Planning Commission approves redevelopment plan, but one critic hints at a possible referendum

by Mark McDermott

The Planning Commission last week voted unanimously to recommend the Heart of the City specific plan and its accompanying Environmental Impact Report, bringing the vision of a seaside downtown district a crucial step closer to fruition.

The victory means that the plan will be considered by the city council next February, but it may also have stirred an unexpected backlash. One critic hinted at bringing the matter before a public referendum.

"If the plan ends up not respecting what we have in the waterfront area of King Harbor now, then I think a public referendum could happen," said Bill Webster, the chairman of the King Harbor Boater’s Advisory Panel, an umbrella organization comprised of seven boating clubs and more than 1500 members.

Webster’s sentiments are indicative of rising tensions as the plan moves from two years of formulation to the process of actual adoption. Those tensions were apparent during the first night of the planning commission’s deliberations, a public hearing on Dec. 10 during which 58 people registered their concerns, almost all in opposition to the existing plan. The Dec. 12 meeting gave city planners the opportunity to respond to the issues raised two nights earlier.

Planning Director Bill Meeker said that the Heart of the City specific plan allows for less development than current zoning in the same area allows, and noted that the much of the criticism was aimed at the maximum build-out of the plan. "It is important to realize that for full build-out to occur would mean the power plant would no longer be there," he said.

Meeker also noted that the staff would recommend supplemental analyses of traffic impacts on Hermosa Beach and Torrance, as well more analysis of its impact on the school district. Representatives from the RUSD had expressed concerns about the number of new students that would be generated by the new residential developments.

Consultant Michael Freedman, whose urban design firm, Freedman, Tung, and Bottomley, drew up the specific plan, gave an impassioned and detailed defense of the plan. He said that the task of his firm could be summed up in one sentence: "Implement the will of the community." And he said that he believed the specific plan did just that. "If this plan does not implement the will of the people, it is wrong," he said.

Freedman said that he believed that the sketches that accompanied the specific plan had created a confusing impression. "The picture is only a picture of one possible way, one picture of the future," he said. He stressed that the plan contained flexibility, and that many of the features that people had objected to were not demanded by the plan. He said, for instance, that the plan would not require the Cheesecake Factory to relocate, nor would it require a street along the waterfront. He also noted that passing the plan would not determine the future location The Strand.

"The plan doesn’t force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do," Freedman said.

He did acknowledge, however, that the plan included tradeoffs. He said some views would inevitably be compromised, and he noted that the economic engine driving the success of the plan meant a residential density requiring three storied housing. "It’s either three stories or keep what you’ve got," he said. "If we reduce it to two stories, the plan is a fantasy."

And echoing Meeker, Freedman argued that the plan would give the community more control over possible development, not less. "This plan is the most potent tool to insure that the investment that comes serves the community," he said.

Afterward the meeting, one of Monday night’s most outspoken critics reacted cautiously to Freedman’s arguments. Kevin Ketchum, the general manager of Port Royal Marina, called the plan "asinine" two nights earlier, criticizing it for not taking into consideration what is required to maintain a world class marina. He was particularly scornful of the waterside street.

"If what Michael Freedman says is correct, than many of our concerns evaporate," said Ketchum. "The problem is, when we read the plan, it doesn’t say that. "

Commissioners said they voted with a long view in mind.

"We have to decide, basically, do we want a power plant for the next 100 years, or do we want to build a nice seaside community?" said Chairman Steve Aspel.

"It is important we be visionaries," said Commissioner Chris Cannon. "It is a charge we take seriously. This could be one of the most amazing things to happen in the city in a long time."

Bill Webster also had matters of time in mind.

"If we only could have been given as much time to lay out our case as the consultant was given tonight," said Bill Webster, the chairman of the Boaters Advisory Panel. "Why were they given unlimited time to make their case, when we were only given three minutes?"

Webster said the city council should consider conducting its public hearing differently. "I hope the city council realizes that this plan is for the public, not the consultants," he said. "Even if the hearing takes seven days, do the same for the public as they do for the consultants. Give us a chance to make our case." ER