Though the King Harbor CARE Act never seemed to be in danger of missing placement on the March 2017 municipal ballot, its proponents and opponents could not help but squabble during a discussion of its merits before the Redondo Beach City Council.
Following a lengthy public hearing over the Mole B Boat Launch Facility earlier in the night, Mayor Steve Aspel nearly asked for a councilmember to motion to receive and file the report and save discussion until the Council’s Dec. 6 meeting. The deadline to place the measure on the ballot is Dec. 9.
According to its authors, community activists Rescue Our Waterfront, the King Harbor Coastal Access Revitalization and Enhancement Act would “clarify” the language of 2010’s Measure G, which set development limits that have given rise to CenterCal Properties’ Waterfront: Redondo Beach redevelopment plan. Measure G allows for up to 400,000 square feet of additional development in the harbor area.
The CARE Act seeks to protect Seaside Lagoon from renovation, deeming it necessary for the city to develop a replacement pool of equal water area should the Lagoon need to be removed. It also places a further cap on development, including any additional parking structures in its net 400,000 square foot limit, and prohibits existing parking structure expansion.
At the heart of staff’s 25 page report, requested by Council on Nov. 1, was the financial effect of the CARE Act. Staff estimated the act would cost Redondo $156 million to $196 million in facility improvements, replacement of Seaside Lagoon, and installation of a new boat launch. Staff calculated that Redondo would run a $6 million annual budget shortfall, based on bond issuances and current interest rates.
ROW cofounder Martin Holmes challenged the report’s numbers. A Jan. 19 presentation before council, Holmes said, noted that costs could total as low as $87 million, rather than $156 million. Given bond servicing and existing income, Holmes believes that harbor revitalization would run net neutral.
“Nearly 7,000 pissed off people signed the CARE Act,” said Holmes. “This report is saying there’s a doom and gloom situation…the City wants CenterCal.”
On the dais, council members bickered. Councilman Bill Brand accused the report of being a stall tactic, and motioned to place the initiative on the March 2017 ballot. Councilwoman Laura Emdee argued that the report could prove the difference between outright adoption and a costly election.
Throughout discussions, members of the audience — including ROW founder and District 1 City Council candidate Nils Nehrenheim — heckled the council, including Mayor Steve Aspel.
“Do I interrupt you?” Aspel responded to the hecklers, tersely. “Wait until we’re done before you come up, or see me in the street and do it like usual.”
Brand stood firm on placing the measure on the ballot, with resolutions to be adopted at Council’s next meeting, despite arguments that simply filing the report for discussion may allow for its adoption.
But Emdee, who made the initial report request under the guise of adopting the Act outright, fought to preserve the option. “I respect [Holmes’] numbers on different things, and if it is a net neutral to the city, I don’t understand putting everyone through a ballot,” Emdee said, arguing they wait a week for further discussion.
Frustrated, Brand then motioned to adopt the measure outright; that failed, 3-2, as council members argued they had no time to read the financial impact report. He then, immediately, motioned for the City Clerk to begin the ballot placement process. The council, some visibly annoyed, adopted his motion unanimously.
Resolutions to place the CARE Act on the March 2017 municipal ballot will return at the Council’s Dec. 6 meeting.
