group. Further, research shows no correlation between bail reform policies and an increase in violent crime. These research findings counter false claims that the PARP policy is likely to increase crime.
The Council should not be swayed by critics’ fearmongering and misleading claims.
Critics of the PARP policy frequently cite the Yolo County District Attorney’s reports claiming their emergency bail schedule led to a huge increase in crime. The Yolo County DA reports should not be credited because they are significantly flawed. They are based on a small sample size—one study was of 100 people (compared to the tens of thousands studied in Houston’s or Kentucky’s policies which are similar in scope to PARP’s)—and without establishing the proper research protocols that would show a discrete policy change causing a specific outcome (e.g., increased arrests). The robust research on similar policies with larger sample sizes—including from Los Angeles itself—should inform the Council.
Ultimately, more pretrial detention will not benefit public safety, nor justice.
Research demonstrates that just 24 hours in jail increases the likelihood that someone will be arrested again because of the destabilizing effect of detention and the resulting loss of jobs, housing, and community ties.
In addition to building safety, PARP serves justice. Only those who cannot pay experience the harms of pretrial detention, from the horrors of jail to housing instability or homelessness. The PARP policy ensures that a person’s wealth does not determine whether they are free or in jail.
By following the research on public safety and policies like PARP, we have an opportunity to spare many people the harmful destabilization of pretrial incarceration and spare Angelenos the results of such destabilization. Rather than join suit, Redondo Beach’s City Council should speak out in support of the Superior Court’s new bail policy, educate the public about its public safety benefits, and encourage the court to monitor and share data analysis on implementation at regular intervals.
Sincerely,
Claire Simonich
Initiative Associate Director
Vera California
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; info; [email protected]; Jacki Bacharach; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; [email protected]; [email protected]; Robert W. Lundy; [email protected]; Vanessa I. Poster; Jane Diehl; Martha Koo; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat Subject: BCHD must be issued a STOP WORK on the Bike Path - the Funding Agreement is no longer valid Date: Thursday, October 12, 2023 4:06:04 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
According to the existing funding agreement, the scope of the bike path work by BCHD was 1200-feet and the cost was $1.8M. BCHD unilaterally changed the scope to 400-feet and $1.7M cost (67% scope reduction, 5% cost reduction.) Metro in the attached Public Records Act disclosure openly admits that no amendment has been executed by Metro to allow BCHD's changes or time extension. Therefore, Metro and BCHD are in violation of the terms of this Measure M disbursement. Metro should be investigated by an external agency and BCHD should be issued a stop work.
Mark Nelson
LA County
Redondo Beach
Public Record Comment to all agencies above (RB/MB/HB/Torrance, Metro, LA Board of Supv., LALAFCO, SBCCOG, Metro IG, Metro Measure M Oversight)
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Judy Rae; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; Jacki Bacharach; info; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Letter to the Editor on BCHD & Blue Zones - There"s no proof Blue Zones benefits exceed its Million$ in Costs to Taxpayers
Date: Thursday, October 12, 2023 2:36:54 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
NOTE: Public Comment to City Councils and Boards as well as Letter to the Editor at Easy Reader
According to an article by USC, BCHD paid Blue Zones LLC, Dan Buettner's consultancy, $1.5M. USC failed to record the BCHD internal costs of Blue Zones, such as, surveys, promotions, materials, consultants, and labor. The BCHD Director of Blue Zones alone makes $175K per year. according to Transparent California. While these costs are difficult to assess due to BCHD accounting, in total, they appear to be up to 5 million dollars more than the $1.5M directly to Buettner's company.
On the flipside, BCHD told USC that Blue Zones had millions of dollars of benefits.
However, when Blue Zones LLC, Buettner's private company, was asked for documentation of benefits, it refused. Blue Zones LLC referred me to Healthways, Inc, another private company. Healthways, Inc. lawyers replied that they refused to provide any details of any calculations or assessments of any Blue Zones benefits.
Resident-Taxpayers of BCHD are left with a real dilemma assessing BCHD's Blue Zones propaganda. Taxpayers can estimate the costs are upwards of $6.5M between consultant payments to Buettner and BCHD's internal costs. Taxpayers are refused any evidence to demonstrate any direct benefits from Blue Zones. This is symptomatic of BCHD's failure to assess its programs. In a response to a Public Records Request, BCHD stated that "calculating a dollar community benefit for each program is beyond the scope of the District’s mission, financial resources and abilities." Remember, Loma Linda is an original Blue Zones city and its only 75-miles from Redondo Beach. Loma Linda didn't pay Buettner one single penny, in fact, he took Loma Linda's practices.
Not only does BCHD fail to evaluate its programs and expenses, BCHD admits it doesn't even have the abilities to do so. District Resident-Taxpayers shouldn't believe any of BCHD's propaganda.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR
Cc: info; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jacki Bacharach; Noel Chun; Vanessa I. Poster; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat; Jane Diehl; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - Courtesy Notice to PRR - Potential Upcoming CPRA - Cumulative Blue Zones Spending from Inception
Date: Thursday, October 12, 2023 10:02:13 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
As BCHD is fully aware, the private consultancies of Blue Zones LLC (Minnesota) and Blue Zones LLC (Delaware) refused to provide any level of detail on the inflated computation of Blue Zones program value at BCHD. Blue Zones referred questions to private company Healthways, Inc. and it too refused to provide any detail of the computation of alleged value.
As an initial mitigation measure for taxpayers, a CPRA request is likely forthcoming from a consumer advocacy group requesting sufficient documents to provide the totality of expenditures and allocations of labor and overheads to all Blue Zones activity since inception of the program and consulting fees to Buettner/Blue Zones LLC.
Public Comment to all Boards and Councils
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Judy Rae; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; Jacki Bacharach; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment & Letter to the Editor - BCHD Needs to Service the Residents who Reside in the District - NOT
NON-RESIDENTS
Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 12:41:58 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
We're all going to be dead before our 3 acres of the BCHD site return to taxpayer use. It's not very comforting that a health district relies on the death of its owners to allow a 100% private developer to sign a 95-year long lease for 3 acres of public land. According to public records from BCHD, this proposed private transfer of property use is for an assisted living that will charge over $11,000 per month. Unfortunately, that was before this recent inflation and interest rate hikes, so $15,000 per month is more likely. Not affordable to the majority of District residents, is it?
Also according to BCHD public records, the four zip codes of Manhattan, Hermosa and Redondo Beach residents (the owners of BCHD) are only expected to fill only 20% of the rooms. The rest will be non-residents who never paid a dime to buy the former South Bay Hospital site, build the buildings, or fund the 60+ years of property taxes. Do we need a private, market-priced luxury assisted living on our public land? No, we don't. We need affordable, cost-based services on our public land for the residents who reside in the District.
That's the role the Hospital District told the Superior Court it had when the District condemned the Prospect Avenue site and took it from its legal owners in the 1950s.
It's time to get BCHD back to servicing its owners, the taxpayer-residents of the District.
BCHD's move into being a commercial service provider with "allcove" was a step too far.
BCHD signed a contract to provide services to an area from Long Beach to Carson to El Segundo to Palos Verdes to Avalon. BCHD used our land, property taxes, and employees of the District. But yet we are only 9% of the LA County Service Planning Area 8 that contracted for the BCHD allcove service. Why did BCHD contract service to 10-to-1 non-resident outsiders?
The words from the District to the Court were clear, the District was voter-approved to provide services to "the residents who reside in the District." BCHD needs to either pay us back for all the taxes and assets we've paid for, or, BCHD needs to get back to its voter approved mission to service the District, not a supermajority of non-residents.
As a 3+ year volunteer at BCHD, I see the only path to reclaiming the District is by voting out the Board and terminating the bloated $2.3M per year of executives.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jacki Bacharach; [email protected]; Del Toro, Monica; Holly J. Mitchell; CityClerk; CityClerk Cc: Robert W. Lundy; [email protected]
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT/FORMAL COMPLAINT
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 1:10:09 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
The following evidence demonstrates that BCHD's extraordinarily high cost of its 400-foot bike path ($22.8M per mile) is driven by deferred maintenance of the hillside by the District, NOT BY THE BIKE PATH. As such, BCHD should NOT be allowed recovery of costs of the project.
DATA SHOW THE SUPERMAJORITY OF BCHD BIKE PATH COSTS IN REDONDO BEACH ARE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE DUE TO DISTRICT’S
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ITS HILLSIDE
The most expensive bike path in the South Bay Bike Master Plan (2012) in Redondo Beach is $800,000 per mile or $150 per foot. According to the California Department of General Services, the California urban construction index has increased by 70% between 2012 and 2023 (Note: the Federal cement and concrete index increased from 140 to 228 during the same period, also 70%. This reinforces the accuracy of the CA DGS urban construction cost inflation value).
To be very conservative, we are applying an inflation factor of 2X to the costs. That results in a current 2023 cost of $300 per foot, or a total of $360,000 for the bike path portion of BCHD’s entire, proposed 1200-foot path from Diamond to Flagler.
Given that BCHD is only completing 400-feet in Redondo Beach, that cost would be one-third or $120,000. Therefore, BCHD’s costs are:
Bike Path from Master Plan + Inflation $120,000
BCHD Deferred Hillside Maintenance $1,610,000
BCHD Total Bike Path Cost $1,730,000
BCHD's COST PER MILE $22,836,000
Taxpayers’ Measure M funding should NOT be used for BCHD failure to maintain the hillside.
PUBLIC COMMENT: LA County Board of Supervisors, METRO Board, Torrance and Redondo Beach City Councils and Planning Commissions, LALAFCO Board, SBCCOG Board
FORMAL COMPLAINT: METRO IG
Excerpted Redondo Beach Unit Costs from the South Bay Bike Master Plan
1973 RBSC formed a 501c7 as “a non-profit organization dedicated to educating Redondo Beach residents in the art of sailing and sailboat handling, and to help educate the membership in general water safety rules.” An informal arrangement with the city granted RBSC members to use city sailboats for informal sailing instruction & practice in return for regular maintenance & boat purchase funds by RBSC.
In 2006, the Portofino’s development permit was approved by the CC with the following clause: “Upon completion of the construction of the marina as part of Renovation 2006, Lessee shall reserve two slips within the marina for exclusive use by a non-profit equal opportunity sailing club, deemed acceptable by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission in consultation with the City of Redondo Beach, that promotes public recreational sailing.”
8/2020, the city informed RBSC that it would no longer be permitted to use city sailboats. Since the city’s own sailing instructional program had ceased using the slips and the boats in the Portofino marina several years previously, the boats have had no use or care in 3+ years. 10/2020, the CC determined that the city violated of the terms of the Portofino development lease agreement by assuming control of the two slips reserved for exclusive use by a non-profit equal opportunity sailing club. RBSC brought this to the attention of City Staff, City Council, and the Rec & Parks Commission.
5/2022, RB Comm Dev Dir Brandy Forbes wrote to Brandon Strauss, Srours & Assocs, regarding a proposed real estate development subject to jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission: “because nothing in the Housing Accountability Act relieves the City from its obligation to comply with the California Coastal Act…”
Nothing relieves the City of its obligation to comply with the California Coastal Act and the terms of the Portofino development agreement. For the past 3 years, the city has prevented the equal opportunity community sailing RBSC offered its membership. I expect the city to be as consistent and scrupulous in upholding its obligations to comply with the spirit and letter of the CCA as it requires of others.
1 [email protected]
From: Shannon Sneed <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 3:42 PM
To: Rigby, Amy@Parks
Cc: Holmes, Deborah@Parks; Doug Kaku; Kelly Orta
Subject: RE: QUESTION - Aquatic Grants 22-23 award information and request for invoices from previous agreements
Amy,
Thank you for the quick response!
Best,
SHANNON SNEED
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
1922 ARTESIA BLVD|REDONDO BEACH|90278
310-318-0610, x3739
Click on the photo to view!
@seasidelagoonrb
PARKS MAKE LIFE BETTER!
From: Rigby, Amy@Parks <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 3:39 PM
To: Shannon Sneed <[email protected]>
Cc: Holmes, Deborah@Parks <[email protected]>; Doug Kaku <[email protected]>; Kelly Orta <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: QUESTION - Aquatic Grants 22-23 award information and request for invoices from previous agreements CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hi Shannon,
My apologies, that must have been a typo on my part. You are correct. The number is C8962310 so it sounds like you have the correct agreement.
Thank you for the update on C8966330.
Let me know if I can assist you further.
2 Amy
From: Shannon Sneed <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 12:04 PM
To: Rigby, Amy@Parks <[email protected]>
Cc: Holmes, Deborah@Parks <[email protected]>; Doug Kaku <[email protected]>; Kelly Orta <[email protected]>
Subject: QUESTION - Aquatic Grants 22-23 award information and request for invoices from previous agreements Importance: High
Amy,
I am gathering the information requested and will email it to you on February 7, 2023.
We are having difficulty locating the grant agreement for C8962321 awarded for a two-year period for the amount of $40,000.
However, I was able to locate two other grants with similar numbers that appear to be for a two-year period as well.
C8960321 FY 2015-2016 and FY 2016-2017
C8962310 FY 2017-2018 and FY 2018-2019
Please advise.
In the meantime, here is a response to one of your questions:
Since C8966330 was not fully authorized for spending, please provide an estimate of how much could be invoiced if this grant is authorized for spending. We will spend the full amount.
Thank you!
SHANNON SNEED
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
1922 ARTESIA BLVD|REDONDO BEACH|90278
310-318-0610, x3739
Click on the photo to view!
@seasidelagoonrb
PARKS MAKE LIFE BETTER!
From: Rigby, Amy@Parks <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 3:54 PM
To: Shannon Sneed <[email protected]>
Cc: Holmes, Deborah@Parks <[email protected]> Subject: Aquatic Grants 22-23 award information and request for invoices from previous agreements Importance: High
3 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hi Shannon,
We are making our 22-23 grant award decisions and cannot make a formal award to the City of Redondo Beach at the present time because the City has 4 grant agreements spanning 5 grant years totaling $100,367 for which no invoices have been received. These agreements are:
C8962321: This grant agreement was for two years and no invoices have been submitted for either year ($40,000).
C8964329: No invoices received ($20,000).
C8965312: No invoices received ($19,993).
C8966330: This grant agreement was provisionally awarded to the City but was not authorized to begin expenditures until the City submitted invoices for the past grant agreements. Since that has not happened, the funds in this agreement remain unspent ($20,374).
I have contacted you on multiple occasions requesting updates and prompting you to commence billing against the above-mentioned agreements. I also sent you the documents needed to complete the billings. I contacted you shortly after you took over the program and again in November 2021, also in December 2021, and again in January 2022 about the outstanding money. You responded in January 2022 that “all funds were spent on equipment and maintenance and on scholarships” but it was not specified if this statement pertained to all outstanding agreements or just C8965312. I notified you in the April 2022 that we only could provisionally award you the funding for C8966330 contingent upon invoices being received for Agreement C8962321. No invoices have been received to date, so Grant Agreement, C8966330, although signed, was not authorized for expenditures until those invoices were received.
In the 2022 Annual Report due in December 2022, you were requested to provide updates for all of the agreements with outstanding money. You only provided information for C8965312, indicating that the funding in that agreement had been spent and that invoices would be provided on January 20,, 2023. That date has passed and I have not received your invoices. The requested updates for C8962321 and C8964329 were not provided.
I am requesting the following by February 7, 2023:
Submit all invoices for C8962321, C8964329, and C8965312. Since C8966330 was not fully authorized for spending, please provide an estimate of how much could be invoiced if this grant is authorized for spending.
Once we receive and review this information, we will make a determination if any further grant funding can be awarded to the City for this current grant funding cycle.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have questions, please contact me and I will be happy to assist you.
Amy
Amy Rigby
California Department of Parks and Recreation
4 Division of Boating and Waterways
P.O. Box 942896, Administration, Floor 12
Sacramento, Ca 94296
(916) 902-8798
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Redondo Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. The City of Redondo Beach shall not be responsible for any claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of digital data that may be contained in this email.
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Redondo Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. The City of Redondo Beach shall not be responsible for any claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of digital data that may be contained in this email.
1 [email protected]
From: Rigby, Amy@Parks <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 4:25 PM
To: Shannon Sneed (City of Redondo Beach)
Subject: Grant Agreement C8964329
Attachments: C8964329, Copy of Invoice.pdf; Budget Page Changes, C8964329.pdf Importance: High
Hi Shannon,
This is regarding C8964329. Your invoice (aƩached) has some issues.
1. While this grant agreement started out as a combinaƟon Equipment/Scholarship Grant, the City of Redondo Beach requested a budget page change to convert the enƟre thing to an equipment grant. Please see the aƩached budget page change request/approval. AŌer that, they requested a second change to further reallocate the equipment funding (labeled Change Two in the aƩached).
The jusƟficaƟon for these changes is that the City claimed that programming had been shut down due to Covid during 2020 so they had no students. However, you produced a billing for students in 2020 so it inconsistent with that request. My quesƟon is was any of the equipment on the budget page (change 2-last page of aƩachment) purchased? If so, please invoice for those items. There were two pages included in the billing that appeared to be Cal Card items or something-they weren’t labeled with a bunch of charges on them. It wasn’t parƟcularly clear what they were and they did not appear on the claim form or with any dealer/manufacturer invoices as would be required for reimbursement. If those pages represent some of the items on the budget page, we will need dealer invoices to match against the charges and more informaƟon regarding what these pages represent if they are indeed Cal Card statements-maybe like a more formal Cal Card statement.
Please let me know about this by June 19, 2023.
(An addiƟonal note, is that even if we are able to convert this back to scholarship, and I don’t know that we can at this point, the first line item on the claim form ($5,600) is outside the performance period and would be ineligible. Just FYI.- See the aƩachment labeled “Copy of the Invoice.”
Thanks,
Amy
Amy Rigby
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Division of Boating and Waterways
P.O. Box 942896, Administration, Floor 12
Sacramento, Ca 94296
(916) 902-8798
State of California Natural Resources Agency Gavin Newsom, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Armando M. Quintero, Director Legal Office Post Office Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 September 14, 3023 Via E-Mail Only
[email protected]
Mike Martin
Dear Mr. Martin:
Re: Public Records Act Request – 23-503 – The City of Redondo Beach This letter further responds to your Public Records Act (“PRA”) request received via email on August 21, 2023. You are requesting “any available documentation that would aid in understanding the reasons that the City of Redondo Beach Aquatic Center grant application for FY22-23 (attached) was not funded.”
State Parks has located two records that may be responsive to your request, attached to this correspondence.
State Parks waives the direct cost of duplicating the records. State Parks reserves the right to collect the direct costs for future PRA requests regardless of the volume of records responsive to the request.
We hope this satisfies your request.
Sincerely,
Parveen Kasraee
Staff Counsel
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: Jacki Bacharach; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; Nicole Wesley; rbpta
Subject: Public Comment: City Council Meeting
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 2:34:53 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
We need our HEALTH DISTRICT and SCHOOL DISTRICT to care about the HEALTH OF OUR CHILDREN and OPPOSE the Green Line R-O-W options!
Current issues such as fentanyl overdoses are a result of stress and mental health issues.
Why do BCHD and RBUSD want to create MORE PROBLEMS by allowing the right-of-way path?