Showing posts with label Infrastructure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Infrastructure. Show all posts

September 25, 2023

Safety issues for new PCH developments in Long beach CA - focus on disaster preparedness plan

Editor: Eastside Voice asked us to post this email 

From: Eastside Voice
To: district3@longbeach.gov <district3@longbeach.gov>
Cc: Councilmember Mary Zendejas <district1@longbeach.gov>; Councilmember Cindy Allen <district2@longbeach.gov>; Councilman Daryl Supernaw <district4@longbeach.gov>; district5@longbeach.gov <district5@longbeach.gov>; district6@longbeach.gov <district6@longbeach.gov>; district7@longbeach.gov <district7@longbeach.gov>; district8@longbeach.gov <district8@longbeach.gov>; district9@longbeach.gov <district9@longbeach.gov>; mayor@longbeach.gov <mayor@longbeach.gov>; cityclerk@longbeach.gov <cityclerk@longbeach.gov>; citymanager@longbeach.gov <citymanager@longbeach.gov>; Reggie Harrison <reginald.harrison@longbeach.gov>; DENNIS.BUCHANAN@LONGBEACH.GOV <dennis.buchanan@longbeach.gov>; Jeff.Hardin@longbeach.gov <jeff.hardin@longbeach.gov>; Robbie.Grego@longbeach.gov <robbie.grego@longbeach.gov>; Don.Anderson@longbeach.gov <don.anderson@longbeach.gov>; Maura.Ventura@longbeach.gov <maura.ventura@longbeach.gov>; Wally.Hebeish@longbeach.gov <wally.hebeish@longbeach.gov>; Michael.Richens@longbeach.gov <michael.richens@longbeach.gov>; Shaleana.Benson@longbeach.gov <shaleana.benson@longbeach.gov>; Ty.Burford@longbeach.gov <ty.burford@longbeach.gov>; Ruby.Marin-Jordan@longbeach.gov <ruby.marin-jordan@longbeach.gov>; planningcommissioners@longbeach.gov <planningcommissioners@longbeach.gov>
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 04:34:34 PM PDT
Subject: Safety issues for new PCH developments - focus on disaster preparedness plan
 

Councilmember Duggan,
I attended last week's council meeting to speak on the 6615/6695 PCH development plans (agenda item 17. 23-1076). As there were 12 people on the public speaker list, speaking time was shortened to 90 seconds and I was not able to provide my planned testimony on this very important item. I had made the trip to Council to speak on this item as I have grave concerns for safety in this area in the event of an earthquake or other disaster.
Safety and entrance/egress in that area in the event of an earthquake or other disaster deserves serious consideration and planning. Can the firetrucks and ambulances get in? Can the residents get out? How do residents connect with city instructions? I talked to the Director of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications Reggie Harrison a few weeks ago and didn't find the conversation encouraging.
An EIR would surface the issues. Your comments in the discussion on the appeals were that due diligence had been done when SEASP was going through approvals and the single EIR for the entire SEASP area sufficed. SEASP was approved in 2017. The risks below are approved and pending plans after that EIR was done. These risks were not taken into account in the SEASP EIR.


RISKS INCLUDE
 Over 1000 additional housing units planned on PCH close to 2nd street which would increase traffic at the worst rated intersection in Long Beach - 2nd and PCH. - and turn into gridlock in a disaster. (Appeals to the Planning Commission approval for 6615 and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway were on this agenda but 2 other large developments are also going through approvals). Building heights and density exceed the SEASP plan.


 Plans for Beach Oil Minerals (BOM) to install 120 drilled wells (70 oil wells and 50 water wells) were approved as part of the WETLANDS LANDSWAP. The plan is to drill the wells and run a large pipe on top of the wetlands.carrying millions of gallons of oil. What happens if an earthquake causes the pipe to crack? Might an oil spill and fire ensue?


 The wetlands sit directly on top of the Newport Inglewood fault and surrounded by additional recently discovered fault lines (see attachment for map and link). It isn't a question of "if" an earthquake event will happen - only "when" it will happen and how serious the damage and human cost.
 The world's largest Lithium Battery storage facility was approved by Council to be constructed in the area. (editor: this is where the lithium ion batter facility is now operating) The danger is considerable - with comparisons that it can be equivalent to 2000 lbs of TNT and accidents have occurred at other facilities. "In the short time large battery storage technology has been developed and deployed, a number of disturbing safety concerns have arisen, including fires, explosions and release of toxic gases. There have been over 40 recent accidents associated with lithium-ion battery facilities in the U.S. alone." (see link in references below)
 2 large powerplants are also nearby.


GRIDLOCK AT PCH & 2ND STREET
 The only way for Belmont Shore/Naples and other residents in the vicinity to travel south to Orange County, East to the 405 and 605 Freeways is via 2nd Street and PCH. That intersection is has delays on any normal day, let alone in the situation of an emergency or disaster.
It took me an hour to get from the Yacht Club Parking lot to 2nd street (about 3 blocks) on July 3rd after the fireworks show. What would happen in an emergency if people were fleeing the area? Reggie Harrison indicated the citizens are not encouraged to leave by car in an emergency situation. Do the citizens know that? He also said Naples has a neighborhood association that has plans for people to leave by boat. Does that include everyone? In an explosion or fire, would everyone else in the vicinity hop on a bicycle? Do they know they need a bicycle? Should they invest in life vests and jump in the water as the survivors did in Maui?
I was in Hawaii (Oahu) recently when Maui/Lahaina burned. It was a sobering experience. It made me think of PCH and 2nd street that is at a vortex of the risks listed above. With plans to bring in over 1000 more housing units in the area, the disaster preparedness plan is crucial and important that the residents are aware of the plan.and what they should do in an emergency.
Note that the law does not require approval of density bonus applications if there is a safety issue. While the development at 6615/6695 PCH has 390 dwelling units, only 17 of those units are for very low income housing. The minor amount of additional affordable housing does not justify the risk of adding an additional floor. [[Also note that while there are members of the public that believe these housing developments help the homeless, they do not.]]
Take heed of what happened in Maui and ensure the safety of Long Beach residents by making solid plans with communication that requires everyone in the vicinity and first responders are trained and know what to do.


Where human safety is concerned, it might be best to err on the side of caution and not be so eager to satisfy a developer's taste for profit. The Council has justification to dial back these developments to at least the limitations of SEASP. 

Respectfully,
Corliss Lee
Eastside Voice

REF: Agenda item 23-1076 Sept 19 2023

New earthquake faults
 
Lithium Battery Storage article

Long Beach Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Long Beach, CA | A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ | click here to receive LAAG posts by email

September 6, 2020

Why the budget and the budget process is broken in Long Beach California

As there is yet another budget hearing coming up in Long Beach on September 8 2020 we thought we would use our blog post as our comments. Get them into cityclerk@longbeach.gov before noon 9/7/20. Heaven knows these "Citywide Community budget meetings" were a waste of everyone's time.(which we also had to pay city staffers for as we are taxpayers)

 

Long Beach is currently in a budget crisis brought about mainly because of the covid-19 crisis.  Of course it's a double whammy situation where the city spent more money than it had on emergency type services and as a result overpaid for these services (which were under delivered or did not provide much value) For example there were tons of private Labs that were being paid a very costly premium for test results that were being delivered seven and eight days after the test. Anyone that knows anything about testing said that's completely worthless. Any test result delivered after 48 hours should never have been paid for but of course government never demands that kind of accountability from private contractors.


On top of that because of the economic crisis and less sales tax is being generated we have a double whammy.  So now it appears the most local entities are waiting for the state to get a windfall of money from the federal government who of course can print money regardless of its deficit.  State and local governments can't print money but they use other budget shenanigans and tricks to make it look like the budget gets “balanced” every year.


Unlike Lakewood which is mostly a contract City Long Beach tries to provide most services through employees that are employed by the city. This is horrendously cost inefficient because these costs are fixed. Once these people are hired they are basically never fired and you have to pay for their pensions, healthcare vacation and other costs basically as long as they're alive and they are usually very costly employees. The more costly employees are the ones that work in the office and shuffle paper and get very little done in terms of infrastructure and repairs.


In addition there are a number of things that Long Beach claims it has to purchase and it does a very bad job in negotiating good prices. Here are two examples. City spends $372,327 on TWO Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD trucks (2020 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD start at $34,600) AND $539,331 on TWO CNG-fueled 2021 Freightliner M2112 pothole patch trucks, (LB apparently patches so many streets that we need two new trucks?) Who negotiated these prices for these trucks and why are we buying something NEW that's so expensive right now during a budget crisis? Do we have to have these trucks right now? Are we selling off the used trucks are we trading them in what are we getting for them? These questions are never asked and never presented in the budget or any publicly disseminated documents. As for the pothole trucks no needs were spelled out. Zero. You want them Public Works Dept you got them! No questions asked.


Then you look at outside contracting for services and you have a similar problem. Really no transparency at all in terms of how many hours of time you're getting the hourly rate or bonuses being paid, overhead being paid how many hours of services are you being provided with, what specific tasks are going to be completed etc. Here is a recent example:” a fourth amendment to Contract No. 34265 with West Coast Arborists, Inc., of Anaheim, CA, for as-needed tree trimming services, to extend the term through March 31, 2021, and increase the amount by $3,400,000, for a revised total amount not to exceed $11,340,000. (Citywide)”

 

So taxpayers are paying almost 11.5 million dollars for tree trimming but there's really not much of an indication as to what exactly were going to get for that. Even if you assume that these people are being paid $15 an hour and you do the math that gives us about 59 hours a day of tree trimming assuming 2080 hours per year working time at 8 hours per day 5 days a week. But again this says “as needed” (determined by who?). So that might mean that no trees are being trimmed or half the amount. Again clear as mud.


Contract costs are too high because I assume the city relies on “low bid”. The city should be setting the maximum contract prices with bonuses for early completion. The city should be setting a (realistic low ball) maximum amount for these contracts before the bids ever come in. We also have to assume that there are multiple bids coming in on these projects and I doubt that seriously.  My suspicion is certain favorite companies that contribute to campaigns are invited to submit a bid with a wink knowing that these bids are going to get selected because they're the only bid that's being made.  Again the city should set a maximum price for an amount of service and then provide some sort of incentives for early completion or other types of Contract objectives that can be objectively verified.


With respect to labor provided by city employees of course the picture is much more grim. There really is no way to significantly reduce the costs of employee labor.  This is why City employees should be rarely hired and outside contractors should be used because it's much easier to control costs over time when you have a budget problem. 


The Police Department and the fire department are classic examples of the two costliest groups of city employees. Lawsuit settlements due to police shootings and arrests are not helpful either. These depts are heavily unionized and the unions control all labor activity and contract negotiations.


We were recently told that the city is budgeting $200,000 per police officer. (That does not include the cost of special units K-9 units, bomb units, helicopters all sorts of special Patrol units, management, office staff, vehicle costs etc) Of course the best way to do the math is to take the total police budget of about 264 million and divided by the number of sworn officers which is about 792 which gives you about $333,000 per year per officer. Now to make matters worse because of the BLM protests and other Union Shenanigans we are now in a situation where every car has to have two officers so we've cut the number of cars in half and so we're spending anywhere between $400,000 to $650,000 a year for each police vehicle you see driving around on patrol.  What's even better with police and fire is they tend to start work at age 25 to 26 or later and then they retire at 50 and their retirement income is at least the highest amount they've ever been paid in their lives. That continues on until they die and also includes Healthcare and a bunch of other cost-of-living perks so you can see how this adds up when you're paying for hundreds and hundreds of officers that don't even work for you anymore. And you're paying for them at a much higher rate than you are for officers currently patrolling the streets. Eventually this house of cards is going to collapse.


There are no efficiency studies being done by people that don't curry favor with the unions or with the city. All the efficiency studies are done by the departments themselves or by those individuals that pass muster with the union. Apparently because the fire department is so popular in Long Beach in terms of public polling they basically came back and said we're not cutting our budget at all for 2021…. so take that City Council. The fire department and the police department are probably the least cost-efficient agencies in the city and use up the most tax money. For example the whole privatization of ambulance services in Long Beach has never been realistically looked at. The reason of course is if you do that you will lose union jobs and give jobs to private companies which cost less. With respect to the the police department they're finally starting to get smart and realizing that they have to have more civilian staff to do a lot of the functions within the department that don't require sworn police officers. (de-fund protests no doubt helping that argument) This is just an example of the stupidity and union nonsense involved when trying to get even simple things done like the administrative enforcement Lakewood did with respect to fireworks.


Another budget-busting problem we have is that a relatively small percentage of the payroll of city employees is too low for those that actually hold shovels versus those that shuffle paper and the paper shufflers in the people in the office tend to cost even more money that other low level worker bee employees This is likely the reason why it takes so long for potholes to get filled and sidewalks to get fixed; there's not enough people actually doing the work.


Another problem with the budget is that the airport revenue/fines and the oil revenue, and the port that money is not being allocated wisely. It's typically trapped in a way that keeps it within the particular Department that it comes from. Fix that.


An ongoing problem with infrastructure ( potholes streets sidewalks bike paths trees parks and other sorts of things) is these were all created many years ago when labor was cheap but there were never any budgets created to support the maintenance of these items and the bills are coming due on almost all of these things especially sewers electricity and water supply. The new money is all allocated for all new projects which get federal and state funding but none of that money is ever allocated or can be allocated towards the maintenance of these projects for 20 or 30 years in the future. Bad idea as it leads to where we are now.


The city spends its time chasing objectives of Sacramento. Not enough of our budget is spent on core infrastructure needs. Too much of it is spent on socialism and other pet projects of administrations. The city received budget funding to create “open streets” for covid yet when it did neighborhood surveys no one wanted the streets to be blocked off from vehicles so the children can play in the streets only to be run over by local delivery trucks. But that money comes with strings attached and you have to spend it on things voters dont want. Much of our budget is being allocated to social projects and not for infrastructure and this loss of focus is responsible for the problem with the infrastructure.


The budget process has very little transparency and taxpayers are never given a seat at the table when Union contracts and other issues are negotiated. There are very few people that could take a look at the current 146 page page proposed budget document and make heads or tails of any of these issues raised above and most don't even care to do it. Most rely of course on their city council member to fight for their objectives. And we see how well that has worked out. 


The budget itself is very obscure and does not provide taxpayers with a clear picture of cost increases cost allocations what goes for health care what goes for pensions what goes for office workers what goes for actual people that perform labor for the city. 


Finally we need to stop penalizing departments for not spending all their budget. They need to be rewarded for not spending all their budget on frivolous matters such as new vehicles. Unfortunately many of these things are going to take many years to change.  California as a whole is running out of money and that includes all of their cities. Cities are still allowed to file bankruptcy (states are not) and a number of cities in California have filed bankruptcy including Stockton. In that case the bankruptcy actually helped Stockton to “de-fund” (reduce funding to) their police department and rethink how they look at public safety. "House Democrats included nearly $1 trillion in state and local aid in the relief bill they passed in May, but the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has said he doesn’t want to hand out a “blank check” to pay for what he considers fiscal mismanagement, including the enormous public-pension obligations some states have accrued. There has been little movement in that stalemate lately."


The reason we have a budget problem is the city is using "other people's money" (yours and mine) and they dont give a damn. Their “solution” to all problems is to shovel more money into the trough (Like Measure A...how is that vote tally suit going? ). At the end of the day it's not really their problem they're going to continue to get paid for going to work, continue to get their nearly free health care, and they're going to continue to get their ludicrously costly pensions. Meanwhile city services and infrastructure spending will just crawl to a complete standstill and our city will decay even further. Until people show up at City Hall with “pitchforks and torches” this is not going to change. The only thing that will really make any difference is to elect a majority of the city council to come in from outside city government not feeding from the trough (real outsiders).  They will have to take a hard look from the outside as to how the budget is going to have to work going forward into these very lean years which we are going to be facing for the next 5 to 10 years most likely ( assuming continued fires, floods, climate change, power outages, disasters, earthquakes, pandemics Etc) California is almost in a constant state of emergency now. Long Beach is in the same situation. It's on life support.

 

Long Beach Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Long Beach, CA | A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ | click here to receive LAAG posts by email

August 13, 2020

Third fire (that we know of) at the Eldorado park nature center August 12 2020

So here we are once again reporting on a fire at the El Dorado nature center on August 12, 2020 (approx 445pm). Pictures here. LB fire tweet here. The fire was in this approx location. When we spoke to the LB Park Ranger on scene blocking the southbound bike path at Spring St. we asked if this fire was due to homeless activity in the nature Center and he said "most likely". The two prior fires were April 3 2019 and June 19 1019 that WE KNOW of and there have most likely been others that were never picked up by the media (like this one). Long Beach city staff and Long beach city council (Mungo and Supernaw; the nature center in Supernaw's district; north of spring St Eldlorado park is in Mungo's dist.) are well aware of the problem (we raised the fencing problem and potential fires in the nature center as far back as Dec 2017 with Mungo and Supernaw as well as city Manager) and we were led to believe that Supernaw's office was going to develop some secret plan with LB Fire dept to fix the issue in the nature center.

The nature center (the restricted area here) is a very problematic area for fires. It is filled with brush and hundreds of very dry trees. It is very hard to access (being a no trespassing area) and in previous larger fires water dropping helicopters had to assist. There are also no hydrants in the area and fences usually have to be cut by the FD to access the area (as was done yesterday) these of course are left unpaired for months on end. So all we need for an out of control fire is lots of dry conditions (8 mo out of the year) and wind. That could cause the entire nature center to go up in smoke. Highly feasible if conditions are right and FD response is delayed to to slow reporting (likely).

So other than complete inaction (ineffectual action) by the city council what are the causes and solutions?

The homeless problem (the criminal element parts of it at least) on SG River and in the area of the nature center is well known. We suspect the LB park rangers and LBPD have been told to leave them alone (based on discussions we have had on this topic with officers). Part of the reason we feel the city takes a "hands off approach" is that not a lot of people (voters) can see the problem on the river and in the nature center as its very well hidden from everyone's view except for the few people who live very close, or walk, run or bike ride on the river path. So the city leaders would just as soon leave the homeless there than chase them over to in a visible are on the street that more voters will see (and demand be fixed).

The city (and county) use the Boise case (Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F. 3d 1031 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2018) to try to excuse their politically correct stance on the homeless criminal element that are living in NO TRESPASSING areas. The Boise case says nothing about removing people from and keeping people out of no trespassing areas. It simply holds as follows:

"Our holding is a narrow one. Like the Jones panel, "we in no way dictate to the City that it must provide sufficient shelter for the homeless, or allow anyone who wishes to sit, lie, or sleep on the streets... at any time and at any place." Id. at 1138. We hold only that "so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in [a jurisdiction] than the number of available beds [in shelters]," the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless individuals for "involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public." Id. That is, as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter."

The city and county will have to commit to keeping all the fencing repaired in that area. They know areas with cut fencing is a sign that homeless are in a no trespassing area but they then refuse to remove them and until removed the fence will keep getting cut. The city and county need to commit to a homeless trespassing removal program and a fencing check/repair program. They likely wont do it. Its not a budget issue its simply an issue of unwillingness to actively solving the problem. Could also be a problem with public unions not wanting to do the work (can never rule out public union pressure when extra work required; public unions are big campaign contributors as well). The other excuse now being thrown around is "covid 19" ..."we cant interact with homeless due to Covid..." (covid is now the generalized excuse for everything in government) Of course Covid did not stop them in interacting with BLM protesters or even in interacting with taxpayers in general.

The other problem as we have discussed before is that when the city or county encounters homeless people in no trespassing areas even if they have beds available (under Boise) they will not force the people to take them and they wont remove them from the no trespassing areas (like the nature center which excludes even taxpayers). This is even true in instances were they know the homeless person is a threat to others (this has been documented) This is an example of how government entities (via their employees) give uneducated voters false interpretations of case law and statutes to excuse inaction (very common with police). Lakewood on the other hand does remove trespassing homeless from the west side of the Carson St. overpass over the SG river. Its amazing to see the difference in approaches to the problem. Same laws. Different interpretations.

So until voter pressure forces the city council to do its job the fires will continue. Lets hope the city wises up before the entire nature center is lost to a fire. It will take years to recover from that as nothing will be done to fix it once it burns down.

As an addendum to this story above this is an interesting note on the Azusa ranch fire This was initially reported to us by one of our loyal readers after hearing it on KFI radio... "It was reported about 2:45 p.m. near North San Gabriel Canyon Road and North Ranch Road, according to the Azusa Police Department and the Los Angeles County Fire Department, which called in a second-alarm response. At least two residents said the fire began after a fight between two people at a homeless encampment in the river bed area.

"They were arguing over a bike," said resident Jimmy Pockets. "Things got escalated to where the fire started. It took off so quick."...Fire officials have not determined a cause..." Given where the fire started this seems highly plausible.

Update: A witness who lives in a riverbed near Mountain Cove told NBC4 an argument between two homeless men sparked the fire."There were two gentlemen in the back (of a homeless encampment) fighting and they were arguing over a bike and one guy said he'd burn the other guy out, and things got escalated to where the fire started," evacuee Jimmy Pockets told the station. "Ran over to try to put it out but it just took off so quick."

Long Beach Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Long Beach, CA | A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ | click here to receive LAAG posts by email

August 25, 2009

Community Workshop to discuss proposed improvements to the San Gabriel River Bikeway

Today we received a press release (below) from the city of Seal Beach regarding the section of the San Gabriel River bike path that is situated in their city and Orange County. We have complained about the deterioration of the path for years (since June 2006 to be exact). The County of LA claimed they could do nothing as the path was Seal Beach's responsibility by an agreement created in the early 1970's when the path was first built. We argued that that should never have been the case. We argued for OC transportation funds to be used. We argued for federal "Stimulus funds" to be used. All to no avail. Finally it appears that the money that was originally "promised" by the State on Sept. 2008 (then "withdrawn" on Dec. 2008) is now starting to ooze thru the mess that we all know is ongoing in Sacramento (don't get us started on that). Well don't hold your breath for the funds to ever make it into "real" improvements you can ride on. They may all get eaten up by consultants and other types of "pre-groundbreaking activities". But at least this is a good start.

So for those of you that use this section of the San Gabriel River Bikeway (405 south to the ocean) we hope to see you at the meeting on Sept. 10. It is important that bike riders that use the trail show up and provide input (and support) as we are actually the ones that know the problems and how to fix them. Its your trail and your tax dollars. So please pass this along.

Press Release text:

“The City of Seal Beach will be holding a Community Workshop to discuss proposed improvements to the San Gabriel River Bikeway and River's End Staging Area. This project will include repaving the bike trail from the First Street parking lot to I-405, improvements to the First Street parking lot, and remodeling the existing First Street restroom. The workshop will include a presentation of the draft plan for the area followed by an opportunity to ask questions and provide your feedback.

The project is being funded through a grant from the State of California, Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. Funding restrictions through the State had caused the City to place this project on hold recently. However, with portions of funding back in place, the City is pleased to bring this project back online and would like to gather input and feedback from the community and those who utilize the San Gabriel River Bike Trail.

The workshop will be held at the City of Seal Beach Council Chambers on Thursday, September 10, 2009 at 6:30 pm.

For further information regarding this project, please contact David Spitz, Associate Engineer at (562) 431-2527 ext. 1331.”

David Spitz, P.E.
Associate Civil Engineer
City of Seal Beach
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
p - (562) 431-2527 ext 1331
f - (562) 430-8763
dspitz@ci.seal-beach.ca.us


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email