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

While I was walking neighborhoods campaigning prior to the June election I happened to knock on the door of longtime Torrance resident Shirley McNair.  She graciously let me into her home and I was immediately struck by her regal beauty.  She walked me into her living room and asked that I look out her expansive living room window.  From there, I was able to see a magnificent view of the ocean.  I quickly noticed, however, that the view was somewhat obstructed by a clump of Eucalyptus Trees.

Shirley explained to me that the 40 foot trees were City owned and that the City would not pay for workers to come and trim the branches to help restore her view.  She also related to me how numerous would be or actual Torrance politicians had stood in the exact spot in her home where I stood and that all had committed to passing a Tree Ordinance in the Hillside Overlay area but that none had delivered.

Perhaps in the hope that would change, Shirley was one of about 30 residents to appear before the City Council at Tuesday’s meeting.  She related to the Council much the same story I had heard in her living room that afternoon.  She also warned the Council that “without rules you have chaos” and urged the Council to finally pass the Tree ordinance that her and many other residents had been wanting for the past 40 years.  In a symbolic gesture of the support such a measure would have many in the crowd resoundingly applauded at the conclusion of her remarks.

There are valid reasons why politicians have failed to act all these years.  Tree issues can be surprisingly complex and as Councilmember Weideman lamented, “the devil is often in the details.”  They often pit one homeowner’s desire for privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their home versus another’s desire to maintain an ocean view that one resident with a background in real estate noted could be worth as much as $250,000 dollars.

Unfortunately, some motivations behind such disputes are much more nefarious.  Judy Brunetti, the current Hollywood Riviera HOA Co-President, stated that residents denied 2^nd story home renovations due to view obstruction complaints will sometimes retaliate by planting “spite” trees.  With no legal recourse to protect those impacted by such actions, some have resorted to poisoning the view obstructing trees.  She offered that residents were looking to City government for help in avoiding such confrontations and suggested they use the Rolling Hills Estates ordinance as an example as that ordinance is cost neutral and has seemed to work quite well for that community

Judy English, another Riviera HOA Board member, emphasized fairness and compromise and described her situation as the poster child for why an ordinance is necessary. She stated that her neighbor recently surrounded their property with 220 Leyland Cyprus trees specifically selected for their rapid growth with heights reaching up to 90 to 100 feet.  She believes this was done to enable a 2^nd story expansion on the property once the trees are full grown.

Another resident, Jim Delurgio, commented that he and his neighbors had been victims of the tree vandalism mentioned by Brunetti and that he has the video evidence to prove it.  He claimed that he previously brought that evidence to the City and that they did nothing to prosecute the perpetrators.  He tried to avail himself of the City sponsored mediation process to resolve the dispute but the other party simply refused to participate in the process.  For that reason, he felt that solely establishing an alternative dispute resolution process to resolve disputes about trees among neighbors would be ineffective.

The rest of the residents that spoke at the meeting echoed many of the thoughts expressed above.  Of those 30 residents, none spoke in opposition to the Tree Ordinance.  During the past election, I don’t recall any of the City Council candidates being opposed to such a measure.  Of course, there are some that would disagree, but it does appear that the overwhelming consensus of the community is that some action needs to be taken.  I believe Councilmember Weideman captured the feeling of the community precisely when he stated “It’s about time!”

Given then what appears to be overwhelming support for this initiative I am pleased the Council is acting and moving the ball forward, but if I had a wish it would be that City Government were able to respond more quickly.  Mayor Furey indicated at the meeting that with some residents waiting as long as 40 years that another several months would not be too much longer to stomach.  I tend to think the opposite.  Isn’t 40 years long enough?  Why delay this any longer?  Despite all the fanfare, the only real action taken by the Council was to direct staff to hold some community meetings with HOA’s and explore the possibility of a phone survey with the anticipation that the matter would return to Council sometime in April 2015.  Is any of that outreach really necessary on this particular issue?  Councilmember Ashcraft even voiced opposition to the proposed $30K phone survey questioning whether such an expense would be worth it.

I worry that sometimes when the Council truly doesn’t want to pass something they default to community outreach as a means to delay the proposition.  Case in point is the chickens and bees ordinance many were advocating for months ago.  The City’s position on that issue was that more community outreach needed to be done.  Now, nearly a year later nothing has happened.

When the City wants something, it seems like they can act fairly quickly.  Take the Optimized Street Sweeping Program for example.  It could be argued that that Program will have a much more far reaching impact on the community than a Tree Ordinance yet the Council didn’t conduct any community outreach at all prior to bringing that item up for a vote.  Car2Go is another example.  The City didn’t even bring that matter before the Council instead opting to broker a deal behind closed doors even though that company operates in an apparent conflict with a current City ordinance and despite many complaints from residents about parking and having to “view” a Car2Go in front of their home.

For Shirley’s sake, and for the rest of those that suffer from view impairments, I do hope the hearing was more than a token tip of the hat to campaign supporters and that it will be followed up with real action resulting in a fair ordinance that residents can rely on to help resolve any future view impairment issues.  After all after 40 years, isn’t it about time?

The City Council unanimously voted to adopt a resolution opposing California Proposition 47 last Tuesday night. The vote of opposition comes on the heels of a similar vote by the LA City Council where that body voiced support for the measure. The measure would re-classify petty crimes such as shoplifting or theft where the value is less than $950 as misdemeanors rather than felonies. It would also require misdemeanor sentencing instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses. Under the initiative about 10,000 current inmates would be allowed to apply for resentencing in accordance with the new guidelines.

In addition to the LA City Council, the proposition was also recently endorsed by the LA Times. Other proponents include the California Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, the ACLU of California, and labor groups like the California Teachers Association. The measure has also drawn support from conservative politicians and businessman like Newt Gingrich and B. Wayne Hughes Jr. A recent poll also showed strong support for the measure among voters indicating it will likely pass with 62% in favor and only 25% against.

In backing the proposition the LA Times stated that, “Opponents offer arguments that are familiar for their fear-mongering tactics but are new in some of their particulars: baseless yet ominous warnings that waves of dangerous criminals will be released; odd predictions about, of all things, date rape.” These so called “fear-mongering” tactics were exactly those offered by the Torrance Police Department and the City Attorney’s office at the Council meeting. Resident Lloyd Brown spoke out against these scare tactics at the meeting and offered his opinion that the proposition was a good law.

In voicing his opposition to Proposition 47, Mayor Furey expressed concern that the measure would allow the early release of convicted felons. He commented that released criminals come to Torrance to “shop” at the homes of residents by stealing their property. Former Torrance Police Officer and current Councilmember Geoff Rizzo was much more forceful. In a strongly worded statement he claimed that the proposition “decriminalized behavior,” that it would allow “deviant behavior to become the norm,” and that it was “not something we should accept in a civilized society.”

Rizzo’s strong opposition is not surprising given that many police groups have united to oppose the initiative and that politicians, especially in Torrance, are loathe to support anything that may be viewed as soft on crime. Still, the unanimous vote of opposition including that of progressive politicians on the Council like Goodrich is curious as the measure seems to have garnered wide support from the democratic political base.

The Council also heard input from the community on Collection Bins. The Council had previously imposed a moratorium prohibiting the placement of new bins within the City until November 15^th, 2014. The staff report acknowledged, however, that during the 10 month moratorium period that the amount of bins within the City increased substantially. Julie Dover, the Chief Operating Officer of Goodwill, spoke out against the bins claiming that unregulated for profit businesses were taking advantage of the Goodwill brand and hampering legitimate non-profit enterprises that served the poor. Representatives from two different collection bin operators offered their view that the bins encouraged recycling and diverted items from the waste stream resulting in less recyclables ending up in the landfill.

Councilmember Ashcraft made an animated argument against the bins expressing her belief that the projected total of upwards of 350 bins would blight the community and that she already sees too much junk. She thought residents would be better served using attended locations such as the Salvation Army.

Councilmember Weideman admitted that he initially thought the bins should be prohibited in the City but that he has since been persuaded by a remark made by Mayor Furey that it’s better to appropriately regulate than prohibit. He then suggested they table the item until the end of October giving City Staff more time to work on appropriate regulations such as how many bins should be allowed, how far apart they should be, what should be the maximum size, how often operators should be required to clean them, and what the fees should be. In a perplexing move, despite voicing strong objections to the bins Councilmember Ashcraft joined the rest of the Council in voting for the staff to draw up regulations that would allow the bins.

At the conclusion of the meeting Mayor Furey asked the Council’s concurrence for the City of Torrance to join the USA Conference of Mayors. Joining the group would cost the City upwards of $12,000 a year.