SBCCOG Does Not Appear to have Conducted Independent Financial Analysis of the BCHD $4,000+ per FOOT Bike Path
The following is a public comment to agencies referenced, SBCCOG, BCHD, Metro, LA County Board of Supervisors:
(1) As stated by Metro, Metro has no responsibility to conduct approval analysis on Measure M projects, other than to verify they fit within the voter approved uses of funds
(2) As stated by Metro, SBCCOG is responsible for the analysis of the projects that it recommends to Metro
(3) As stated by Metro, SBCCOG did not request any analysis from Metro
(4) As provided by SBCCOG, the documents contain no independent analysis of the BCHD bike project regarding scope or cost
(5) No SBCCOG documents demonstrate that the BCHD proposed project was ever compared directly to the scope or cost of the South Bay Bike Master Plan
(6) Had SBCCOG conducted independent verification and analysis of BCHD's proposal against the Master Plan, SBCCOG would have uncovered that the Class I analysis in the Master Plan erroneously misclassified Torrance project scope as Redondo Beach. Towers St is in Torrance, as is the next roughly 500 feet of Flagler Alley.
(7) Had SBCCOG conducted independent verification and analysis of BCHD's proposal against the Bike Friendly analysis in the Master Plan, SBCCOG would have also uncovered that the Master Plan erroneously misclassified all of Flagler St from Beryl to Towers as in Redondo Beach as well.
(8) As a result of SBCCOGs lack of expected analysis and due diligence prior to approval of the BCHD proposed project, the true and accurate scope and estimated cost of the Redondo Beach portion of the bike lane in the Master Plan was never reviewed. Correcting for errors in the Master Plan, the corrected scope is: 0.05 miles of Class I bike lane from the RB/Torrance Border to the eastern terminus of Diamond St and 0.05 miles of Bicycle Friendly Street on Diamond from the cul-de-sac to Prospect Ave.
(9) As a result of SBCCOGs lack of expected analysis and due diligence prior to approval of the BCHD proposed project, no comparison of BCHD's proposed $1.73M budget to the Master Plan could have been conducted by SBCCOG. The reference cost in 2011$ in the Master Plan for the correct BCHD Redondo Beach scope-of-work is $41,500. When adjusted for construction cost inflation increases (as computed by the State of CA DGS for urban construction) the 2024$ comparator to BCHD's expenditure of $1.73M is $71,838.34
(10) In the absence of SBCCOGs required analysis of the project prior to SBCCOGs approval of the project and recommendation to Metro, both SBCCOG and all of its constituent cities and their residents were denied the knowledge that BCHD's $4,000+ per foot cost estimate exceeded the 2024 adjusted expectation of the Master Plan of $175 per foot by more than 20-FOLD
(11) Due to the failure of SBCCOG to conduct the required diligence and analysis prior to approval of the BCHD $4,000+ per FOOT proposal, the taxpayers and residents of LA County were denied the ability to review the excessive cost and determine that it was caused by a massive scope increase by BCHD to conduct improvements on its own sliding hillside.
(12) Any and all recommendations of the Master Plan document that were based on cost data or net benefits to the Public were based on the unit estimates that SBCCOG ignored. BCHD's proposed project exceeded those cost by over 20-FOLD.
(13) The absence of SBCCOGs analysis of the BCHD proposed project with respect to the Master Plan denied the Public's right to demand a correct cost allocation, where the roughly $73,000 2024$ adjusted project cost would be charged to Measure M, and the remainder of the $1.73M would be assessed to BCHD.
(14) The absence of SBCCOGs analysis of the BCHD proposed project with respect to the Master Plan denied the Public's right to determine that the retaining wall and associated work was required due to the District's lack of proper maintenance over its 70 years of ownership.
(15) As a direct result of the SBCCOGs apparent failure to perform its mandatory duty, Measure M was wrongfully used for the benefit and gain of BCHD, as it submitted the project to SBCCOG and Metro.