Letters to the Editor 3-14-24
Forecast for failure
Dear ER:
The Manhattan Beach Unified School District is facing an $11.3 million deficit, and is blaming reductions in State revenue for this (“Measure MB tax election too close to call,” ER March 7, 2024).
The district’s first interim budget report shows total revenue at $98 million. The state is projecting a lower COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment), dropping from the original 3.94% to 0.76%. As a result, LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula) revenue growth is likely to decrease by $3.2 million.
That is a significant amount, but not quite as significant as the expenditure increase approved by the School Board last July, giving employees a 6% “bonus” raise (meaning a raise on top of the normal salary schedule increases, i.e. a bonus.)
According to the district’s AB1200 financial disclosure, this bonus raise cost the district $4.6 million/year for certificated staff (teachers). The financial disclosure acknowledges the following specific impacts: “The District’s adopted budget anticipated a salary increase of 6%. In order to accommodate these increased costs, the District anticipated a need for significant reductions in expenditures in future years, including a reduction by the equivalent of 31 certificated positions that was incorporated into the District’s multi-year projection for 2024-25.”
The additional cost to the district significantly outweighs the decline in State revenue. Certainly the need for layoffs is exacerbated by the revenue decrease, but it’s also clear the board knew this was going to happen when they approved the 6% raise.
For reference, in 2022 we can see from MBUSD’s own pay records (available to the public on Transparent California) the median total pay of employees who received this bonus raise (the certificated group) was $105,385.
Which means these layoffs — which will primarily affect people on a much lower pay scale — are not a response to an unforeseen lack of funding from the State, but are instead the result of an active choice made by the school board.
This seems like something people should know given School Board elections are coming up in November.
Todd Maddison
Director of Research, Transparent California
Oceanside
BCHD plan floored
Dear ER:
The City of Redondo Beach is proposing an update to its General Plan to have a maximum of .75 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). If this change is implemented, it will have a significantly negative impact on the Beach Cities Health Districts (BCHD) plan for the modernization of the Healthy Living Campus project, including the Community Wellness Pavilion, Aquatic Center, and Center for Health & Fitness, as well as their ability to provide services to the local beach cities residents. It is highly recommended to have a uniform FAR of 1.25 for all properties with a public or institutional land use designation noted in the General Plan. This would allow the BCHD to proceed with Phase II of its modernization project and to replace the aging campus without jeopardizing their ability to generate revenue to support their exciting public health programs.
Jim Hannon
Member, General Plan Advisory Committee
Redondo Beach
Mystery regulations
Dear ER:
Redondo residents should understand that the two most controversial parts of the Redondo Beach General Plan updates did not come from the community representatives on the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC).
First is the zoning of Public Institutions and the nefarious .75 FAR spot zoning on the Beach Cities Health District parcel. This spot zoning mysteriously appeared in the General Plan updates. The GPAC never discussed the BCHD parcel and did not recommend the change in the floor area ratio on the BCHD parcel. This aspect of the General Plan updates must be changed or Redondo Beach will be involved in another unwinnable lawsuit over land use zoning. City Staff should recommend a uniform Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.25 for all properties with a public or institutional (P) land use designation in the General Plan. The proposed non-uniform FAR for some properties, particularly the imposition of a 0.75 FAR on Beach Cities Health District’s campus while allowing a 1.25 FAR for other similarly situated properties, may pose a problem by hindering fair and equitable land use. Also, the currently proposed 0.75 FAR for the BCHD property would hinder the modernization of its outdated campus, and lead to a reduction in health services in the city. Thus, a uniform 1.25 FAR for all properties with a P designation should be studied in the EIR for the General Plan update.
The second controversial section is the Housing Element. The somewhat equitable Housing Element put forth by the GPAC was disregarded by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The 2023 City Council drafted two of its own versions, both failed to gain the required approval by the State Housing And Community Development. The Council’s third and final submission is an unfair and lopsided Housing Element that crams thousands of new housing units in North Redondo and no new housing in South Redondo. Since their unfair and lopsided Housing Element gained approval from HCD this part of the General Plan updates cannot be changed before voters decide to reject or approve the General Plan updates.
Because of these two aspects of the General Plan updates, I cannot in good faith recommend voters approve the document. I recommend voters reject the General Plan updates at the ballot. They can do so with knowledge that a new and more equitable Housing Element can be drafted.
Paul Moses
Redondo Beach
Gascon’s not so secret weapon
Dear ER:
The upcoming November election for Los Angeles County District Attorney reminds me of another election a few years ago. Sheriff Jim McDonnell was running for re-election against Deputy Sheriff Alex Villanueva. Everybody believed McDonnell was doing a great job. However, he had one big problem. He was an Independent who had once been a Republican. So the Democratic Party endorsed Villanueva and he won. They soon regretted it and opposed him on many issues. He was soundly defeated after one term as Sheriff.
Now we have Nathan Hochman, a highly respected former Federal Prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney and LA Ethics Commission President running against incumbent Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon. Gascon has been in office since 2020. He has received a vote of no confidence from 37 cities and districts. An attempt to recall him was supported by victim’s rights advocates, The Association of Deputy District Attorneys, The Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the Los Angeles Police Protective League and many others. In the recent primary election 21% of the voters supported Gascon the incumbent, and 79% voted for “anyone but Gascon.” However, like Sheriff McDonnell, Nathan Hochman is an Independent who was once a Republican. So, even with Gascon’s track record, and the clear desire of the voters to replace him, the local Democratic Party endorsed Gascon. Wouldn’t it be nice if in the case of non-partisan offices, political leaders would care more about what the people want and who will do a good job instead of what party they belong to.
Russ Lesser
Manhattan Beach
Time management
Dear ER:
The decision on who should be Redondo Beach’s new Mayor was made in one meeting. No feedback necessary, thank you very much, said Councilmembers Todd Loewenstein, Nils Nehrenheim and Zein Obagi. However, if the council needs to discuss sharing two tennis courts with pickleball players — whoa, not so fast, we need more input says Nehrenheim. Slow down, let’s make sure we check with Northrop says Loewenstein.
Once again, Kudos to Councilmembers Scott Behrendt and Paige Kaluderovic for being in touch with what residents want and doing the actual work to get it done. Honorable mention to Mayor Jim Light who seemed supportive of residents and had the courage to advocate for them.
Marie Walsh Puterbaugh
Redondo Beach
Just listen
Dear ER:
Hermosa Beach Police Chief Paul LeBaron’s statement that “it’s difficult for officers to tell if pedal assist motors are engaged” is simply BS (“Geofencing proposed to stop speeding on Hermosa Strand,” ER Feb. 29, 2024). Either he has never been down to the Strand and observed the electric bikes, or he is looking for an excuse not to do his job. Not only can you see the e-bikes speeding without anyone pedaling, but you can hear the humming of the motors from hundreds of feet away. Has anyone ever contested a citation claiming that the motor was not on? The answer is zero not just because it is obvious when someone is using the motor, but also because so few citations have been issued. We do not need more study or more laws. We need more enforcement of the current law.
Robert Aronoff
Hermosa Beach
Throttle e-bikes
Dear ER:
Class one and class two e-bikes are limited to electric assist up to 20 mph (“Geofencing proposed to stop speeding on Hermosa Strand,” ER Feb. 29, 2024). While class three e-bikes are limited to up to 28 mph, the rider has to pedal and any speed over 15 mph requires more oomph than most e-bike users have. It’s the class two, throttle controlled bikes that are the main problem.
Jim Lyle
Hermosa Beach
E-bikes don’t speed, speeders do
Dear ER:
Speed is the issue on the Hermosa Beach Strand (“Geofencing proposed to stop speeding on Hermosa Strand,” ER Feb. 29, 2024). Lots of vehicles can reach the 8 mph speed limit, including 10 speed bikes, scooters, and skaters. Officers will have a hard time proving an electric motor on an e-bike is engaged and also obtaining speed gun proof of infractions. Hermosa Beach Police Chief LeBaron was asked recently how many serious e-bike accidents have been reported and he said “none.” To ban e-bikes on the Strand would be deplorable, and would set up the City for another class action lawsuit that it really does not need.
Dennis Duke Noor
Hermosa Beach