Welcome to Redondo Life

As of November 8, 2004...

>> Please plan to attend tomorrow's City Council meeting at 6:30pm at City Hall - 415 Diamond Street - Or, if you cannot attend, watch it live on local cable channel 8. The City Council will be voting on the wording for the Advisory Ballot that has been scheduled for next March, 2005. This ballot is the result of the "Public Process" that the City Council had performed in order to determine what the public would like to see at the AES Power Plant site if and when it retires. This process was performed after unanimously passing the "Heart of the City" plan two years ago, then having to rescind it due to public referendum.
    The City recently paid a consultant about $50,000 to perform a "Fiscal Analysis" on the two ideas that resulted from the Public Process - the "Heart Park" and "Village People" visions. The report was made available before the City Council Meeting where it was presented a few weeks ago. The report was acknowledged, by the authors, to have been hastily assembled due to budgetary and time pressures, and many who spoke at the Council Meeting indicated their disappointment in the deficiencies of the report.
    At the direction of the Council, the City Manager has come up with wording for the Ballot next March. The proposed wording for this ballot not only misrepresents potential costs and impacts for both ideas, but does so in a manner that clearly favors one idea over the other.
    The proposed Ballot Statements are as follows (to vote for one of the following):
        A) Acquire and develop 76.5 acres for park and recreation purposes at a cost to the
             taxpayers of approximately $347,268,000 to $351,736,000 with the possibility of
             undetermined funding from outside public and private sources; and, with a
             combined increase in operating costs and loss of revenue to the City of
             approximately $2,900,000 to $3,100,000 on an annual basis.
        B) Allow the construction of two hotels of 400 and 50 rooms respectively;
            450 residential units comprised of 147 townhouses, 100 condominiums,
             53 low-income senior units and 150 single family homes financed by private
             development; 18.5 acres of park and recreation uses at a cost of $50,525,000
             financed by redevelopment bonds, developer fees, and approximately $6,574,000
             borne by taxpayers, with the possibility of undetennined funding from outside
             public or private sources; and, a net annual increase in revenues to the city of
             approximately $794,840.
Here are two examples of the very misleading statements on this "ballot statement":
    1) Regarding choice A) (the park), the city indicates that the taxpayers will have to be burdened with about (a possibly very inflated figure of) $350 million to make this park a reality. The honest truth is that people representing entities that can arrange for state funds allocated for such park designations DID speak to the city, and they were also presented to consultant. The consultant and city prefer to imply that the local taxpayers will have to pay for acquisition of the park area, besides the residual maintenance, of which no mention was made of park-related revenues due to use fees, parking and the like (the current parking lot at the pier presently brings in about $1.5 million/year). There is no intention nor expectation that the local citizens will be burdened with any costs of creation of the park, unlike the $6+ million mentioned for the 'Village' development.
2) Regarding choice B) (the 'Village' Development), the number of domiciles has risen from 350 to 450 since the end of the "process" (the 'Village' vision is still changing - growing), traffic impacts to the area will be increased many times fold by this option (over the park), anticipated redevelopment funds (which are not free) are not mentioned to be limited to the stated 16-acre park (remember the Heart of the City? - basically the same geographic area w/o the waterfront, was planning to issue over $400 million in redevelopment bonds), - - besides the fact that this is the last chance we have to do something really wonderful and unique for our community.

Even if you cannot come down to City Hall, please watch on TV. Please also bear in mind that every face that shows up at a City Council meeting is worth 100 that watch on TV. The City Council does not feel your presence if you watch at home - but keep informed, however you can.

As of September 27, 2004 (click on issue link to jump to related text)...

>> Please plan to attend at least one of the two VERY IMPORTANT planned City-sponsored meetings regarding the Torrance Gateway Corridor Development Plan. The last meeting (below) that was on September 14th, 2004 at Alta Vista Community Center. This meeting was basically run by the planning department, and presented the City Council and Planning Commission members with "choices" for the area as proposed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI). This is the same consultant that the City hired for drafting of the failed "Heart Of The City" plan.

>> On September 14, 2004, the City Council will have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the Torrance Gateway Corridor Development Plan at Alta Vista Community Center. The Redondo Beach City Council will meet at 6:30, then be joined by the Redondo Beach Planning Commission at 7pm for a joint meeting to discuss the Torrance Gateway Corridor Development Plan. This plan is one that will force mixed-use (more residential) on Torrance Boulevard from Prospect to PCH.

>> The "Friends of Knob Hill" need your support before September 20th. The prior meeting of the California Coastal Commission regarding the appeal to build into the Knob Hill View Corridor only delayed the final decision to a subsequent hearing. This hearing is coming up very soon, and your letters, EMails and phone calls are needed.

Please plan to attend at least one of the two VERY IMPORTANT planned City-sponsored meetings regarding the Torrance Gateway Corridor Development Plan. The last meeting (below) that was on September 14th, 2004 at Alta Vista Community Center. This meeting was basically run by the planning department, and presented the City Council and Planning Commission members with "choices" for the area as proposed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI). This is the same consultant that the City hired for drafting of the failed "Heart Of The City" plan.

        > This is a new effort by the City to establish a direction of residential development for this
           without public opinion nor input. The first meeting was explained, by the Planning Department,
           as only for the City Council and Planning Commission, and that the public was only to observe.
        > This meeting included the presentation of options given by ULI, with the City Planning Commission
           recommending one that has significant residential development.
        > The next step is for "public input" at two meetings scheduled as follows:
                        Saturday, October 2, 2004 from 9:30am to 11:30am at the
                            Redondo Beach Main Library, 303 N. PCH, Redondo Beach
                        Monday, October 4th, 2004 from 7pm to 9pm at the
                            Knob Hill Community Center, 320, Knob Hill Abvenue, Redondo Beach

BE SURE TO SHOW UP AT ONE OR BOTH OF THE MEETINGS AND GIVE YOUR INPUT!!  The problems with this plan and the way the city is going about getting it implemented is as follows:
        1. The City has declared that Torrance Boulevard, between Prospect and PCH, is one of several
            "Gateways" into the city, and their idea of making it pleasing to the eye of visitors is to
            significantly increase the number of residential homes along that area. In addition, to implement
            the City's plan (which the public meetings are supposed to address), virtually all businesses on
            Torrance Boulevard would have to be relocated in a configuration that satisfies the City's plan.
        2. This new "Torrance Gateway Corridor Plan" involves a lot of property that has proposed high
            density use (aka 'mixed use'). This 'mixed use' (in the City's terms) for this area, includes ground-
            floor Commercial (stores, etc) use, with 2, 3 or 4 (or more ??) floors of residential ABOVE.
        3. This would place many of the current businesses "out of compliance", leaving them at a virtual
            "dead end" as far as their business is concerned. Business and property owners would not be
            able to increase their facilities nor improve their structure unless they "come under compliance".
            This would force many to do what they are not in business to - develop homes - then worry
            about maintaing them, and/or setting up associations, etc - - all the while trying to continue with
            their current business on the ground floor - if it is even conducive/consistent with residential
            above. These are businesses and landowners that have been here for years, only to have the
            City Staff propose a plan to pull the rug out from under them.
        4. This plays favorites to landowners along Torrance Boulevard who have land zoned as
            commercial, but want zoning changes so they can develop homes (where the money is).
        5. This also plays favorites to those in the development business, giving them a clear stake in
            the future building of homes and commercial (new building to meet the plan requirements)
            along Torrance Boulevard.
        6. The public of this City has seen enough zoning givaways without proper public notification
            and input. The changes (past and future) inevitably result in more population and traffic,
and greater demands on our schools and infrastructure.

Consider the following:
        1. "Heart of the City" proved that public input and support is essential in the conceptualization
            phases of major City-endorsed 'plans' when it comes to large areas where new plans might
            include changes to zoning, housing desnity, traffic, infrastructure support, public services,
            redevelopment, etc. We started with a City-approved plan, then successfully carried a
            referendum it to recision, then fought off a redevelopment ploy for geograhpical control with,
            another successful referendum, then finally got a 'process' - albeit changed and shaped by
            the City Council - a 'process' which many are still dubious of.
        2. "Heart of the City" is supposedly in the final stages of this 'process' that the City sponsored
            in order to supposedly get a 'public consensus' as to what the community wants for the eventual
            use of the AES Power Plant site. There is an election pending next March on this issue.
        3. As this plan would have similar impacts as "Heart of the City" threatened to, it only makes
            sense that the public input should be garnered at the very beginning - as in the current
            'process' for the "Heart of the City". The City may well find out that the public is quite
            satisfied with Torrance Boulevard as it is, or may discover that the public would indeed
            like to see some changes. To allow the ULI and Planning Department to propose a rather
            narrow concept of what they'd like to see without public input does not make any sense, and
            downright anti-democratic.

This is a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE!! It is not only important that you show up for one or both of the meetings, but you should also let the City know that this is the wrong way to approach this issue. They should inform the public of their intent to 'recognize' multiple "Gateway" corridors into Redondo Beach, and what their vision includes - then allow public feedback and input - to help formulate the vision. They should not embark on the tack they have - that is establishing their vision or plan, only to have public input after the major vision has been established.

If you have any questions, please call Ellen Allan at (310) 489-6922.

Please feel free to click on the picture below to download the 1-page flyer (WinWord format) and distribute it to your friends and neighbors.

Back to the Top

On September 14, 2004, the City Council will have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the Torrance Gateway Corridor Development Plan at Alta Vista Community Center. The Redondo Beach City Council will meet at 6:30, then be joined by the Redondo Beach Planning Commission at 7pm for a joint meeting to discuss the Torrance Gateway Corridor Development Plan. This plan is one that will force mixed-use (more residential) on Torrance Boulevard from Prospect to PCH. Here is some information regarding this development plan:
    > Even after their involvement with the failed "Heart of the City" project and it's "workshops",
      the Urban Land Institute (ULI) was again contracted by the City to draw up this plan and
      present it to the City, and possibly run workshops again.  ULI proposed the very dense
      "Heart of the City" plan, and ran the "community awareness/input workshops". By some
      accounts, the "workshops" were nothing but meetings where the intended plan was forced
      forward, and that when people voiced concerns that were not favorable to the plan, they
      were discarded out-of-hand.
    > City Manager Lou Garcia, who championed the original "Heart of the City" plan and brought
      ULI into the original "Heart of the City" plan, formally resigned from his post over a month
      ago, but still works for the City as a "Consultant".
    > CVS (pharmacies) purchased the gas station lot on the southeast corner of Torrance and PCH,
      and has been working with the City for months to build a Pharmacy there. When the City
      told CVS that they needed to make (appx) 178 changes/adjustments to their plan, CVS
      worked very hard and complied on all 178 items. Then, the City (via the Planning
      Commission) rejected CVS's application to build their pharmacy because the City had
      decided that it wanted CVS to include residential construction on its property. This is after
      CVS bought the land, worked with the City for months, then met all 178 of the City's
      requirements. One has to wonder - - Why is the city so intent on forcing residential on CVS?
    > As far as we know, the meeting on Tuesday has not been given wide publicity (the public
      is largely not aware of this meeting and the proposed plan/project), and, because it is at Alta
      Vista, will not be televised live, but may be recorded for playback later.  This will further
      prevent the public from coming to learn about this new Torrance Boulevard Development
      plan/project - even for those who regularly turn on channel 8 on Tuesdays to see what's going
      on down at City Hall. Further, the City's website does not have any related documentation
      available except for the meeting agenda.
    > The plan supposedly calls for "mixed use" - including storefronts along the street with
      new residential on upper floors:
            - How many new residences? We don't know for sure yet, but it will likely be high-density
              by our current standards. Incidentally, many developers and their designers (assumedly
              the ULI also) consider up to 25-28 units per acre (The Village on Catalina) "low" density.
            - How will this affect store and property owners? First, if a business owns its own
              property right now, the new plan will put them out-of-compliance so that if they want to
              do any expansion, they'll then have to provide for housing on their upper levels - which
              might well be the death-knell to many of the businesses. How would you like to own
              a business that you inherited to find that the City won't let you expand, or even modify,
              your business unless you provide housing/new homes above your business?
    > Who benefits? Quite clearly developers, real-estate sales brokers and developers, mortgage
      lenders and brokers - many involved in the Real Estate trade will benefit financially.
    > Who loses? Those in Redondo Beach who want to keep their quality of life. Schools who
      will likely not have any additional space allocated for new schools or expansion (let's see if
      they do). Traffic will increase.
    > There's discussion that Torrance Boulevard is the "Gateway" to Redondo Beach and it's pier.
      So how many people coming to or leaving from the pier are likely to stop and patronize the
      shops on Torrance between Prospect and PCH? The only thing for sure is, given the current
      and foreseeable housing market, that any and all homes built will be sold. Over time, we will
      actually lose our businesses currently along Torrance Boulevard to homes as the "boutique"
      and "tourist-oriented" businesses proposed along here fail.
    > If you've ever seen the "upper pier" area (blue buildings above the pier), this is a failed
      business development area from years past. Now the City wants to co-mingle housing with
      something similar, yet even further removed from the pier.

Please come to the meeting Tuesday if at all possible.
    Date:        Tuesday, September 12, 2004
    Time:       6:30pm
    Location: Alta Vista Community Center
                    615 Julia (near corner of Sepulveda/Camino Real and Prospect)

NOTE: Any errors reported will be corrected and the contributor given credit for the correction.

Back to the Top

The "Friends of Knob Hill" need your support before September 20th. The prior meeting of the California Coastal Commission regarding the appeal to build into the Knob Hill View Corridor only delayed the final decision to a subsequent hearing. This hearing is coming up very soon, and your letters, EMails and phone calls are needed.

From the "Friends of Knob Hill"...

THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO:

"HELP SAVE THE KNOB HILL VIEW CORRIDOR"

The City of Redondo Beach recently approved upward construction which would block this beautiful view forever. Luckily, the California Coastal Commission determined there is "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" showing this corridor view should remain open to the public! Major support from Californians against blocking public views with development is critical and will be the deciding factor in this case. Please write to the following:

Attn: Chuck Posner

California Coastal Commission
P.O. Box 1450, 200 Oceangate,10th' Floor
Long Beach, California 90802-4416

List: Your Name, Address, Permit #A-5-RDB-04-261 and "Against Construction." Your Letters and Faxes must be received Before SEPT. 21^st. Fax # 562-590-5084

"e" mails should also be sent with copies to: megcoastal@law.stanford.edu / wpatkruer@aol.com / peterscoastal@sandiego.gov / saveredondo@aol.com

Phone the Decision Making Coastal Commissioners: - M. Caldwell (650) 723-4057,

S. Wan (310) 456-6605, Dr. Burke (310) 444-5544, S. Kram (310) 859-4400, P. Nava (805) 563-1554, P. Kruer (858) 551-4390, B. Neely (707) 476-2394, M. Reilly (707) 5652241, D. Potter (831) 647-7755, T. Iseman (949) 494-7648, S. Peters (619) 236-6611, D. Allgood (310) 441-4162, D. Ruddock (650) 712-9579, A. Rose (415) 499-7331

Contact Friends of Knob Hill - saveredondo@aol.com (310) 944-9012 / (310) 318-3326

NOTE!!! Letters previously written to the Redondo Beach City Council will not be presented. You must resubmit as described above!

"Friends of Knob Hill"

Back to the Top

As of July 21, 2004...

>> City Clerk Certifies Petition forcing Sewer Fees to a vote.
The Redondo Beach City Clerk took steps and officially Certified the initiative that could either force the recision of the recent sewer fee ordinance, or force it to a public vote. Certification was performed just minutes before the City Council unanimously voted to "continue" (until August) the agenda item that would have otherwise addressed their actions regarding the Certification. The Certification of this specific initiative has been of particular concern to City Attorney Goddard, who has been very vocal about not wanting this initiative to be Certified by the City Clerk, even though LA county has certified the signatures.

This was just moments after the City Council returned from a "closed session" where they discussed issues with the City Attorney including (apparently) Agenda Item 17 - - as a very abrupt and unusual motion to "table" the issue (regarding "Retainer Agreement for Legal Services" for the City Clerk) was made and passed unanimously with little Council Discussion. This agenda item was originally on the Consent Calendar, but pulled by Councilman Parsons. To "table" such an issue is unusual because, unlike "continuing" an item, which usually specifies a date for re-consideration, "tabling" an item does not specify that it come back for consideration under any specific schedule/timeframe - meaning it could theoretically remain unaddressed forever.

As of July 19, 2004...

>> Friends of Heart Park gets its own website.
If you have been keeping in touch with the progress of the "Heart of the City Public Process", you'll know that one of the visions that came out of the process is a vision known as "Heart Park" that wants to convert the AES power plant site, plus a little more, into a large multi-use park that can benefit Redondo Beach residents for generations to come versus development for homes, hotels and commercial that serve up more traffic, congestion, and requirements for more infrastructure and support services. In fact, at a recent council meeting, the City Council approved a new City Parks plan that mandates that the Redondo Beach increase its park space by about 50 acres over the next few years. The "Heart Park" vision is a win-win-win situation for the City mandate, it's current residents, and future residents of Redondo Beach. Please go visit the website of the "Friends of Heart Park" at http://www.heartpark.org. To see prior article on this page, click here.

>> City Manager Lou Garcia resigns effective August 6th.
After the City Council meeting of July 6th, 2004, City Manager Lou Garcia calmly handed members of the City Council a letter in which he stated his intention to resign as of August 6th, 2004. For more information, read on of the related articles by the Easy Reader (07/08/04), Beach Reporter (07/09/04) or Daily Breeze (07/xx/04).

>> City Councilman Chris Cagle proposes allowing development of 22-26 units/acre in Heart of the City area.
At the July 06, 2004 City Council meeting, Councilman Chris Cagle, citing representing one of his consituents, has proposed that some of the land along Catalina Avenue that is in the "Heart of the City" area be removed from the current building moratorium presently in effect. This would allow property owners in this area to apply for and move ahead with plans to build (such as) high-density residential on their properties. The building moratorium was put in place after the original Heart of the City Plan, and was intended to remain in place until the the eventual plan for the overall Heart of the City area was determined. To-date this has not yet been done. We see this is a disingenuous move toward piecemeal development of Heart of the City area regardless of what the eventual plan for the overall area may be. This is a change of position for Chris Cagle, who over two years ago, worked with a number of other Redondo Beach Citizens to defeat the Heart of the City Plan, which would have allowed up to 55 units per acre. After much opposition was voiced at the City Council meeting July 6th, the City Council passed Councilman Cagle's proposal. There is a problem with "piece-mealing" out of pockets of land for individual development projects before the results of the City-Council sponsored "Public Process" are determined at the polls next March. That is - until the public learns what is preferred for the AES site (Heart Park vision or Village People vision), it makes no sense to change zoning for the immediately surrounding areas, as the view of the 'best use' zoning may change based on the vision accepted. Another issues is that the zoning of these areas is still in conflict with the City's General Plan, as the zoning was part of the Heart of the City Plan efforts, which was rescinded. Applications to build cannot really take place until the plan and zoning match - unless a lawsuit is filed, which is what Cagle is inviting. Councilman Cagle also recently supported designating a redevelopment area in the Heart of the City area, a move that also contrasts to his prior position of "not considering redevelopemnt until we know what is going to be there". In fact, he said that establishing a redevelopment area before you have a plan is "a giant red flag". If you are a constituent ot Councilman Cagle's (District #2 - roughly Torrance/Pearl north to around Herondo/Anita/Prospect), let him know your thoughts, as he is apparently only considering positions of constituents that have property in the Heart of the City area. You can EMail him at Chris.Cagle@Redondo.org.

>> City Attorney Jerry Goddard threatens to Sue City Clerk Sandy Forrest in his attemt to invalidate petition drive that had over 1,000 signatures.
In these very tight budgetary times, elected City Official Jerry Goddard is threatening to sue elected City Official Sandy Forrest. The issue is that Mr. Goddard claims that a petition that would force the recently-passed sewer fee to got o a public vote is invalid, and is trying to prevent the City Clerk from "Certifying" the petition, which she has not choice but to do once the County certifies that sufficient signatures have been validated. The new sewer fee, which will vary from around $3.50 to $5.00 per month per residence is called a "fee", but will be collected on property tax bills. "Fees" do not require a public vote, but "taxes" do. Further, these "fees" may be increased at any time by the City Council, where tax increases must be voted on as well. One interesting point of chronology of this issue is that even though the City knew of the pending initiative, it went ahead and made plans to sell bonds - to be covered by the sewer fees. Another is that the intiative signatures were turned one day, and the City went ahead and sold the first round of bonds the very next day. This is supposedly the first time in (at least California) history that a City has issued bonds while a pending initiative has been "perfected" (published in the newspaper), and then turned in to the City Clerk with sufficient signatures. The county of Los Angeles has meanwhile determined that sufficient signatures are valid.

>> City Council cuts away at City Clerk's request for legal help while also insisting that it be included in her position regarding the City Attorney's issue.
Also at Tuesday's City Council meeting, City Clerk Sandy Forrest asked the City Council to allow her up to a ceiling of $25,000 of her budget to investigate her legal responsibility and claims as the City Attorney regarding the petition signatures that are pending official Certification by the City Clerk. City Attorney Goddard insisted that, even though he was threatening the suit against the City Clerk, the City Clerk would have to get her legal counsel through him. The City Council weighed in by voting unanimously on the issue with the following conditions - 1) The City Clerk CAN seek legal advice - - however - - 2) The City Council must be included as a party to the City Clerk's legal position (John Parson's suggestion - even though the petition and signatures to be certified are from the public, and meant to overturn a recent action that was passed by the City Council, and that the City Attorney is representing a Council-passed position), 2) The funding ceiling was trimmed from the requested $25,000 to $15,000 (at Chris Cagle's recommendation as he had asked Goddard what it might cost, and Goddard's reply was 'very little'), 3) That the money come out of the City Attorney's budget vs the City Clerk's budget, 4) That the City Clerk try to use attorney(s) recommended by the City Attorney (Mayor Hill suggested 'Why can't you get an objective opinion from any attorney?').

As of the very late evening of June 25, 2004...

>> Jess Money's suit against the City's new "sewer fee" gets dismissed due to a technicality - then is re-filed only days later.
More on this issue soon.

As of the evening of June 8, 2004 (click on issue to jump to related text)...

>> At the City Council Meeting Tuesday, June 8th, 2004
Local Citizens voice concern over Esplanade development that would block Knob Hill view. In spite of overwhelming concern voiced by both attendees of the meeting and by citizens via letters to the City, the City Council voted unanimously to deny the appeal against the construction that would block the ocean view at the ocean end of Knob Hill. As a result, the two-story view-blocking construction has been approved by the City. District 1 Councilman Gerard Bisignano made the motion to deny the appeal, with all 4 other councilmen voting for his motion.

>> Other recent issues...
Anti-sewer fee initiative filed - City sells bonds anyway. We are awaiting county report of whether or not the signatures have been certified,which would force the fee to a public vote.
Heart Park and Village People plans to go to a public vote ~~November 2nd, 2004~~ March, 2005. The City Council voted 3-2 (JP absent, KS, GB and GH YES, DZ and CC NO) to change the vote date.

Prior News...

As of the evening of June 7, 2004 (click on issue to jump to related text)...

    >> City Council Meeting Tuesday, June 8th, 2004 - Item 21 will address:  Local Citizens voice concern over Esplanade development that would block Knob Hill view.  Be sure to attend if you have an interest in this issue.  Many people are concerned that this could set a dangerous and undesirable precedent for future construction in the city.
    >> Anti-sewer fee initiative filed - City sells bonds anyway.  We are awaiting county report of whether or not the signatures have been certified,which would force the fee to a public vote.
    >> Heart Park and Village People plans to go to a public vote ~~November 2nd, 2004~~ March, 2005.  The City Council voted 3-2 (JP absent, KS, GB and GH YES, DZ and CC NO) to change the vote date.

As of the evening of May 19, 2004 (click on issue to jump to related text)...
    >> Planning Commission Meeting Thursday, May 20th at 7pm at the Redondo City Council Chambers.
    >> City proposes land use change for AES plant area at Planning Commission Meeting 05/20/2004. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to not send this land use change to the the City Council. City Staff indicated that the issue is 'dead' as a result.  This is good for continuing with the planned "Heart of the City Process Vision Vote" in March, 2004.
    >> Local Citizens voice concern over Esplanade development that would block Knob Hill view.  This item will be discussed and voted on at the June 8th, 2004 City Council meeting. Be sure to attend if you have an interest in this issue.
    >> Anti-sewer fee initiative filed - City sells bonds anyway.  A petition drive, with signatures already filed, is trying to force this fee to a public vote.  We are awaiting county report of whether or not the signatures have been certified.
    >> Heart Park and Village People plans to go to a public vote November 2nd, 2004.  The City Council voted 3-2 (JP absent, KS, GB and GH YES, DZ and CC NO) to change the vote date from November to March. The move can save the city about $10k, and give the city more freedom as to how to craft the ballot issue.

Heart Park and Village People plans to go to a public vote March, 2005

If you would like to go to the new website for "Friends of Heart Park", click here.

Consider this PARK for Redondo Beach...

YOU will have a chance to vote on this during the next City election.
The City Council voted 3-2 (JP absent, KS, GB and GH YES, DZ and CC NO) to change the vote date.

Heart of the City Process Visions Presented to Planning Commission on March 18th, 2004
The results of the Heart of the City Process - the "Heart Park" vision and "Village People" vision - were both presented at the Planning Commission meeting of March 18, 2004. This was the last official event of the process approved by the City Council. This process started out with about 10 visions/ideas for the area, and over months of meetings and negotiations, it was narrowed down to these two. To download a copy of the excellent power-point presentation that Bill Brand presented to the Planning Commission on March 18th, click here. If you'd like to read some detail information of a vision of such a park as above, click here.

We, and you, and the public at large, should expect that these ideas will be put to a binding public vote, which can then allow movement toward implementation of the public's choice.

Important City Council Meeting on April 20th, 2004
There will an important City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 20th at 6:30pm where they will be discussing the results of the Heart of the City Process. It is very important that you attend the meeting and indicate that you would prefer to see the Heart Park Plan implemented, and that the choice be put to a public vote. The meeting will be at the City Council chambers at 415 Diamond Street (next to the main library). It is recommended that you review the City Council agenda for the meeting for the correct time and place, and items to be addressed. To go the the Redondo Beach City Council Agendas page, click here.

You Can Help to Make This Park a Reality!
The biggest problem for getting pro-public projects under way is informing the public about them. Please consider attending City Council meetings and making your voice heard, discussing the Heart Park proposal with your family, friends and neighbors, and offering your help when special efforts are necessary. Please contact Bill Brand at bbrand@earthlink.net if you can help in any way. If you want to visit the website set up by the proponents of the Village People Plan/Vision (which is the plan we wish to defeat at the polls in March, 2005), visit http://www.thevillageplan.com. We will be reporting on their reported vision, and its real costs and impacts on the community, in the near future.

Important Planning Commission Meeting on May 20th, 2004
Click here to go to related text.

Back to the Top

Local Citizens voice concern over Esplanade development that would block Knob Hill view

This will reveal whether Redondo Beach intends to be consistent with Californal Coastal Commission (CCC) policies since Redondo gained some "autonomy" in applying it's development permitting as outlined in it's plan submitted to the CCC

The following flyer was prepared by concerned residents regarding the proposed development

California Coastal Act Article 6 Sec. 30251 states: "Permitted Development shall be sited and
designed to protect views to and along the ocean and coastal areas."

June 8th your elected City Council Members will bote to either preserve this
public view or declare that Know Hill is not a view corridor of public
importance thus allowing it to be forever blocked with new construction.
Council Members: #1 - Gerard Bisignano #2 - Chris Cagle #3 - Don Szerlip
#4 - Kurt Schmalz #5 - John Parsons Mayor: Greg Hill

THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW!
PLEASE voice your concerns in writing to the Redondo Beach City Council at:
Redondo Beach City Council
C/O City Clerk Department
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90278

*Comments must be received by June 1. Your attendance at the Tues.
June 8th City Hall meeting (address shown above) is very important!

Back to the Top

City proposes land use change for AES plant area at Planning Commission Meeting 05/20/2004

This is actually another city "end run" action that is anti-park and pro-development
This will be item #15 on the 05/20/2004 PLanning Commission meeting's agenda.  As many people have declared that the "Heart of the City" (HOTC) plan is dead and gone, it in fact isn't.  The latest action in the city's pro-development stance is the action taken by city management to propose that the AES plant and some surrounding areas be designated as "Coastal Reserve".  This term sounds nice, but it is in fact a move that would make establishing a park for the area more difficult should the public vote for it in November. Consider that the last 2-1/2 years has included:
    1) An anti-"Heart of the City" referendum that garnered tremendous public support.
    2) Two attempts to establish a redevelopment zone in the Heart of the city area, one rescinded
        due to the negative community feelings regarding the Heart of the City plan and general mistrust
        of the city, and the other rescinded due to another separate referendum launched against it.
    3) Numerous and repeated calls for the City Council to re-establish prior-zoning for the
        controversial Heart of the City area.
    4) A "public process" that was supposed to get public input/ideas for the Heart of the City area.
    5) We are now nearing the November 2nd election where the public can speak their preference
        for the area from the two visions resulting from the "public process" held over recent months.
And now City management suggests that this Heart of the City area (which has seen no attempt to return it to prior zoning as requested) have it's land use designated as "Coastal Reserve".

What's wrong with this picture you might ask?

This "Coastal Reserve" designation sounds nice, but it is really a wolf in sheep's clothing...
    1) There is no good reason at this time to make any land-use changes unless it is back to
        the original zoning prior to the Heart of the City referendum drive.
    2) This "Coastal Reserve" designation dictates to AES that it must close up shop and move
        by the time its current energy-supply contract ends.  This not only tells AES that they have
        to "get out of town", but may well end up making them an adversary of the city, which is
        basically telling them that they have to pack up and leave.  This kind of heavy-handed
        policy does not makes for good relationships in the community.
    3) This "Coastal Reserve" actually works against the ability for the community to consider
        varied ideas for the land use at the site.  The current use is "Power Generating", and the
        prior designation was "Power Generating".  By re-establishing the zoning back to the
        original "Power Generating" status, the financials for procuring the AES area for a park
        (should the Heart Park Vision win in November) is much easier.  As "Coastal Reserve",
        the prperty values could be driven up as the potential for other uses (such as high-density
        residential) could be entertained/considered for the eventual use.
    4) The City Manager has stated, more than once, that he believes that acquisition of the
        AES site could cost upwards of $400 Million.  This is in sharp contrast to a developer
        representative indicating (at one of the "process" meetings) that the cost could be about
        1/4 of that, and even other estimates of as little as $50 Million.  These figures don't even
        consider that AES has an obligation to "clean up" the site - an additional cost that some like
        to "bundle in" with their perceived costs of the site area to make it sound more formidable.
        In addition, AES has recently received a "downward assesment" of it's property, and is
        benefitting from the resulting tax-savings from that "downward assessment".

What's the right thing to do?

The City should re-establish all zoning for all areas in the Heart of the City area back to their original zoning/land use designations. Short of that, they should do nothing - any other changes to the zoning/land use only confuses those who try to understand it, and generates more hostility and mistrust between the City, the public and AES. EMail your Planning Commission and City Council members urging them to return the Heart of the City area zoning to the original zoning prior to passage of the original Heart of the City, and tell them that you do not want this land put into "Coastal Reserve" designation.

If this "Coastal Reserve" land use designation is passed by the Planning Commission, then it will be before the Redondo City Council at some meeting in the near future. If such is the case, it will be imperative that you let your councilperson know your thoughts about this issue. You may go to our Contact Your City Officials page if you'd like to send an Email now. Plan to attend any Planning COmmission and /or City Council meetings when issues such as this are presented. Bring your comments in a type-written letter, summarize it to the Commission/Council when it's your turn to speak, then submit it for the record.

Redondo Beach resident Jim Light has reviewed the 344 pages of "backup documentation" provided for the City Council and Planning Commission members on the subject, and has the following to say about this issue, which he sent to the City Council, Planning Commission and City Staff, sent on or about May 19, 2004:

Councilmen, Mayor, Commissioners and City Staff,

I wish to add to the public record my additional objections concerning the negative declaration contained in the staff report proposing a Coastal Reserve designation in the HoC area. CEQA only allows a negative declaration "when there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment". It requires an EIR "when there is substantial evidence in the record that supports a fair argument that significant impacts may occur".

The record currently includes:

1) The current residential zoning at 55 units per acre which would conform to the Coastal Reserve designation

2) The HoC Specific Plan allowing up to 55 units per acre, which would be conforming under the Coastal Reserve designation

3) The HoC EIR, which although understated, highlights significant environmental impacts

4) Minutes that include statements about 30 residential units per acre and other densities by city staff and other interested parties that would conform to the new designation

5) Letters from interested parties that include a variety of development alternatives that would conform to the Coastal Reserve designation

6) Records of toxic substances contained in the proposed Coastal Reserve area

7) A conforming alternative use plan, the Village Plan, that includes hotels and at least 350 residential units

Other communications have been made with the public and with City representatives, that may or may not be construed to be substantial evidence, indicating the desire of developers and current landowners to put in large retail and/or significant numbers of residential units in the concerned area that would conform to the Coastal Reserve designation. If not a matter of record, I and others will gladly sign affidavits to that affect to make it a matter of record.

In summation, the facts of specific intent to develop the affected land, that these development alternatives conform to the proposed Coastal Reserve designation, and that these land uses would have adverse environmental impacts are a matter of public record and represent substantial evidence.

Furthermore, the staff report does not provide or mandate means to avoid or mitigate the impacts created by this new designation. Therefore, the city's proposed land use designation meets CEQA criteria requiring an EIR (Chapter 2.6, Paragraph 21080). A negative declaration is unwarranted and illegal in light of all the evidence on record.

An EIR on the ambiguous Coastal Reserve designation is not in the best interest of the City or its residents. I again strongly urge the City to reject this designation.

Jim Light
District 1

Back to the Top

Anti-sewer fee initiative filed - City sells bonds anyway

Tuesday, 1,122 signatures were turned in to City Hall on Tuesday, May 11th, in an effort to put the Sewer Fee to a vote. The very next day (Wednesday, May 12th), the City sold the first set of bonds. This sale was done with the full knowledge that the signatures were turned in, and that the whole sewer fee may be put to a public vote.

This latest initiative is a result of the establishment of a recent sewer fee and ever-changing intended uses for the monies collected.  Here's a brief summary:
1) The city proposed that a "sewer fee" be collected so that repairs of our aging sewer
        system can performed.  The fee suggested averages around $4-$5 per household, and
        the City Manager is quick to point out that other surrounding communities have fees in
        the $20-30 and upwards range.  One unusual aspect of this fee is that it will supposedly
        appear on the property owner's poperty tax bill.
    2) Public input includes concern about the fairness of the application fo the fee (condo owners
        generally pay less), and the fact that our sewers are old and in need of repair.
    3) The fee is passed by the City Council.
    (whether 4 and 5 below were disclosed before or after the vote in 3 above is not fully agreed upon)
    4) The City Manager announces that long-term bonds (20+ years) will be issued against
        the future collection of the sewer fees so that more sewer fee monies ($millions) can
        become available immediately.
    5) City Mangement also announces that it intends to "get reimbursed" for monies spent on
        sewer maintenance for up to the last 10 years.  Over the years the city has actually been
        performing regular maintenance on the sewers, each year budgeting monies for this effort.
        Now the city intends to sell bonds and allocate received monies for current general fund
        projects by "paying itself back" for general fund monies used over past years (up to 10) on
        sewer maintenance.  This is apparently a legal maneuver, but not fiscally sound here.
    6) A re-statement/summary of the above item is as follows:
                a) Up to $5 million (or more) is received immediately from a city-issued bond which
                    is obligated to pay back over the next 20+ through resident sewer fees.
                b) Some (maybe all?) of this money can be considered "payback" for monies spent
                    on sewer maintenance over the last 10 years.
                c) The result is the $5 million (or more) being available for current general fund
                    needs and projects.
                d) Coincidentally, it has been disclosed that Redondo Beach's budget is somewhere
                    around $5 million in the hole at this time.
    7) It is discovered that once the City Council passes a bond measure, that more bonds can
        be issued with no public input/vote (there was no vote on this bond issuance).
    8) It is also discovered that, in order to service the bond obligations, the city may raise the
        sewer fee to any amount necessary, at any time, without public recourse.
    9) As a result of public discord with the sudden disclosure of the intention to issue bonds,
        and the re-assignment of future sewer fees for current general fund use, Jim and Ellen
        Allan, along with Jess Money, submitted a "Notice Of Intention To Circulate An Initiative
        Petition".  The City Council then votes to assign all monies for sewers only.  One thing
        to keep in mind is that, just as the Council might one month designate that all monies
        now have to go to sewers, the next month they might decide to reverse that position.
   10) Concerned community members Jess Money, Ellen Allan, and Jim Allan spearhead and
         execute yet another petition drive - this time an initiative to get the sewer fee either
         repealed or put to a public vote.
   11) In a separate action, Jess Money files suit against the City in an effort to halt the bond
         sales.  This suit is still pending.
   12) On Tuesday May 11th, the petitioners turn in signatures to the Redondo Beach City Clerk.
   13) On Wednesday May 12th, the City of Redondo Beach sells its first round of sewer-fee bonds.

This is the first time that any entity has gone ahead and sold bonds in the face of a petition addressing the very source/method of paying off those bonds. If the signatures qualify for the issue to go to the ballot, and the public votes down the sewer fee (which is imposed and enforced like a tax), then it's hard to tell what the results will be - considering the City's bond rating, the bonds themselves, and liability for those who sold the bonds even though a petition was "perfected" before the bond sale. Stay tuned...

Back to the Top

Prior news...

The picture of Heart Park (at the top of this page) is only one possible vision for a park in the current AES Power Plant area. Other visions include having more protected habitat space, a hotel on or near the grounds, plus others. Click here to read details of one vision of such a park.

Bill Brand, a proponent of the park idea, wrote a very informative and uplifting articles for the Daily Breeze talking about the "Heart Park" option that will be presented to the Redondo Beach Planning Commission on March 18th. If you would like to read Bill's article published in Saturday's Daily Breeze (March 13), on the Insight page entitled "Heart Park offers health, wealth", click here. If you would like to read Bill's article published in Sunday's Daily Breeze (March 14), on the Insight page entitled "Picture a park where power plant is", click here. Note that the photo presented in the paper is not on their web-page, but it is the same as that of the park above - or click here.

The Heart of the City Revisioning "Process" that has been under way over the last few months has seen some diverse ideas presented, with less than diverse attitudes toward them. Making the area under consideration a park, is a real possibility. However, there are those in the community that would like to scrap the idea out-of-hand by simply labeling it as not cost-feasible. Be mindful that any other type of development in the area, be it residential, commercial, and/or a mix of both, also has tremendous costs associated with it. However, standard development practices currently shift the costs of those expenses (including new streets, sewers, lighting, police and fire protection, increased demand on schools, etc.) to the taxpayer, in some way, shape or form.

It is also very important not only that all viable possibilities be considered for this important area, but that public input and approval of any plan have clear and widespread public support.

If you are interested in establishing a park withing the area that is currently in and around the AES Plant, please consider helping in one of the following ways:

	1)	Download the Heart Park Flyer, right-click on HPFlyer3.pdf, and select "Save Target As" or "Save Link As" and save the file, then launch it in Adobe Acrobat, print it, and distribute it to your friends and neighbors. If you need to install the Adobe Acrobat Reader, go to the bottom of this page for instructions.
	2)	Consider assisting with efforts, or donating toward the covering of expenses incurred in efforts to help make Heart Park a reality. You may contact Bill Brand at bbrand@earthlink.net, or via mail at Bill Brand, 1719 Via El Prado, #408, Redondo Beach, CA 90277.
	3)	Contact your City Council and Planning Commission personnel and let them know you support the "Heart Park" option for the AES plant area. To contact your City Officials via EMail, click here. You may also write them at: City of Redondo Beach 415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90277.
	4)	Come to the Redondo Beach Planning Commission meeting on March 18th at the City Hall Council Chambers and voice your desire to see a real effort made towards making Heart Park a reality. The time and place of the meeting is as follows...

Date:  Thursday, March 18th, 2004
Time:  7pm - Arrive early to sign-up to speak
Where:  Redondo Beach City Council Chambers
        303 North Pacific Coast Highway, RB

If you'd like to check on other issues on the City's calendar,
go to http://www.redondo.org.

Please plan to come out for this very important meeting and give your input!