Underground Questions Surface

By M. Joan Lockney

I recently read an article published in the Beach
Reporter---an article stating that under-grounding
is back. I noticed that there is not one vote
per household but that the number of votes
depends on property assessment. Doesn’t this
system almost guarantee an outcome that the
City Council wants---a ‘yes’ vote? I do wonder
about the legality of one group of citizens of a
city granted favorable treatment. If it not illegal,
it should be.
Several questions come to mind: Are those
of us who are old-time residents in smaller
houses second-class citizens? It is the older
residents of this city who have the most to
lose in this process. We all know it is wise to
have an emergency fund, especially in old age,
since old age is difficult, particularly from the
standpoint of health. Now we could be asked
to give the city money—in some cases a lot of
money---for a project we do not choose and
one that is questionable. Younger residents
might have money concerns, too. To name a
few: college tuition costs for their children, high
house payments,. . . .. . . . .  to read more

​

​

Gelson’s Development Update

​

By Eileen Neill

​

It has been fairly quiet on the Gelson’s development front
because the developer is still accumulating its response to
the many issues raised by residents during the brief public
comments period which closed on August 22nd. There
were approximately 500 public comments submitted to
the City, about 100 of which were either outright opposed
to the development or had significant concerns mostly
related to traffic safety and parking. We were pleased with
these 100 comments as the City only notified residents developing the Sepulveda Corridor over the next couple of years. Let’s make sure this project gets implemented well so we can set a good precedence for future developments on this major artery within our community.

Please follow us on Facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/ManhattanBeachNeig
hbors/446288268864439?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

 

and
Stop Gelson’s:
www.facebook.com/groups/1646139085619784/

​

. . . .. . . . .  to read more

Downtown Specific Plan a
Victory for Residents

​

By Michelle Murphy

​

Nearly two years ago MB City Council hired ULI, Urban
Land Institute, not the local branch which would have
been cheaper but the East Coast main unit of ULIers who
flew in and stayed at Shade hotel and met with stake
holders about the future of our downtown areas. Initially
the stake holders were only to be those who make or wish
to make money from our town. No voter residents were
invited. When residents (thanks Jackie May) protested,
a committee of downtown residents was created to add
their input to the mix. ULI recommended that we create
lots more parking (under the Von’s lot or under some other
part of downtown) and consider raising height limits and
generally provide more space for more development. After
all most of the consultants were professional developers
and if you’re a hammer then everything you see is a nail.
These proposals awakened residents both downtown and
all over town. People participated in community meetings
and voiced their concerns about losing our small town
charm. And the Planning Commission and City Council
listened to residents. The December 6 Council meeting
was a culmination of years

​

. . . .. . . . .  to read more

City Council Election  Musings
By Phil Reimert

Next March three MB council seats will be up for election. Eight candidates have registered to run including two incumbents. On Thursday, February 2 at 6:30 in Council chambers, MBRA will host a forum open to all residents to meet the candidates. As a general law city, the council members are elected by us to steer the city government--in effect, they are US. So first each of us must figure out for ourselves where we think Manhattan Beach should be heading, then vet each candidate to determine how closely he or she is aligned with our vision. Although you may like someone personally, .......

​

. . . .. . . . .  to read more

 

SILENT GENERATION

 

By Janet Murphy

​

Has anyone noticed that the voices of residents at Council  meetings are primarily from the older generation? Where are the young voters? Why are they mute?
The Council decision to continue elections in March does not bode
well Manhattan Beach. Voter turnout at these odd number year spring elections is not even 20%. Special interests can back
candidates and put them in office without much opposition. Those who want to build towers and cover our open space with concrete are not sitting idle. They vigorously push their agenda forward. Apathy will cost us the beauty we have enjoyed in Manhattan Beach.  

Look at what happened in the United Kingdom. Polls showed that only about 19% of people between the ages of 18 and 24 supported a British exit from the E.U. 59% of the UK pensioners wanted their country to leave. The pensioners won out by a margin of around 1.3 million votes. The younger generation did not get out and vote for what they saw was their future.
I am in the US “pensioners” age group and am more conservative

​

. . . .. . . . .  to read more

 

City Hall Update

​

The Manhattan Beach Mall expansion court case is scheduled for October 12, 2016, at 9:30 am---Dept. 86-- (Judge Amy Hogue)
Los Angeles Superior Court, 111 North Hill
St., Los Angeles, Ca.

In discussing the Downtown Specific Plan and its guide lines to maintain what residents view as its remaining downtown charm, it has been suggested that the key is SCALE. This means retaining some of the small shops, keeping construction to scale, preventing
one huge store to replace the small shops, imposing restrictions on ground floor use, on height and size.

Construction Hours Modified Ordinance No. 16-0007, as adopted, will amend the Municipal Code to provide a process for allowing modified construction hours on a case-by-case basis. Hours
for construction activity under limited circumstances may, upon request, be modified by City Council. Noise disturbance criteria
will be considered and conditions to mitigate any adverse impacts may require prior notice to residents and businesses in the vicinity.
The Director may modify hours for interior construction on commercial property under limited circumstances.

Hours regulating construction activity are:
Monday to Friday: 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Saturday: 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

​

. . . .. . . . .  to read more

 

The Manhattan Beach Education Foundation
Great Institution or a Symptom of Something Wrong?

 

By Michelle Murphy

​

The Manhattan Beach Education Foundation (MBEF) does wonderful
things for the students of Manhattan Beach. In 2015 they provided more than $6 million in funding for K through 12 classrooms including paying for 71 educators and a host of enhancements to local schools. That sum amounted to 9% of the Manhattan Beach Unified School District’s (MBUSD) total budget.
MBEF solicits tax deductible contributions from individuals (over 5,000 donors in 2014/15) and corporate sponsors (Chevron and Sketchers each donated $50,000 and Waste Management $25,000). Each year MBEF holds a yearly wine auction fund raiser. One of the largest charity wine auctions in Southern California and perhaps the country, the 2016 Wine Auction raised over $1.1 million for MBEF. Each year, as specified in MBEF’s by-laws, the Manhattan Wine Auction contributes a minimum of one-third of the event proceeds to the Endowment Fund. 

Manhattan Beach has one of the few K-12 public school endowment funds anywhere – and maybe the largest.

​

. . . . . . . .  to read more

​

DÉJÀ VU - MANHATTAN BEACH UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING

by Robert Bush

Déjà vu – feeling one has had an experience before. Manhattan Beach City Council and Edison will again force Utility Undergrounding (controversial, unethical and immoral project) on the residents. Moratorium is over and the City is proceeding with Districts 12 and 14. Assessment cost for Undergrounding the wires may be as much as
$50.000.

Truth About Undergrounding Edison Electric Institute says Undergrounding Costs Outweigh Benefits. Undergrounded wires are not more reliable. Repairing overhead lines is easy and can sometimes be done by one worker. The costs of undergrounding are prohibitive. Only justification for Undergrounding is “intangible,
unquantifiable benefits.”

Undergrounding Survey A survey would be sent out to the residents to ask if they approve or disapprove of Utility Undergrounding. City Council proceeded to manipulate the voting procedure and considered a bribe for one district and Gerrymandered another district. Southern California Edison doubled the assessment costs on two districts, because they had made an error in measurement.

Fraudulent Edison Public Utilities Commission had a ratepayer-funded incentive program to reward utilities for customer service and employee safety, but Edison’s employees were gaming customer-satisfaction surveys to help the company and managers win bonuses and ratepayer–funded incentives. Edison was charged with Fraudulent Activity and fined $30 million and ordered to refund $81 million to customers.

Nuclear Edison Edison-run San Onofre Nuclear  ....

......... . . .  to read more

​

The ULI & Downtown Specific Plan
By Joseph Unguco

​

I originally sat down to write this as an update on the public workshops on the implementation of the ULI report into the Downtown Specific Plan, but I feel the need to address the methodology of community engagement that the consultant is using to conduct the project. As I moved through the crowd at the first workshop, I noticed a general feeling of uneasiness in the crowd. Some might chalk this up to a belief in the futility of these “exercises”, a belief that public opinion doesn’t matter and that these workshops only serve the purpose of allowing decision makers to say that they asked for public comment, gathered it, and, in the jaded opinion of the participant, will ultimately ignore it and move forward with their original nefarious plans. I’m not of this belief, but then again I’m still the “new kid” in town. As I worked my way through the stations backward to avoid the crowd at station 1, I began to find the proposals somewhat complex and confusing. I should note that participants had the option, throughout the exercise, to qualify their answers with comments on sticky notes as well as to opt out of the question altogether and only provide a written comment. The next day I attended a meeting of the Downtown Specific Plan Advisory Committee. I should note here that I did not attend as a member of the general public or in my own right as a resident or representative of MBRA. I was filling in for a fellow MBRA Board Member who sits on the committee as a member of the Downtown Residents Group. My point is that at this meeting I saw the quantitative data collected the night before and can confirm that the qualitative data remained in the presentation. By the time the consultant presented the results of the workshop to the City Council, that qualitative data had been transcribed verbatim into the report. I say this to allay any fears the participants might have that their comments had been lost along the way. Their voices were indeed heard.
I was not able to attend the second workshop, but I was
present in Council chambers when the consultant presented the data. The report again contained a full transcript of all of the participant comments. A few members of the public spoke on the topic during the Public Comment portion of the agenda, but the actual agenda action .......   . . . . .  to read more

Property Rights…..

by Bob Douglass

 

 Yell “property rights” and you’ve hit a nerve close to the heart.  Whether it is commercial or residential property, owners’ perceptions will differ.  Some will hear it in the context of living in a democracy, while for others it triggers an alarm, warning of rights threatened and entreprenuerial options being “taken away”. 
  To understand these reactions is to recognize two basic classes of property owners.   The first, and by far the largest, consists of homeowners who have settled in, and are committed to Manhattan Beach for the long haul.  They buy their homes, pay taxes, send the kids to local schools, get into Little League or church functions, or whatever.  They are, in a word, residents.  What happens to Manhattan Beach happens to them because this is their Home Town, their community.
  For these people, property rights are rarely an issue.  Those who decide to add the fence or build the barbecue, do run into the bureaucratic process, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, the outcome is satisfactory.  They like being on good terms with their neighbors, so mediation and compromise are frequent in dealing with questions of exercise of “property rights”. This kind of attitude arises from residents’ sense of community and commitment.  For them a reasonable appreciation of their property over the long term is anticipated, not the prize of quick profit that motivates speculators.
  Speculative investment is elemental to the second group: real estate investors.  “Investors” see Manhattan Beach less as neighborhood and more as marketplace.  Protection of “property rights” is more related to protection of profit.  The archetype of this group is the speculative developer, who actually owns property for only as long as it takes to develop and sell it.  Frequently he is syndicated, with partners, even corporate backing.  And while they certainly are entitled to free enterprise, residents must realize that in pursuing their goals (profit), conflict with the goals of residents (preservation of neighborhood atmosphere) is likely, even probable.

 

Call to Action!

by Tess Rikard-Ruiz

 

     Several months ago another Watch Group was formed in Manhattan Beach. The goal of Manhattan Beach Neighbors is to keep up with the status of Paragon Development’s new

project between 6th and 8th Streets on the west side of Sepulveda. Their proposal includes a 27,500 sf Gelson’s Supermarket, mezzanine area of 1,812 sf, two more retail spaces of over 7,000 sf, and a parking area of only 158 spaces. Gelson’s will employ over 50 people at each shift and they have requested parking variances on our neighborhood streets for the overflow (there are 15 spaces currently slotted for employee parking). This number does not include the employees for the remaining retail spaces. The impact to our quiet Hill Section streets and the lovely neighborhood areas east of Sepulveda will be tremendous.

     Another huge concern is the traffic problems this development will create on Sepulveda which is a main artery for commuters. There is no turn lane on Sepulveda for this huge development. The effect will not only create a traffic nightmare, but it will also create a major safety issue. There have been five deaths in five years at the intersection of Sepulveda and 6th Street. We are still waiting for the report from the Manhattan Beach Police Department for 8th and Sepulveda. A member of our group, Mark Shoemaker puts it best, “The more I look at the traffic flow, the more I can't see how existing streets can handle limited entries and exits. Northbound Sepulveda having to turn left at 8th. Southbound Sepulveda turning right at  . . . . . .  to read more

“Sitting Ducks Await the Storm”

 

By Stephanie Robins

 

Residents have good reason to worry. Polliwog Park and the surrounding neighborhoods may well be under siege from floodwater again this winter as the area braces for the heralded “Godzilla” El Nino predicted by climatologists. The Polliwog Storm Water Retention Basin, which serves an area of approximately 750 square acres on the east side of Manhattan
Beach, remains reliant on L.A. County outflow infrastructure constructed in 1950’s and 60’s that has become grossly inadequate to meet today’s needs.

The City has long been aware of this dangerous situation. The 1997 Storm Drain Master Plan Study found the County main line pipes to by only 55-70% of the capacity then required. The County subsequently determined that most cost-effective means of addressing the deficiency would be to build a parallel

relief drain at a projected cost of $20-$22 million (in 1999 dollars) but no corrective action was taken, and the severity of the situation has increased markedly with time.

 

Concerned residents were told the 1995 flood was a 50-100-year rainevent; however, the winter of 2004-2005 brought even worse flooding.  The construction of MBMS in 1998 resulted in the loss of 3-4 acres of critical permeable surface area, and current building trends continue to further deplete the amount of absorbent land. In addition, the MBUSD School Board continues to pursue a construction bond of historic proportions that will include hardscape regional recreational amenities in and around Polliwog that will further strain the neighborhood’s only line of defense against flooding

and the impact of contamination from runoff containing viruses, pesticides and toxic chemicals. Understandably, many people are alarmed by this issue.

According to the results of the Community Budget Priority Survey presented to the City Council this past March, infrastructure ranks subordinate only to public safety as a community concern. Though our current Council appears more responsive than in years past, the consequences of decades of neglect remain to be addressed.

 

Residents should make their concerns know by emailing our council members and speaking out at council meetings. (Public input on all topics is now allowed at the beginning of meetings.) While we will all be thankful for an abundance of rain

this winter, Polliwog’s imperiled neighbors are hoping that it won’t turn out to be too much of a good thing.

 

 

In response to residents who have asked about the status of the Manhattan Village Mall Expansion Project, and the related lawsuits filed some months ago, current word is that the case against the Mall expansion has not yet been set for trial. On July 8th the lawyer and judge will meet to discuss whether they are ready to set a trial date.  If set, it will probably be scheduled for some date later this year or early the following year.

..........................................................................................

After more than 25 years’ MBRA efforts to bring to the attention of the residents that they had been paying an undisclosed waste billing charge they mistakenly believed reflected only the full cost of direct refuse service, staff acknowledged the true charges. Previously and variously known as Administrative Fee, in Lieu Fees and Taxes and/

or Contingency Fee, its new title, City Recovery Cost, would now

be noted in our combined Refuse/Water bill and acknowledged as (additional) refuse costs.

 

 . . . . . . . . . . .  to read more