Torrance City Council – A Town Hall Style Conversation About Local Politics

Last Tuesday the Council awarded another $65K annual contract to Kim Fuentes. Fuentes is the #2 ranking staff member and Deputy Executive Director at the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG). The contract is for Commuter Transportation (Rideshare) consultant services for July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. According to City staff, approximately 500 City employees participate in the Rideshare Program by commuting to work either by van pool, car pool, public transit, bike, walking, or through use of a low emission vehicle.

At the meeting, Deputy Community Development Director Linda Cessna acknowledged that City staff manages the day-to-day operations of the Rideshare Program and that Fuentes provides the City with the needed technical expertise to keep the Rideshare Program in compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) regulations.

The staff report noted that, “AQMD Rule 2202 remains in effect in the South Coast basin; thus the City of Torrance is required to comply.”

Interestingly, however, the AQMD itself recently released a communication dated 01 May 2015 with regard to the same Rule 2202. In contrast to the City’s position, that document clearly states in the preface that, “Implementation of an Employee Commute Reduction Program (ECRP) [or Rideshare Program] is strictly optional under Rule 2202.”

Prior to awarding the contract, Councilman Goodrich lauded what the Program had accomplished in the past and asked staff to share what the goals were for the coming year. In response to that, Fuentes claimed that “one of the pieces that was missing in the Rideshare world was the ability to get better commute information for all kinds of trips.”  To address that, she said she is looking into a website that could give commuters information such as how long it would take to walk to certain places, or where bicycle racks were located.

Fuentes did not mention, however, that many similar websites or applications already exist. One of those, for example, called RideScout can be downloaded for free and claims to provide walking, biking, and driving directions that will sort results by type, costs, departure and arrival times, and calories burned.

In addition to the $65K consulting contract to Fuentes, the Council also approved an $80K contract to a company called Just Rewards to administer a City employee gift card incentive program for those employees that participate in ridesharing. The staff report for that item noted that:

“This service is necessary as utilizing Just Rewards will reduce the City staff time as the company procures, coordinates, and distributes the rideshare incentives. If the City staff were required to take on these tasks it would cause the program to be too labor intensive to manage.”

The incentive program is certainly a reward for the 500 city employees that participate in ridesharing, but one might question whether the $65K consulting contract combined with the $80K incentive program is a “Just Reward” for the taxpayer.

Despite significant public opposition, the City Council approved implementation of the Optimized Street Sweeping Program in May 2014. The unpopular program continues to draw the ire of many residents as communities deal with the increased parking tickets and signage resulting from the program as well as continued suspicions the program is more about generating revenue for City coffers than it is about protecting the environment.

One concerned resident and community advocate has provided the City Council with an alternative program billed as a novel approach that would provide a more effective and lower-cost alternative to the current program. The details of this alternative plan are provided at the link below and reflect a well-educated commentary on the current Optimized Street Sweeping Program.

Optimized Street Sweeping Program Alternative Approach

A city ordinance that makes it unlawful to operate a business where tattooing is practiced is again being challenged in federal court. If the challenge is successful, it will open the door for tattoo establishments to begin operating within Torrance.

Plaintiff Tiffany Garcia recently filed a lawsuit with the Central District of California alleging that the Torrance prohibition against tattoo businesses violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution as well as Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution.

In the lawsuit, Garcia claims that in early 2015 she located a desirable site for a tattoo studio on Hawthorne Blvd. in Torrance. When she went to secure the appropriate permits from the City she was informed by the Planning Department that tattoo businesses are flatly prohibited anywhere within City limits and that the ban was recently considered and left unmodified.

Garcia is seeking that the Torrance ordinance be declared unconstitutional and the City be immediately enjoined from enforcing the ban. Garcia is also seeking damages for the loss of her rights and for being deprived of the opportunity to operate the business. The suit also seeks attorney fees and costs of suit.

The lawsuit relies on 2010 ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down a similar ban in neighboring Hermosa Beach. In that Anderson v. Hermosa Beach case, the Court held that “the tattoo itself, the process of tattooing, and the business of tattooing are forms of pure expression fully protected by the First Amendment,” and that “the City’s total ban on tattoo parlors in Hermosa Beach is not a reasonable “time, place, or manner” restriction because it is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the City’s significant health and safety interests and because it entirely forecloses a unique and important method of expression.”

The issue created a stir among many residents in Hermosa Beach at the time of the court ruling and is likely to spur similar sentiments in Torrance.  According to the Daily Breeze, the same plaintiff in the Hermosa Beach case was paid $50,000 to settle a similar case he brought against Torrance prior to initiating legal action against Hermosa Beach.