Light in the Shade
Dear ER:
So people opposed to the Redondo Shade Hotel are in favor of keeping the property looking like a dump forever (“Lease default puts Shade Hotel, City of Redondo Beach at odds?”). I couldn’t be more excited for the Shade to open. Thumbs down to the City of Redondo, thumbs up to the developers. That strip has been the ugliest part of the waterfront, from Redondo to El Segundo, for over 40 years.
Richard King
Facebook comment
Swimming idea
Dear ER:
I absolutely love the idea of a South Bay Regional Aquatic Center as part of the Redondo waterfront redevelopment. There is plenty of room in the area for a restored wetlands, a wave park, a kid’s swim area, fresh and saltwater pools (remember the Plunge?), and sportfishing, kayaking and sailing amenities, as well as commercial and residential property. I’m sure there are plenty of planners with vision who could create something that fits in with the character of the community while providing a regional draw that would rival destinations like Mission Bay in San Diego or Balboa Island in Newport Beach.
Those who wish to make this happen need to form organizations and coalitions that can raise funds and build public support for such an ambitious project. With a truly concerted effort by both public and private interests, I hope and believe that it can be done.
Brian Hittelman
Redondo Beach
Park the hotel idea
Dear ER:
Manhattan Beach, like Hermosa also has hotel plans (“Hermosa likely has more hotels in its immediate future,” ER Dec. 31, 2015). Proposals are being solicited for developers to build a hotel on the city owned parking lot that currently serves Manhattan Village Park, Manhattan Village Mall, and the Manhattan Country Club.
The dust and noise of construction followed by the noise of delivery trucks and guest and staff vehicles will destroy the residential character of Manhattan Village town and estate homes, as well as disrupt life at the Senior Villas. Members of the Country Club will experience substantial disruption of their enjoyment of Club facilities and those who use the soccer field and other amenities of the Park will no longer have substantial free parking or quiet enjoyment of their pastimes.
The city is choosing to use this property to generate income rather than expand the recreational options at the park. Not only is this a great opportunity to expand park facilities being ignored, but in an era of AirBnb and hotel expansion in the South Bay, the financial projections for the proposed Manhattan Beach facility may be totally illusory. The taxpayers of Manhattan Beach may be stuck with the tab for a financially stressed property to accompany their loss of potential park expansion.
Alan Bloom
Manhattan Beach
Begg to skate
Dear ER:
It’s good to see the generations old request for a Manhattan Beach skateboard park is again on the table. Wouldn’t it be great to see the Manhattan Beach school district and and city council meet together before any site is chosen? Perhaps they would recognize that over 600 folks signed a petition in a two week period to use part of the old, underused, trashed filled Begg parking lot for a skateboard park. MBUSD owns the lot. It is close to Manhattan Beach Middle School for use by its physical education classes on skateboarding safety, etiquette and skills. It’s close to the city parks and recreation teen center for after school supervision and classes. It is large, already paved and doesn’t use any green space. Unlike Live Oak or Manhattan Heights Park, the Begg parking lot doesn’t back up to any residences. It is not in Polliwog Park. Both the MBUSD and Council have grant writers to look for funding and sponsorship from skateboard and sporting businesses
As taxpayers, it would be a far more efficient use of land to serve the population of our entire city than some of the green, remote, driveway-sized suggestions. No more committees,expensive surveys — just grass roots common sense. It would be wonderful to see the MBUSD and the City working together as an example of how to finally accomplish this old request. Wouldn’t it be great if this diamond in the rough parking lot was finally polished and became a useful gem in our jewel of a city. Let’s all drop in, work on this and be skating there next fall.
- Sikonia
Manhattan Beach
Timeout time
Dear ER:
The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Redondo Waterfront project suffers from “fuzzy traffic math.” After failing to apply accepted standards for determining traffic, the report ends up with 12,550 new car trips, for a total of 22,234 per day. This number is clearly way too low and it fails to include additional traffic from the new Shade Hotel, now under construction.
I would normally be laughing about anyone seriously presenting this data as having “no negative impact” if the stakes weren’t so high for our citizens.
Another fatal flaw in the analysis is that there is no mention of the new bike lane on Harbor Drive. The addition of this path eliminates a left turn lane for cars. Having no left turn lane will cause cars to back up. Won’t this have a negative impact on traffic?
Beyond this current Waterfront project what is going to happen to traffic once the power plant is developed? I think a timeout is in order to make a plan to benefit the people of Redondo Beach, not a developer and a few city council members.
Anyone seriously believing there is no negative impact on traffic, as well as other critical areas in the DEIR needs to wake up to reality.
Wayne Craig
Redondo Beach
Pier back in time
Dear ER:
As owner of the Flagship, a cocktail driven business on Pier Avenue in Hermosa Beach back in the ‘70s, I can see it looks like there hasn’t been much change in the Planning Commission and City Council effort to control businesses in an area that has always been primarily restaurants and cocktail Lounges (“Hermosa tries to reshape nightlife in downtown,” ER Dec. 31, 2015). These businesses draw more income in the city than all the other businesses combined.
I had purchased a business that had been closed (due to a fire) for over 90 days. This caused the conditional use permit (CUP) to expire. I had to remodel the business, investing a considerable amount, and renew the CUP. During my dealing with the Planning Commission, I found that none of the members were actually qualified to be on the Commission, but had been appointed by their friends on the City Council. In the almost six months of bouncing back and forth between the Planning Commission and City Council, I had an opportunity to watch their dealings with all types of issues. One that stands out was a gentleman wanting to build a liana on the side of his house. There was a lady on the Planning Commission who didn’t know what a lanai was, yet she was going to vote on his permit. I also saw that some of the members (Planning Commission and City Council) relished the power they had.
I was issued building permits and all the various licenses I needed to complete the remodel, including a business licenses. I also had an Alcohol Beverage Licenses issued by the State of California to sell Alcoholic Beverages. In fact, there had been an ABC License (Type 50) grandfathered in since the 1930’s.
Still the Planning Commission continued to stall. I finally had to get an attorney and threaten to sue the city if they didn’t issue the CUP. At this point the City Council ordered the Planning Commission to issue the CUP.
For the six years I owned the Flagship, we had a great working relationship with the City. We had an excellent relationship with the Police Department.I lived in Hermosa Beach for many years and really loved the City. All my experiences in the City were great except the dealing with the Planning Commission.
Facebook comment
Best not seen
Dear ER:
As I was driving along Harbor Dr. and Catalina Ave. from south Hermosa to the Redondo Pier, with its obscured harbor views and not a grain of sand in sight, it dawned on me — Redondo Beach needs a new motto. How about: “Redondo Beach: The best Beach City to go to NOT see the beach.”
Brian Hittelman
Redondo Beach
Daft EIR
Dear ER:
I would like someone from the City of Redondo Beach, city council or mayor’s office, to explain (with a straight face) how there can be “No Impact” from the CenterCal waterfront development. This makes no sense to anyone with half a brain.
How can the traffic in the development area and surrounding areas double in size with “No Impact?” How can the Seaside Lagoon be reduced in size by about one third, then expect kids and families, stand-up paddleboards, kayaks and the possible launching of motor boats and cause “No Impact”? How can there be “No Impact” on Public Safety and Crime with the increase in the number of people needed to support the new larger Pier and Harbor areas?
I don’t have to name all the “impacts” for anybody to see for themselves the complete falsehoods contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. What is the city’s Plan B if all this fails?
Gretchen Lloyd
Redondo Beach
