Redondo Beach to revisit King Harbor boat ramp plans
Redondo Beach Councilman Christian Horvath speaks to a member of Redondo city staff regarding the status of the King Harbor Mole B boat ramp. Photo
A conflicted Redondo Beach City Council, short one member, directed staff to delay responding to California Coastal Commission inquiries regarding an incomplete application for the proposed King Harbor Boat Ramp at Mole B until hearings can be held to take further public input. As part of their direction, staff will also hold new public hearings to determine the optimal place for the boat ramp.
The item was placed on the night’s agenda to discuss the status of Redondo Beach’s permit application for the boat launch, which was deemed incomplete by Coastal Commission staff. Notice that the application was incomplete was sent to Redondo staff in late March, as part of a nine question list seeking clarification on the application. According to Redondo’s Waterfront and Economic Development Director Stephen Proud, city staff was about a month away from responding to Coastal’s list of questions.
According to staff, Brand’s request to place the item on the agenda came last Thursday, in response to public questions regarding the boat ramp’s status. However, as Councilman John Gran noted, the item seemed strategically timed; Councilwoman Laura Emdee, who voted to approve the boat ramp plan, was absent from the meeting due to a planned vacation.
“This is a long-term view, rather than a short-term, ‘cut off our nose to spite our face’ [measure],” Councilman Nils Nehrenheim said. Nehrenheim has been a longtime opponent of the Mole B boat ramp plan since its proposal. He contends that it’s an issue of safety. Mole B is a man-made outcropping that is currently used as the home for Moonstone Park, the Redondo Beach Harbor Patrol station and parking for the King Harbor Marina. It’s also close to Mole A, the home of the King Harbor Yacht Club, and is adjacent to the mouth of Basin I, making it one of the most highly-trafficked areas within the harbor.
The city’s plans for the boat ramp are currently set to be reviewed in an appeal hearing by the Coastal Commission, based on a filing by newly-minted Harbor Commissioner and longtime development activist Jim Light. Commission staff agreed with Light’s contentions at the Coastal Commission’s last meeting, finding “substantial issue” with the project.
“Our concerns with Mole B haven’t changed since Fall 2016: We still want a boat ramp and we still want the ramp to be safe. Meanwhile, the Coastal Commission has simultaneously declared substantial issue with the boat ramp, validating and agreeing that Mole B is unsafe,” Martin Holmes, leader of Rescue Our Waterfront, told council. “Please withdraw the Mole B boat ramp application from the Coastal Commission.”
Placement of a boat ramp within King Harbor has been a matter of heated debate since the harbor’s construction in the 1960s. However, statements from Coastal Commission staff to Redondo Beach have indicated that construction of a boat ramp, to serve its mission of protecting public access to the coast, would be key to getting Coastal Commission approval of any waterfront redevelopment projects. Thus, despite being technically separate projects, plans for a boat ramp and waterfront redevelopment have been tied together.
However, politics, leases and existing uses have complicated plans to build a ramp anywhere within the harbor. As city marine consultant Jon Moore stated last year, developed land and water uses from marinas to hotel to restaurants have made it difficult to develop a suitable boat launch facility.
Nehrenheim quickly motioned to direct staff to delay responding to Coastal staff’s list of questions until after two public hearings could be held at the Harbor Commission level. The first would allow the public to respond to the Coastal Commissions list of questions regarding the incomplete application; the second would determine a suitable replacement location for the ramp. Councilman Todd Loewenstein seconded the motion.
Councilman Christian Horvath quickly objected.
“I think it’s irresponsible, because it exposes us to liability right now,” Horvath said, referring to a city agreement with waterfront project redeveloper CenterCal Properties requiring the submission of a ramp application to the Coastal Commission. “I don’t think it’s prudent to pull the first application that’s ever gone to the Coastal Commission in 40 or 50 years.”
Horvath made a substitute motion, asking that staff complete the Mole B application while concurrently working preparing an application for a boat ramp at Mole C, the current site of Joe’s Crab Shack. That location, once considered ideal save for the restaurant’s lease, is thought to be attainable following recent news that Joe’s parent company has hit financial strife. Designs for the ramp have been circulated by city staff in recent years, and public comment leans toward supporting the area. Gran seconded the substitute motion.
Nehrenheim argued that his motion covered all that, and that his motion was also made to cover liability, with regard to potential boat ramp-related accidents.
“The liability I’m referring to is immediate. You’re talking about if a boat launch is approved and built; what we’re talking about is liability when it comes to potential lawsuits or breaking our contracts,” Horvath said, framing his motion as a compromise between moving the existing application forward and establishing a ready-made alternate.
The city’s outside legal consultant, John Wellner, noted that the city’s agreement with CenterCal simply requires an application be submitted, though he declined to further discuss potential legal liability.
Gran argued that the motion moves the city into a legal gray area that he wished to avoid. Through Redondo staff, Gran also confirmed that holding public hearings at the Commission level could potentially hold the process back over a series of months. He attempted to add a “friendly amendment” to Nehrenheim’s motion, placing a deadline on completing the Mole B application following the hearings.
Nehrenheim declined, saying “I’m good.”
Horvath’s motion was defeated when Brand voted against it, breaking a 2-2 tie. Nehrenheim’s motion passed via a 2-1 vote, as Horvath abstained. Staff then spent a number of minutes attempting to parse the motion.
The next morning, Horvath explained his abstention.
“I didn’t agree with the vote; I tried hard to understand what it was they attempted to accomplish and find a compromise that could work for all,” Horvath said. “Clearly, Mr. Nehrenheim wasn’t willing to compromise at all, nor were my other colleagues.”
Nehrenheim disagreed, believing his motion was a compromise in itself.
“It wasn’t constraining; [Horvath] wanted to constrain it to Mole C. My motion leaves the Mole B option open,” Nehrenheim said. “[The public] was asking to pull the boat launch application, and quite frankly, we could’ve done that. I just didn’t see that as the proper way forward.”