22 • March 11 - 24, 2016 • The Log


Ballot initiative proposal seeks to scale down Redondo Beach Waterfront project


Stephen Proud, the city’s waterfront and economic development director, said the city and consultants are still sifting through the comments. “We’ve received more than 500 comments,” Proud said, adding EIR consultants are trying to batch com- ments together and prepare respons- es.


The process is still playing out, he


said. Some comments are common, such as the project’s impact on traffic and water views, but more perspec- tives will become apparent as the comments review inches closer to completion. Proud added the city is still waiting to see a first draft of the proposed bal- lot initiative before determining how best to respond to ROW’s campaign. “We haven’t seen any of the lan-


There are efforts in Redondo Beach to slow down CenterCal Properties’ proposed waterfront redevelopment, calling the impending project too large and out of scale.


Rescue Our Waterfront believes waterfront proposal is out of scale.


By Parimal M. Rohit


REDONDO BEACH — A slow-growth grassroots organization in Redondo Beach recently announced plans to file for a ballot initiative to scale down a proposed development at the city’s harbor and pier while also protecting coastal-dependent recreational and commercial uses such as boating and sportfishing. Representatives of Rescue Our


Waterfront (ROW) said they are seek- ing a ballot initiative to make sure a proposed redevelopment of King Harbor and the Redondo Beach Pier area would be “proper-sized.” City officials and some boaters


believe, conversely, the Redondo Waterfront proposal is headed in the right direction. In proposing a ballot initiative ROW hopes a majority of Redondo Beach voters will agree current plans for a new waterfront are bloated. The organization states a ballot initiative is necessary to ensure the project fea- tures balanced growth and not disturb enjoyment of the harbor or ocean. ROW’s catchphrase is “Revitalize Don’t Supersize.” “A growing number of residents


have been pressing for a positive plan and we believe this initiative would balance development with recreation- al enjoyment of our beloved harbor,” ROW Co-Founder Nils Nehrenheim said in a released statement. ROW claims the proposed


Waterfront project, designed and


funded by El Segundo-based CenterCal Properties, would double the amount of development at the harbor and pier area while only increasing parking space by 8 percent. There is also some concern of harbor views being blocked and how the development would impact recre- ational and commercial uses of the waterfront. Candace Nafissi, another ROW co-


founder, added there is nothing special about the proposed waterfront devel- opment, as elements of the project design could be found anywhere. “We are fortunate to have the only harbor between Marina del Rey and the Port of Los Angeles. We should not allow a developer, who has never worked on developing properties in a harbor, to build a risky mall that could be built anywhere,” Nafissi stated. There is one local boater who favors


the Waterfront project and disagrees with ROW’s efforts to place an initia- tive on a ballot. “The ballot initiative is yet another


attempt by a very small group of peo- ple to control the decision-making that we have empowered our city govern- ment to conduct on behalf of our citi- zens,” said Harry Munns. He added CenterCal’s Waterfront


project is much needed and would upgrade the Redondo Beach coast. “It is long overdue. The fact we have a local developer that is willing to take on the backward thinking elements of our community and can fund things like new parking structures and other amenities, is huge,” Munns said. “If there is a flaw it is the unknown poten- tial for new types of businesses in this space. But guess what? If a particular business fails, we still have space for


other businesses where the failed busi- ness was located. We have the ocean, the beach, [and] the harbor. We will have plenty of parking. The right types of businesses will find their places and thrive in that environment.” Munns said there is not a large boating contingency actively partici- pating in the waterfront redevelop- ment process and a compromise might have to be reached for boaters to benefit from the completed project. “There probably won’t be a lot of


direct benefits to boaters or anglers. The concept of a boat ramp has been folded into the project. There simply is no good place for a boat ramp in King Harbor,” Munns said. “A ramp without adequate parking will have limited benefits and limited appeal to boaters. The only way a boat launch ramp can accommodate larger boats is if it has lots of adequate parking. Look at boat ramps in Marina del Rey, San Pedro and Long Beach. They all have more than enough parking for the demand. “There is no space in King Harbor


where a large ramp and adequate parking exist side by side. The com- promise will be a boat ramp for very small boats, which will limit the appeal,” Munns continued. Redondo Beach Mayor Steve Aspel


reportedly expressed his opposition to ROW’s proposed ballot initiative dur- ing his 2016 State of the City address on Feb. 17, claiming the city would lose about $18 million if CenterCal were to remove itself from the project. The city held a public comment


period between November 2015 and January, receiving input from hun- dreds of residents and stakeholders about CenterCal’s designs overall impacts of the Redondo Waterfront.


guage. We don’t really know what spe- cific language will be included,” Proud said. Measure G, a slow-growth ballot initiative approved by Redondo Beach voters in 2010, set development and zoning parameters for the harbor and pier area. Proud said city officials and the developer have made every effort to keep the Waterfront proposal con- sistent with Measure G. The Sierra Club sent a letter to


Redondo Beach city staff in January claiming the public is not properly informed about the Waterfront proj- ect’s scale. “We are fully aware of the need for, and benefits of, revitalization of the area. However, in its role as steward of the Redondo Beach coastline, the city should take a very critical look at this [Draft Environmental Impact Report] and its inaccurate and misleading rep- resentations,” Eva Cicoria and Al Sattler said on behalf of the Sierra Club Palos Verdes-South Bay Group. “The project description does not provide adequate information to thoroughly evaluate certain impacts. For example the actual heights of the buildings and their evaluations must be provided in order to determine the full impact of [ocean and harbor] views.” ROW hopes to raise $30,000 to cover the ballot initiative’s costs; to date the organization has reportedly raised $8,000. A fundraiser was scheduled for Feb. 28; visit rescueourwaterfront.org for more information. Redondo Beach is also planning


more active discussion with the com- munity on a boat launch facility. The city’s Waterfront and Economic Development Department has sched- uled three public meetings to discuss plans for the boat launch ramp; the talks will focus on potential ramp loca- tions. Meetings were held Feb. 27 and


most recently on March 9. It will also be discussed at the regularly scheduled Harbor Commission meeting on March 14.


thelog.com


Photo courtesy CenterCal Properties


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60