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

The Planning Commission recently approved plans for the Transit Center that included establishing a two acre preserve on the project site to protect the southern tarplant. The item generated some controversy as the decision limits future development and the costs associated with creating and maintaining the preserve are likely to be substantial.  I wondered why the City would spend so much money to protect a plant that already exists at Madrona Marsh and is not even listed by the state as an endangered species.

In order to gain a better understanding, I met with Danny Santana, Senior Planning Associate, from the City of Torrance. Ted Semaan, Engineering Manager, also made himself available for a few follow-up questions.  Danny spent over an hour with me in person and on the phone. Through that conversation,  I learned a great deal about the complicated challenges the City faces when trying to complete a project of this magnitude.  I had a very positive experience meeting with Danny and Ted and I am grateful to them both for taking the time to meet with me.

Danny conveyed that the creation of the preserve was driven by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and was the result of negotiations with that agency.  CDFW had raised several concerns about the project site and Danny seemed convinced that if the City didn’t at least offer the preserve, in order to mitigate the impact to the tarplant, that they would be required to complete a site specific Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – the completion of which would cost thousands of dollars and delay the project at a minimum of 7 to 9 months.  When approving the matter, it seemed like the Planning Commission was faced with balancing the costs associated with creating the preserve against the costs that would result from delaying the project to complete the EIR. Under those circumstances, approving the preserve made a lot of sense.

Still curious, however, I decided to contact Kelly Schmoker, the designated point of contact for this project from the CDFW.  She informed me that the CDFW’s role in this matter was not to act as the “CEQA police,” and that their involvement was limited to providing comments and recommendations only, not mandates. As such, Torrance was not legally bound to adhere to any of their recommendations.

I do believe City staff acted in good faith with regard to the preserve.  Their job after all is to offer the plan they best feel will keep the project moving in what can be a very challenging regulatory environment.  Given what I learned from CDFW, however, I do wish that the Planning Commission had explored their options a little further as it appears from speaking with CDFW that alternatives that would have been less burdensome to the taxpayer, such as relocating the tarplant to Madrona Marsh, could have been considered without triggering the EIR requirement.

Kelly also indicated that the CDFW was primarily concerned not with the tarplant, but with a 7 acre vernal pool located on the site and the potential it had to be a viable habitat for protected species like the fairy shrimp.  As reflected in the CDFW comment letter, the CDFW made the following recommendations with regard to the vernal pool:

1) Conduct wet season surveys to determine if any special-status fairy shrimp occur on the project site;

2) Conduct a survey to determine the presence of spadefoot toad;

3) Avoid the 7 acre on-site vernal pool habitat or mitigate the loss of the habitat at a ratio of no less than 1.5 acres for every acre of impact;

4) Ensure appropriate buffer is left around vernal pools;

5) Establish a monitoring plan for any vernal pool restoration efforts; and

6) Consult with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as it appears the vernal pools are subject to regulation under Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Torrance considered these recommendations, but ultimately did not adhere to any them as doing so likely would have killed the project entirely.  Environmental planning consultants hired by the City also disagreed with CDFW as to whether impacts to the vernal pool needed to be mitigated.

Even though the current plan was approved by the Planning Commission, the project may not yet be completely out of the woods. The final recommendation by CDFW, as reflected above, was for the City to consult with the RWQCB.  CDFW thought the vernal pool might be subject to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.  Should that be the case, the City would need to seek a permit from RWQCB to continue to develop the site.  I reached out to a representative from the RWQCB provided to me by the CDFW and was told by that person that the RWQCB would be reviewing this matter.

Not good enough.  Those are painful words for any parent or child to hear.  In the case of my son Beckett, they are even more poignant.  That’s because they are words I’ve come accustomed to hearing him say.  You see Beckett is technically not my son.  He came to our family from a broken home on the cusp of his 5^th birthday.  He was born addicted to drugs and by all accounts had spent the vast majority of his first few years watching TV or playing video games.  I won’t go into all the details but suffice to say he was in a sorry state.  At 75 lbs he had already entered childhood obesity.  He was so large that he loudly snored at night.  He couldn’t ride a tricycle, let alone a bike.  He couldn’t even climb the steps to the slide at the park, put on his pants, or wipe his bottom.  Asking him to do slightly more complicated tasks like putting on a shirt or holding a pencil and writing something was like asking him to climb Mt. Everest.

He was neglected for most of his life and his mantra had become, “I’m not good enough.”  Each time my wife and I tried to get him to try new things he would literally cry and those were the words we would hear.  “I can’t.  I’m not good.”

I was hesitant to put him in sports at first as I was worried about putting him in that competitive environment, but we gave Taekwondo a shot.  The first few sessions he literally sat in the back and cried in my arms while his sister practiced.  I’m not good at Taekwondo he would tell me.  Once he gained the courage to try, however, he soon came to love it. After 6 months, he had lost almost 30 pounds and I put him in T-ball despite his objections.  Later, he didn’t want to play soccer, because he was no good he said – but I signed him up anyway.  We got the same story with basketball.  “I can’t, I’m no good”.

Here’s the thing with Beckett, just like Taekwondo he can do it and he ends up enjoying it and doing fine once he gains the courage to try.  He loves soccer and basketball now and in my estimation is quite good. You should see him on the field.  He’s a totally different kid than he was two years ago.  But that’s not why I keep pushing sports on him.  At 7 years old, he has already overcome a drug addiction and obesity.  That’s more than a lot of people can say in a lifetime, but that doesn’t mean he won’t have tough challenges ahead.  I want him to have something like sports as an outlet.  Something that will give him confidence, help him form friendships, and keep him active and away from the TV and video games he so craves.

That’s why I signed him up for little league this year and bought him a brand new bat and a bucket of balls to hit with for Christmas.  We had been focusing more on soccer and basketball and I was looking forward to getting him involved with Little League.

With that backdrop, we headed for TABB tryouts.  Beckett had never tried out for anything before.  He was intimidated and I could see him giving up before he even started.  The ball sailed over his head.  The grounders went right past him and he barely even swung at the few pitches thrown his way.  It didn’t help that he was also pretty sick.  He had missed school the day before with a fever and ended up not playing in a basketball game he had later that day when the fever came back that afternoon.  I wouldn’t have taken him to the tryouts at all, but TABB seemed pretty serious about not missing it.   I knew he could do better than he did as I’ve pitched to him many times, but I was proud of him for getting out there even when he wasn’t feeling good.  What’s the big deal I thought?  It’s just a try-out for 1^st grade Little League.  Who really cares how well he does?

Well it turned out to be a much bigger deal than I thought and some people did care, a lot.  I thought the try-out was just for the coaches to get a sense for his skill level so they could draft accordingly.  Little did I know they were also determining whether he was even good enough for the league.  A few days later I got a call from TABB telling me Beckett couldn’t play with the other 7 year olds and that if he was going to play TABB he had to play with 5 year-olds in the younger non-competitive league.  Astounded, I plead Beckett’s case to the league President and explained to him that a decision like this would only reinforce the idea I’ve been trying to shake in Beckett’s mind that he is no good.  It’s not so much I worry that he will think he is “no good” at baseball, I’m much more concerned about him thinking that he is “no good” as a person.  Sports were meant to help him change that viewpoint about himself, not reinforce it.  I thought for sure once I explained the situation to the TABB president that they would understand and allow Beckett to play with his friends and peers that he plays soccer and basketball with.  Unbelievably, I was wrong.

I received the final ruling from the TABB league President yesterday.  According to TABB, Beckett is not good enough to play 1st grade Little League.  He was not even given a chance to be re-evaluated.  They threw him a few grounders, tossed him a few pitches and labeled him “not good enough.”  So it goes in TABB.  I’ve been involved with youth sports nearly all my life and up until now I’ve never heard of a league doing something like that to a 1st grader.

They phrased it to me as a safety issue even though I told them I would be more than willing to have Beckett play outfield the entire season if safety was really the concern.  This decision was made despite language in the TABB Rules of Operation indicating that a parent must agree to a decision to move a player down to a lower league.

As a parent, what am I to make of this?  How do you explain to a kid like Beckett that he’s not allowed to play in the same division as his friends from school and from his soccer and basketball teams?  I am heartbroken for him.  I can only presume that TABB is more about the coaches and parents forming playoff contending teams than it is about the kids.  Even at the 1st grade level, it appears it’s more about winning than having fun and learning a sport.  If that is the case, then I find that very sad.

Beckett wasn’t born to me, but he has become my son.  He’s a great kid and my best bud.  That last thing I want for him is for someone to tell him he’s not good enough.  That said, I didn’t write this so people can feel sorry for him or us.  My hope is that if you believe what TABB did is wrong, as I do, then you will write to the TABB Board found here and tell them so.  Maybe if enough people say something, then a future kid like Beckett won’t be labeled “not good enough” by TABB before he even gets a chance.

New records released by the City Clerk’s office reveal that McCormick was non-compliant to the City’s emergency services contract in the first week of performance.  McCormick was the only evaluated bidder that committed to meeting Torrance’s requirement of an 8 minute response 92% of the time.  City staff cited that commitment by McCormick as a key differentiating factor in scoring McCormick higher than the other evaluated bidders.  If the first week of performance was any indication, however, it appears that McCormick will have a real challenge living up to this commitment.

The data provided by the City included 116 “911” emergency calls received between 03 and 07 December 2014 just after McCormick initiated performance.  Of those 116 calls, McCormick had a response time of above the 8 minute requirement on 16 of them for an on-time response rate of 86.2%.

In 14 of the calls it appears the transport was canceled after dispatch (presumably in transit).  If the call was canceled prior to arrival and before the 8 minute requirement had expired, then I counted it as on time (11 of the 14).  I counted it as late if the call was canceled after 8 minutes and McCormick still had not arrived (3 of the 14).  Even if you factored all these calls as on-time, leaving McCormick with only 13 misses, the on-time response percentage would only bump up to 88.7% – still well below the 92% requirement.

A key factor not known is whether McCormick responded to these calls Code 3 (lights and sirens) or Code 2 (no lights and sirens) as is customary in Torrance. 

The data set also includes 7 calls in which McCormick responded in 7 seconds or less (4 of these showed a response time of 0 seconds).  This is a likely due to a lag time of anywhere from 40 to 90 seconds between when the City received the emergency call and when it was formally dispatched to the ambulance provider. TFD acknowledged that when they scored Gerber (the previous transport provider), they counted from the time the City received the call. Gerber counted from the actual dispatch time resulting in Gerber scoring themselves higher than TFD did.

It appears from the data that McCormick is being scored against the more lenient dispatch time standard.  This essentially would give them an additional 40 to 90 seconds over what Gerber had.  As an indication of how significant the difference can be, McCormick might have an additional 16 late responses if they were scored against the higher standard – which would cause their on-time response percentage to plummet down to 72.4%.

As a reference point, Torrance Fire Department (TFD) claimed that Gerber ambulance was in breach of their contract for failing to meet the response time requirement.  In the notice of default letter submitted against Gerber, TFD cited Gerber’s average response time of 88.9% over nearly a two year period as cause for their default.

Given the numbers provided, it would appear McCormick is also now in default of their contract leaving the City in an awkward position.  Many councilmembers cited Gerber’s non-compliance with the contract as justification for making the award to McCormick.  What should they do now that McCormick also appears to be in breach?

When the contract was awarded to McCormick, many questioned the process and the apparent conflicts of interest that led to the decision.  McCormick’s initial performance now raises the question of whether Torrance residents should also be concerned that they are actually less safe with McCormick providing emergency transport services than they were with Gerber.