Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Supersized Regulations

You will see various Redondo city documents refer to the harbor area between Torrance Boulevard and Herondo as the Harbor Enterprise. Like most successful enterprises, the Redondo Beach Harbor Enterprise generates a substantial amount of money. Benefits of that cash are enjoyed by everyone in and around the city.

Lots of families pay their mortgages or rent, pay for their kids’ daycare, healthcare and much more with the money they make within the Harbor Enterprise. Their very existence comes from the work they do in that relatively small plot of land. Many of us derive great pleasure from the time we spend boating, fishing, swimming or just relaxing in and around King Harbor.

The Redondo Beach Harbor Enterprise makes enough money to pay all its own expenses and then some. Even those of us who don’t work in or even visit the harbor enjoy the benefits of that financial success.

Regulation is necessary to keep business from interfering with the public good. Elected officials at all levels of government spend a considerable amount of time crafting regulations that protect the public while enabling business to succeed and thrive. We expect them to find the balance between protecting the public’s interests and allowing businesses to succeed. Over-regulation upsets that balance. Business suffers as a result.

I recently read the proposed language for Measure C, the ballot initiative that claims it will “Revitalize not Supersize!”. The citizens of Redondo Beach are being asked to enact this extremely complex set of restrictive rules that I can only describe as the worst case of over-regulation I’ve seen in years. Every voter in Redondo Beach should read the document posted on the city web site before stepping into the voting booth. http://www.redondo.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=31297

You have to ask yourself, do I really care about most of this stuff? Do things like the type of keys used in hotel rooms matter to me? Do I really care about how long a hotel owner maintains records of room rental rates? Do I want to approve a boat ramp that will take away 120 parking spaces directly adjacent to the harbor without conducting a study to see if any of those parking spaces will ever be used by boat owners?

Perhaps the most important questions are, who thinks 27 pages of incomprehensible, new regulations are a good thing for Redondo Beach and why do they try so hard to sell it to us?

The citizens of Redondo Beach approved Measure G in 2010. It took years of hard work by city councils, mayors, commissions, city staff , consultants, and citizens to come up with that complex set of regulations. A majority of voters agreed, those land use guidelines were what we needed to move forward with reasonable redevelopment of King Harbor. An additional 27 pages of regulations was not needed then and it is not needed now.

The proponents of Measure C say it was “…written by residents for residents”. I’m a resident of Redondo Beach. I didn’t write this business-crushing set of unnecessary regulations. Did you?

17 thoughts on “Supersized Regulations

  1. Wanna Shoot Myself

    Please, Measure C should be voted down, say no say no say no. You are being lied to by many about a mall by the sea. Yes a movie venue, think about it, the parking lot is empty all winter, this is not just a venue but a high end opportuntity that we could watch a live performance for the Met, it will be an interactive system. Wouldn’t you like to see a Broadway Show we can’t afford, guess what, CenterCal is offering us that opportunity. Please quit being closed minded. And as far as the MPA’s, that took an army of people, Mr. Brand is using that as a platform. Yes he was instrumental in helping, but to say “LED FORMATION OF MARINE PROTECTION AREA,”, is so not true, there were thousands of people, god knows he helped, but to take credit for the work of others proves the same over again. People that are leaders do not take full credit for the work of others. Your choice. Politics have become a way of life, destroying family dinners, causing neighbors not to speak. The mis information being sent thru the internet media and our mailboxes is just plane sickening. Please call Major Aspel, or watch and truly research, hidden agendas are not putting money in anyones pockets, these people, including Brand do this for very little compensation; lies lies, Ask Brand, is he taking money as a councilman, yes, exactly like the rest, maybe $400 a month, and it is a full time job. . the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau is a group of lovely people that are volunteers, are you listening, not paid, but volunteer their hard days doing a job and then working to bring visitors to our city so the employees at Ruby’s, R10, Captain Kidds, Quality Seafood, the sportfishing operation, whale watching, SUPs, you name it. can feed their families, oh so sorry, you don’t want anyone else to enjoy Redondo but you and your private we own it attitude. Small business owners and folks, struggling to make ends meet just like you and me. As far as the Chamber monies; This is not out of the City budget, this comes from the hotel occupancy tax. It is not out of your pocket books. The Chamber Pac has not access legally and has never touched that money. lies lies lies. Please the scare tactics are bullshit. Their will not be a macys or nordstroms on your waterfront, just an upgraded Quaility Seafood, Naja’s, Capt Kidds, Polly’s, on and on. Unfortunately, many businesses have already gone under due to the same people that are pounding you about measure C. Change will happen, and it is in your benefit.
    Think, we are smart people. Please research, whatever you do, learn the facts, and believe in your hearts, no one is getting rich on this, on the contrary, grey hair, sadness, and plain old TIRED. PLEASE research on your own, go see the Waterfront Building decide for yourself, you are not sheep

    Reply
  2. Paul Moses

    These are the exact thoughts that ran threw my head when I read the voter pamphlet. This is over regulation and overreach. I will Vote No on C this March 7th. I don’t agree with it’s purpose but I couldn’t possibly support such a horribly thought out and poorly written ballot measure.

    Reply
  3. Jim Light

    Harry,

    The hotel requirements are all existing Measure G text. They were required by the Coastal Commission. If you voted for Measure G, you voted in that text. Measure C did not alter or add to the current hotel requirements. The only changes to the current zoning are highlighted with underlines. The text of Measure C clearly states that the additions are underlined. We had to include the current Measure G text to show the context of the changes. Deletions would have been strikethroughs, but we did not delete any of the requirements of Measure G.

    Reply
  4. funbooker Post author

    Jim, you missed the point. As usual, you try to take focus away from the underlying message by focusing on a relatively insignificant portion of the message. We don’t need more regulation. The voters approved Measure G and you failed to sell the city on the restrictions you wanted to apply to coastal zoning. Now, you’re trying to get some of the same restrictions attached to the land use documents. I give you credit for tenacity.

    Tying development to an impossible boat ramp was clever but don’t be surprised if the voters are smarter than you think and see right through that little gimmick. It surprises me you’re pushing so hard for more, rather than less, regulation. I hope the Republican leadership doesn’t revoke your membership.

    Reply
    1. Jim Light

      Measure C is hardly onerous. It is less than three pages of changes focused on clarifying things that City staff took license with…. It is actually very simple. But the boat ramp is not impossible. In fact there are several designs from 2007 that would comply with relatively minor tweaks. And at much less than the $10M the city uses to inflate Measure C costs. Remember there are 67 trailer spaces today in the harbor – that was in Measure G zoning. Measure C only requires 60. And since Measure C requires compliance with the Department of Boating and Waterway standards, it would qualify for state funding – reducing the cost the city must currently bear. Nothing in Measure C takes back what the voters approved on Measure G, it forces the city to deliver what was promised in the campaign marketing and city staff testimony. Measure C removes ambiguity that could be used against the city. For example, the text now says views from Harbor Drive must be preserved. That is wide open to interpretation. Measure C says 60% can be blocked. Measure C provides a standard that protects the city and developer while giving residents some minimum. And really, allowing 60% of the current views to be blocked is pretty generous.

      Reply
  5. Arnette Travis

    Thank you Harry for bringing up a salient point that is easily missed; that being the over regulation of our harbor. Measure C is a No for Redondo!

    Reply
  6. Joe Lordeon

    Redondo Beach has too much traffic, congestion, and over development. Four members on the city council have pledged to make the Mall by the Sea happen Machiavellan style. These members have consistently refused to make the project smaller or make it compatible with surrounding heighborhoods.
    Yes on C is about unheard residents at countless ciry council meetings being ignored. It is about cronyism between city hall and money dispersed to chamber of commerce to support their mandates. It is about Center Cal giving $300,000 to a PAC on NO on C, and spreading money to fire and police, and others in hope of support.
    Should the Mall be built, within 5 years it will fail as anchor tennants start leaving. As stated the the Wall Street Journal recently ,mall type developments are failing . R B voters will be paying for this White Elephant and have to figure out again what to do with this public property.
    Do NOT let the pied pipers lead you into the Sea. Yes on C and in the election “reconcile” the council and make changes for a council person who will represent you.

    Reply
  7. funbooker Post author

    Jim, the Department of Boating and Waterways was restructured a few years back. It’s now Division of boating and Waterways.

    If DBW has boat ramp standards, I would imagine they are published. Can you post a link?

    Reply
  8. funbooker Post author

    Jim, you seem to be having a little trouble with math. 30 double spaces (30 X 2 = 60) per lane. 2 lanes (60 X 2 = 120). 10%-25% of the double parking spaces are 55 feet which is approximately 1.5 automobile parking spaces. So that’s about 4 spaces that are another 1/2 car length longer so let’s just say you are taking away parking for 122 automobiles.

    I’ve always wondered, if your arguments are sound, why can’t you just use the truth to present them?

    Reply
    1. Jim Light

      Harry — no problem with math. I’ve always said the ramp requires 60 trailer parking spaces in Measure C. The area in front of Ruby’s already has 67 trailer parking spaces. And if they put the ramp on Mole D there is ample room to meet the requirement in that area. The City’s consultant used a dumb allocation of space and did not fully utilize Mole D’s south end in his assessment. It seemed very purposeful.

      You seem to forget, I did not come up with the requirement for a boat ramp. The Coastal Commission did. If we must put one in we should build it right, build safe and build it for adequate peak demand per the DBW standards. We know from the parking numbers at Cabrillo that the current plan would have excess demand on 61 days per year. That is why the Harbor Commission required the overflow parking. And the boating industry numbers released for 2015 show another year of growth in boat sales and California is in the top 10 as usual. Build a ramp and they will come. Even in Measure C requirements we would have overcapacity days, but we did not want to push the requirement above the DBW upper mins.

      If you are worried about taking away recreational parking space, you should be taking on CenterCal. The DEIR parking demand analysis has zero demand for any of the recreational uses on Moles C and D except those proscribed by zoning for the boat slips. Add to that the undefined 30 overflow trailer parking spaces, and 30 over regular car spaces for Mole B, PLUS the lost parking spaces on Herondo that must be replaced somewhere, and the replacement spaces for the longer turn pockets and you’ve got a huge parking shortage for recreational users. According to city documents peak days at Seaside Lagoon alone can draw 2300 guests. CenterCal allocates zero. And if you add peak Saturday demand for the mall to peak recreational uses on a summer Saturday – it will be a parking and circling nightmare. BTW – CenterCal only gets to their parking numbers by shrinking parking spaces dramatically. Lots of dinged doors in a CenterCal future.

      Reply
  9. funbooker Post author

    Jim, you have a tendency to over-complicate things, as is evidenced by the proposed language for Measure C. So assuming anyone has hung in through our preceding dialogue, I’d like to reward them with a little clarity.

    First and foremost, the Coastal Commission is not requiring a boat ramp in King Harbor. This is a local myth that has been perpetuated by various inaccurate declarative statements that have led to other inaccurate declarative statements, little more than rumors. The so-called requirement, appears as a single fairly vague sentence in a memorandum written by a Coastal Commission staffer. As you know, commission staff employees are not commissioners and they do not speak for the commission.

    I will respectfully disagree that the boat ramp you describe can fit on Mole C. For readers who don’t know the King Harbor moles, Mole C is Joe’s Crab Shack/Portofino Hotel and Mole D runs from Seaside Lagoon to the existing public boat hoists including Ruby’s parking lot. I believe you know the only place the extremely specific boat ramp specifications you wrote into Measure C will fit, is the south end of Mole D and Ruby’s parking lot.

    It is my opinion the reason you crafted a set of boat ramp requirements that would ONLY fit in Mole D was to ensure the CenterCal project and any similar project would be impossible to build in King Harbor. It’s very cynical to intentionally throw that monkey wrench into the current plans yet not admit that’s what you intended to do. This is an example of the problem I have with your honesty. Why not just come out and say it? I know that thinly disguised strategy of obstruction has been discussed at great length between you and your fellow opponents of change.

    Our elected City Council has put us on a path to build some exciting (in my opinion) new things in our harbor area. Being responsible leaders, they recognize the fact both harbor parking structures have far exceeded their expected life span. Replacing them could cost somewhere in excess of $50,000,000. Regardless of the actual number, our deal with CenterCal includes rebuilding the parking structures. And regardless of the fine points of the deal between the city and CenterCal, the city will not be presented with a bill for construction of two expensive parking structures. The citizens will not be taxed to pay for it and we will not have to pay back bonds, which are just a form of loan owed by all of us.

    Anything that gets built in the harbor will stand between Harbor Drive and the marina. So yes, the view we have now will be obstructed. I can’t think of anyone who goes to Harbor Drive for the view. There is no view. If I’m on Harbor Drive and I want to see the marina, I’ll walk a hundred yards to the marina. There are public walkways throughout the marina as well as open spaces for sitting and recreation.

    Have you seen the view from the plaza at Shade Hotel? Stand on Harbor Drive in front of Shade and I guarantee you will be drawn to that plaza. Anyone who wants a taste of what life will be after the CenterCal project, should sit out there for a little while and just enjoy the ambiance.

    Measure C is a clear choice. A yes vote gets you a boat ramp most Redondo citizens will never use and future decades of he nonexistent view from Harbor drive. Voting no gets you the plaza at Shade Hotel expanded throughout the marina. I’ve already made my choice.

    Reply
  10. Jim Light

    In 2007, the City documented that the Coastal Commission reaffirmed their position that a boat ramp was a requirement. The city included it in what was to become Measure G zoning. The Coastal Commission certified the Local Coastal Plan with the requirement in it. The minutes from the 14 Mar 16 Harbor Commission Meeting has Witzanski declaring: “conversations with the Coastal Commission staff have confirmed the absolute requirement for the boat ramp.” Seems to me the boat ramp is required by the Coastal Commission.

    I don’t recall saying the required boat ramp would fit on Mole C. I think there are ways to make it work, but it would require moving the lagoon park and or use of the Triton Oil site for overflow parking which is on the hairy edge of the 500 foot requirement. But I do not personally believe Mole C is the right place anyway. The surge from the way the waves refract into the harbor makes this a worse location than Mole D. Also the long drive down Portofino is less than ideal (as it is in Mole B.) And the proximity to the hand launch is not ideal either. BUT it IS better and safer than A or B. I agree with the 2007 findings of the Harbor Working Group (or whatever they called it) and the testimony of Tim Dornberg that Mole D is the safest and best spot for a boat ramp. My personal belief is not tainted by any ill will toward the CenterCal Mall. It is driven by prioritizing public safety first, recreational use of the harbor as an actual harbor second, and then fitting in non-coastal dependent commercial development as a second priority.

    I think you have it backward. I think and Tim Dornberg has confirmed, the boat ramp location for Mole D was taken off the table by the city because CenterCal wanted Mole D for the market hall. I went with a clean sheet look at the harbor, State boat ramp design guidelines, the testimony and emails of the harbor patrol and BayWatch crews, and the findings of stakeholder panels before there was a CenterCal mall project. Not rocket science. No subterfuge.

    While you opine that replacing the parking structure would cost $50M. You seem to ignore that we could refurbish for far less . Or that rather than spending $38M buying back leases early, the City could have spent that money on the infrastructure and working smaller private/public partnerships and then finally financing to revitalize without a mall. Financing need not be funded by residents rather it can be paid by parking and lease revenues. And the amount financed under more reasonable alternatives is far less than the gloom and doom of the unsubstantiated city worst of the worst of the worst case assessment of Measure C. You also seem to forget the city is on the hook for the boat ramp, the pier replacement and refurbishment, the sea wall in Basin 3, any required remediation, and lifeguards, beach cleaning and marine mammal control at the reconfigured beach leased entirely to CenterCal for just $5K a year.

    Development can occur without obliterating 80% of the views from Harbor Drive. I bike through the harbor about 8 x a week on average. I can tell you easily the ride along the southern portion of Harbor Drive is far, far more pleasant than the ride through the built out north end. Besides that view is protected by Measure G zoning and the State Coastal Act. You cite Shade Hotel. Perhaps you forget that Shade Hotel is against the water at the very back of its leasehold. The hotel already dominates the view, but it would be far, far, far worse if it were right against the sidewalk on Harbor Drive, like the biggest buildings of the CenterCal development. Saying the plaza of the Shade is equivalent to the CenterCal Mall is just plain inaccurate. When you include the new parking structure, the CenterCal Mall is nearly 16x the size of Shade Hotel – a 1200 foot wall of development with only about 245 ft of views cut through that wall. Not even close to Shade… And Harry, why is it okay to look over a surface level parking lot to Shade Hotel and through its sliver of view to the harbor, but looking across the parking lot at the south end is so offensive to CenterCal supporters? Double standard? Should we not build on Shade’s parking lot, and Blue Water Grill’s, Cheesecake Factories, Portofino’s? Why stop there? Let’s cover the sea of asphalt at Torrance Beach, El Porto, Venice, Malibu, Zuma…..Fill them all with mall’s – those seas of asphalt are such an assault to eye.

    Measure C is much more than a boat ramp. It puts public safety first. Safe boat ramp. Safe bike path, Safe wading area for toddlers. Then it ensures that there is ample and convenient access for all users including park visitors, kayakers, SUP’ers, outrigger canoers, fishermen, passengers on whale watching and sportfishing boats, and beach goers. Is adequate access such a horrible requirement? Then it protects just 40% of the current views from Harbor Drive (hardly onerous). It eliminates two items that received the most negative comments from during the 8 public input sessions, the scoping meeting, and the DEIR workshops – the parking structure and the new road connecting Harbor and Torrance. It preserves the integrity of Seaside Lagoon Regional Park and its attractiveness to families. And it prevents the city from twisting the development cap specified in our Local Coastal Program.

    In other words, Measure C enforces the balance we were all promised when Measure G was on the ballot. And it honors the recurring, dominant comments from the public in the 3 years of deliberations. The comments ignored by CenterCal, the City, and our elected officials (well four of the six at least)

    Reply
  11. funbooker Post author

    Jim, I’d like to thank you for affirming my statement that the Coastal Commission has NOT and does NOT require a boat ramp attached to any future development in King Harbor. Mike Wytzanski does not speak for the Coastal Commission. The opinion of a Coastal Commission employee does NOT equate to a requirement by the appointed members of the commission. We could dispute the ease or difficulty of changing some relatively insignificant language in the current zoning, but the passage of Measure G is NOT the equivalent of a Coastal Commission requirement.

    I’d also like to thank you for affirming my earlier statement that the boat ramp requirement you wrote into Measure C restricts construction of the ramp to Mole D, the area (roughly) bordered by R/10 Social House, Samba and Captain Kidd’s. Actually, I’m pretty sure it would fit in Mole A but that’s a whole other discussion.

    I had mentioned earlier in our dialogue that the Jim Light boat ramp was impossible in King Harbor. You refute that claim.

    We agree it can only go on Mole D, without reconfiguring Seaside Lagoon, which isn’t going to happen without a fight. So as things stand today, it can only go on Mole D.

    Your initiative states, “The ramp shall be designed to accommodate safe launch and recovery in harbor surge conditions…” Every landmass that abuts the turning basin (widest part of the marina bordered by Joe’s Crab Shack, Samba and the main breakwater) experiences potentially dangerous surge. In fact, the only places in King Harbor you are likely to experience any significant shelter from surge is deep inside the basins.

    If you face the dock occupied by South Bay Sailing you will see a short breakwater across the narrow channel near Kincaid’s. It runs from the shore out toward the ocean and roughly mirrors the contour of the southern part of Mole D, from South Bay Sailing to Samba’s. That’s the only part of Mold D that is not exposed directly to Pacific Ocean swell.

    As I’m sure you know, there isn’t enough room in that southern section of Mole D to place a boat ramp. It would interfere with navigation within that narrow channel.

    So the only place a boat ramp could possibly be built on Mole D is about where Samba sits now. The problem with that is obvious to anyone who stands in front of Samba and looks out toward the ocean. That section of Mole D is completely open to the ocean. Nothing stands between it and the ocean swell.

    Solution: Build a detached breakwater in the middle of what is now a wide open turning basin in our already tiny harbor. How could anyone think that’s a good idea? Further reducing the already congested navigational area of the harbor to accommodate an increase in congestion? In addition, a detached breakwater that interferes with navigation and safety would never get approved by any of the half dozen state and federal agencies that would need to approve it. You really don’t give the voters of this city much credit.

    Like you, I have been critical of the city council but for different reasons. I believe they are being led instead of leading.

    Specifically, the council has never conducted a proper survey to determine potential demand for a boat ramp. Without the most solid possible data to answer that question, it is impossible to answer the other essential questions that have also not been subjected to any credible study. Namely, what effect would a boat ramp have on automobile/pedestrian/bicycle traffic and safety and what effect would it have on navigation and harbor safety and traffic.

    No one should be discussing things like the number of lanes or the number of trailer parking spaces without knowing, to the extent it is possible to know, how many boaters would be likely to use the boat ramp.

    I would really prefer not to make this about you personally but when you stick your neck out, don’t be surprised if you end up headless. You mention there are 57 trailer parking spaces (114 automobile spaces) currently on the Redondo Beach Marina leasehold. This is simply not true.

    There are currently 49 automobile/trailer parking spaces. There is one single space, which brings the total to 99 automobile spaces). Readers should note, each automobile/trailer space requires extra room in front and behind to enable turning of the vehicle and trailer combination.

    I won’t bother to repeat the parking analysis from my earlier post but going from 99 automobile parking spaces to 122 is more than 20% increase. That ain’t nothin’.

    While we’re on parking, the public needs to know that should they vote in favor of Measure C and should the proposed boat ramp get built on Mole D causing the navigation area of King Harbor to be further reduced by a detached breakwater, 122 parking spaces will be restricted from vehicle parking right within the area bordered by Samba, R/10 and Captain Kidd’s. Jim Light’s Measure C requires all vehicle/trailer parking to be accommodated within 500 feet of the boat ramp.

    Samba will be gone so they won’t need any parking spaces. But that leaves three other restaurants (one of which is not currently used as a restaurant) directly adjacent to the boat ramp parking area. I haven’t plotted out changes to the parking area but we can estimate it will be roughly equivalent to 120% of the current spaces that occupy the entire length of the parking lot in front of Ruby’s.

    Just thumb nailing it, anyone can see, 120% of that area would not fit in the Samba-R/10-Captain Kidd’s parking lot. In other words, the designated automobile/trailer parking spaces between the driveway with the toll both and the end of the parking lot at Portofino Way is significantly longer than the distance from the driveway going in the other direction toward the existing boat hoists.

    What does that mean? 120% of the current trailer parking will not fit in the area Measure C defines as “…adjacent to the ramp and within 500 feet thereof.” Or if there is some way to make it fit, there won’t be much room for any other parking. This is one of the reasons I state with considerable authority, the boat ramp described in Measure C is impossible.

    So why, Redondo Beach citizens should ask, are we being asked to vote for something that will prove to be impossible to build? Who would draft a ballot measure that requires things that are impossible and tell us it’s intended to improve our city? You’ll have to answer that one for yourself.

    I don’t like opinions that are disguised as facts so I’d like to end this post with some facts and opinions, all of which will be labeled accordingly. Let’s see what we have learned.

    FACT: The state agency named in Measure C as the Department of Boating and Waterways does not exist.

    FACT: There are no “…guidelines for the layout, design and construction of small craft boat launching facilities” published by the Department of Boating and Waterways, as stated in Measure C.

    FACT: There is no Coastal Commission requirement for a boat ramp in King Harbor.

    FACT: The boat ramp described in Measure C can only fit on Mole D.

    FACT: There are 99 automobile parking spaces currently allotted to boat/trailer parking, not 114.

    OPINION: The parking parameters described in Measure C are self-contradictory and therefore impossible.

    OPINION: A two lane ramp is defined in Measure C, not because anyone knows it is necessary to accommodate demand, but because a two lane ramp will make it impossible for CenterCal to develop the site.

    OPINION: Jim Light’s claim that 27 pages of initiative language were necessary to put three pages of changes in context is simply not true. Harry Munns claims 27 pages of initiative language were necessary to HIDE and DISGUISE three sloppily constructed and ill conceived pages of unnecessary regulations.

    Readers should note, the problems with Measure C I raise in this thread are just a few that jumped out at me after reading Measure C once. There are certainly more problems I just don’t have time to uncover.

    Truth matters. I’ve tried to reveal some of that which is not truthful in Measure C, and there’s lots of it. I sincerely believe if voters take the time to look at Measure C, they will discover it’s bad for Redondo.

    Jim, I’ve enjoyed this dialogue but I need to begin focusing on getting my message out in other venues. I know you can’t stand not having the last word so I will give you that opportunity. If you reply in a civil manner, I will approve anything you want to have posted.

    One final note and it relates to honesty. The Yes on C people should note their yard sign language is, once again, simply not true. The sign says, “keep our pier mall-free”. There is no development planned for the Redondo Beach Pier. There will be no mall or anything resembling a mall on the pier whether C passes or fails.

    Reply
  12. Jim Light

    Wow Harry, you sure are digging a big hole for yourself. We talked to Coastal Commission staff. They require a boat ramp. Go down and visit with them if you don’t believe it. But denying it does not make you right.

    As to your Mole A boat ramp, Mole A may fit the required boat ramp, but the Measure C zoning would preclude location there due to overtopping waves.

    The normal surge is smaller and safer at Mole D. Mole C gets more due to wave refraction at the harbor mouth. I have ridden that surge in toward Portofino and Joe’s Crab Shack on my outrigger. You can see others do it too. The harbor patrol have testified a Mole D location is safest. A 2007 stakeholder committee deemed Mole D the safest. A city study on feasibility showed it safe without any additional breakwall. Mole D is the best location according to city studies, committee consensus and our public safety professionals in the harbor everyday. The proximity of parking is a requirement of state guidelines – although we tightened that up a bit. And it is smart planning. Who wants trailers driving around Mole C and D more than they have to?

    Your calculations on parking spaces are off. It appears you use 90 degree spaces. Angle spacing gets more trailers and longer trailers into the same area. That is how the current 67 spaces are accommodated. They are close to if not compliant with the 55 foot length requirements for a small percentage of the spaces. And remember in Measure C only 6 spaces are required to be 55 feet in length. We have that space for 67 trailer spaces setaside today and that is 7 more spaces than required by Measure C. A Mole D boat ramp could entirely comply with the requirements of Measure C.

    Your “fact” about DBW is deceptive at best. So I said Department instead of Division. You are quibbling. The Division exists and they continue to let grants for boat ramps.

    FACT: The Coastal Commission staff has repeatedly stated a boat ramp is required. Just because you did not hear it or read it does not make it false. From the 2009 Coastal Commission Staff Report on the proposed changes to harbor zoning that became Measure G: “Additionally, the existing boat hoist is the only current way for boat owners that trailer their boats to the harbor to launch their craft, and there is no policy to encourage development of a boat ramp to access the harbor. The addition of a boat ramp to the harbor would significantly enhance recreation opportunities for the area. Therefore, the Commission finds that the LCPA, as submitted, does not conform to Section 30255 or the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.” During the Coastal Commission Meeting in 2009, the Commissioners approved changes to the staff report. They changed the staff recommended wording from a Boat ramp will be strongly encouraged, to “a boat ramp shall be constructed in association with future development…”. This very specific change in wording was forwarded to the city in a letter dated August 3rd, 2009. The Commission cannot mandate a change, but they can deny a LCP that does not include their “suggestions”. When the City Council approved the Measure G zoning in 2010 they accepted, incorporated and approved all Coastal Commission “recommendations”. So the city could not get the Coastal Commission approval without rewriting the zoning to require a boat ramp. So Measure G made the boat ramp mandatory and it passed Coastal Commission Certification. Without it, the staff has already opined the zoning violates the California Coastal Act.

    FACT: the two lane boat ramp was required due to ample feedback from the boating public and the assessment of detailed Cabrillo Beach utilization records. The Harbor Commission also required a two lane boat ramp for the same reasons.

    FACT: It is now required when changing ordinances via initiative that the entire current text of affected sections of city ordinances be included so that the public can see the context of the change. If you read Measure B, you will find the same convention. Cross outs for deletions. Underlines for adds and the text to remain is normal font. Measure B was 56 pages. Measure G was 90 pages. The actual changes required by Measure C total less than 3 pages.

    Anyway, appreciate the opportunity to rebut. Can’t say you don’t give us a fair chance to make our case (unlike most of the pro-CenterCal sites)….

    Reply
  13. Barbara Epstein

    We moved here to walk at the waterfront, public land. That means land that belongs to the public. For us that means use for exercise, recreation, water sports, boat trips, fishing, whale watching, biking, walking, jogging, dining, watching for wildlife, checking the sky for weather, noting wave conditions at the pier, breathing fresh air, and relaxing in our outdoor open spaces.

    Our daughters surprised me with a delightful Redondo whale watching boat trip for our family and friends for my seventy fifth birthday a few years ago. Everyone had a great time, though I was a little shocked when I saw one of our older cousins pushing the kids out of the way so as to see the dolphins better. Many of our guests had never been whale watching before, and we’re completely overwhelmed with curiosity and sense of adventure.

    Redondo Beach has the only Harbor where this can happen for many miles around.
    Maybe newer residents like me appreciate our pier, harbor, and public parkland more than those who have lived here longer and take it for granted.
    You don’t know what you’ve had until you’ve lost it.

    Reply
  14. funbooker Post author

    Nicely put Barbara. As a long-time resident of Redondo Beach, I would have to say I agree with everything you said. I don’t take any of it for granted. If I believed any of what you mentioned was going away, I wouldn’t vote the way I’m voting on Measure C. We will have what you mentioned and more when we defeat Measure C. Non on Measure C!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *