Coastal land debate rages on

Click on the link below for full article. http://www.tbrnews.com/articles/2010/02/18/redondo_beach_news/news03.txt

from Archives: Redondo Beach News
Coastal land debate rages on

by Amy Artino
(Updated: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:15 PM PST)

The war against coastal development persists.

On Tuesday night, the Redondo Beach City Council held a public hearing to allow residents to sound off about suggested modifications to the coastal land-use plan and zoning code, which could result in 400,000 square feet of new development in the harbor and pier area.

After roughly five hours of public testimony, and debate among City Council and staff, council chose to accept the suggested amendments to the coastal land-use plan, and continue the public hearing until April 6.

The California Coastal Commission made the amendments to the coastal LUP July 9, 2009; accepting them gives city officials local coastal-permit authority, meaning they no longer will have to get permission from the state Coastal Commission to build in certain areas.

But many Redondo Beach residents are outraged at the City Council and city staff because they feel they are allowing changes to the coastal LUP and zoning codes without first allowing the public to vote, per Measure DD.

City Attorney Mike Webb determined that a public vote is required before any final actions can be taken on the coastal LUP amendments. Ensuring compliance with this stipulation is the reason council decided to continue the public hearing until April 6 — to provide the community with at least six weeks’ notice before council takes final action.

If the people of Redondo vote against the amendments, city officials can take no further action, and the coastal LUP’s current stipulations would be enforced.

But there is a great deal of confusion surrounding what those stipulations actually are, what has not yet been certified and what exactly the public would be voting on.

City officials state that Heart of the City zoning — determined in the late 1990s — are in place, because that is the last time the city saw any major development changes come up. But many residents state that since the CCC never approved Heart of the City — which would have allowed for 1.6 million square feet of development in the harbor area, instead of the 400,000 square feet now proposed — they would not be the default zoning regulations after all.

According to Planning Director Aaron Jones’ staff report, the City Council already adopted amendments to the city’s general plan, Harbor/Civic Center-specific plan, zoning ordinance and coastal zoning ordinance in 2008 — and all amendments currently are effective. The CCC’s amendments to the coastal LUP and additional modifications are what have yet to be certified, rendering them not legally effective at this time.

Councilman Bill Brand explained the difference between zoning and LUP. But the city attorney disagreed.

“Because we’ve never had a certified coastal zoning (in place) in that area, we can’t be amending it,” Webb said. This would mean that no public vote would be required, since the zoning provisions for Heart of the City, if they actually are in effect, were implemented before Measure DD passed.
“I’m saying you have to have a vote on DD as to the coastal land-use plan, should you choose Option 1,” Webb added. Option 1, the option council chose Tuesday night, meant accepting the CCC’s amendments for the coastal LUP, directing Webb to prepare the appropriate resolution for consideration at the April 6 meeting and continuing the public hearing until that date.

“Where we, in good faith, disagree, is whether or not you can have a vote on the zoning,” Webb added.

The people have spoken

While some residents were outright opposed to any development in the area, many residents agreed that some revitalization of King Harbor and the Redondo Pier is long overdue, and still more said they would be even less opposed if the proposed size was not so large.

“I think the big elephant in the room is the 400,000 square feet,” resident Elizabeth Pringle said.

David Nagel, president of Decron Properties, called the buildings in the harbor area “dilapidated,” and promised that “nothing is going to get developed on that property without the entire community’s input. In the end, the only thing we want to build is what the community wants to see — otherwise, it just won’t be successful.”

Leslie Page, a resident who said she frequents the harbor “more than most,” put her trust in the City Council, stating, “I know you will do the right thing because we voted you there.”

Al Ching echoed these sentiments, saying, “I admire (council’s) tenacity and the time they put in, whether we agree with them or not … They’re just trying to do the best they can; we’ve got to show them some respect.”

Still other residents wished to see improvements made to what already is in place in the area.

In October 2009, City Council chambers were packed solid as residents demanded a chance to vote on the proposed new development in the harbor.

In a staff report dated Oct. 6, 2009, Jones listed the CCC’s 17 amendments to the city’s existing policies. The modifications stipulate that, among other things, hotels, timeshares and condo hotels are prohibited on state tidelands.

Brand Tuesday night argued that the tidelands represent a small percentage of the land available for development in the harbor and pier areas of the city.

“Ruby’s (diner) is just outside of the tidelands, and Seaside Lagoon is just in(side) the tidelands,” Brand said. “So, while the Coastal Commission says there will be no timeshares in the tidelands, that means they can be in the uplands, which would then be in that parking lot, just east of Seaside Lagoon, where Ruby’s … Samba (and) the Cheesecake Factory (are) … I didn’t see that as a big compromise on the part of the Coastal Commission.”

Another CCC amendment states that the city must implement a public boat-launch ramp policy, a public access sign requirement, a tsunami and sea-level rise policy, and tree-trimming restrictions.

The city adopted these amendments May 8, 2008, according to Jones’ staff report, and they took effect 30 days later.

Additionally, Heart of the City zoning allowed for new residential development ranging between 16 and 55 units per acre, potentially allowing almost 3,000 housing units in the harbor area. The new, proposed zoning eliminates all residential development.

Lawsuit

Brand is a member of Building a Better Redondo, a grass-roots organization of city residents who work against potential over-development in the city. Brand and BBR have threatened to sue the city if it allows for such development without first putting it to a public vote.

BBR Chairman Jim Light led the organization in the initiation and passing of Measure DD, which states that any proposed, large-scale development must be put before the city residents for a vote. The measure passed in 2008.

While some believe that Brand’s concurrent service as a councilman and member of BBR make for a conflict of interest, Webb stated in the Oct. 9, 2009, council meeting that Brand does not have a conflict of interest in regard to the public hearings because they are a legislative process.

“However, given his activities and the statements made … in open session, as well as written documents outside of the open session, he does have a conflict of interest when the mayor and the rest of the council meet in closed session, because he has threatened litigation against (the city),” Webb said. “Certainly, you can’t be on both sides of the same lawsuit.”

The April 6 City Council meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in council chambers.