City of Redondo Beach - File #: 24-0603

Date	Action By	Action	Result	Action Details	Meeting Details	Video
No records to display.

To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

From: GREG KAPOVICH, WATERFRONT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

TITLE

title

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE HARBOR COMMISSION’S ROLE AND AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR PLANNING MATTERS

end

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As part of the Strategic Plan, the City Council directed staff to prepare an item for discussion regarding the possible expansion of the Harbor Commission’s role and area of responsibility for planning matters. Sections 2-9.714 and 10-2.2512 of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code (RBMC), delineate areas of purview between the Harbor Commission and Planning Commission. The Harbor Commission’s purview includes properties that are west of Harbor Drive with some small area of exception. If the City Council supports the idea of expanding the Harbor Commission’s area of responsibility, City staff would have to prepare text amendments to the Code reflecting the proposed boundary adjustment(s) and schedule public hearings at future City Council meetings to formally consider the change.

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to Sections 2-9.714 and 10-2.2512 of the RBMC, the jurisdiction of the Harbor Commission is currently limited to the harbor area delineated in yellow on the map below. Within this yellow area, the Harbor Commission reviews all development entitlement applications, with the exception of proposed zone changes and general plan amendments, which remain under the purview of the Planning Commission.

On February 12, 2024, staff appeared before the Harbor Commission to discuss the strategic plan item to potentially expand the purview of the Harbor Commission.

The Harbor Commission identified a possible expansion beyond the area delineated in yellow to include properties west of N. Catalina Avenue and N. Pacific Avenue. Some of the major properties are listed below:

• AES Power Plant (1100 N Harbor Dr)

• The Redondo Beach Hotel (400 N Harbor Dr)

• Sonesta Hotel (300 N Harbor Dr)

• Vacant Gold’s Gym (200 N Harbor Dr)

• Mini Storage facility (777 N Francisca Ave)

• SCE ROW on Herondo and west of PCH

• United States Postal Service property (1201 N Catalina Ave)

• Salvation Army property (125 Beryl St)

The yellow boundaries in the image below show the current purview that the Harbor Commission holds, while the red boundaries show the possible expanded area, as discussed by the Harbor Commission.

The recommendation by the Harbor Commission would only change the geographical area of Harbor Commission purview. The types of applications reviewed by the Harbor Commission would remain the same and include entitlements for Design Review, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, and Coastal Development Permits. Proposed zone changes and general plan amendments would remain under the purview of the Planning Commission, both within the harbor and the possible expanded area.

The Harbor Commission unanimously supported the expansion based on the following perspective:

Interconnected Impacts on Harbor and Surrounding Areas

Potential new projects in the proposed expansion area are likely to have significant impacts on traffic, circulation, parking, revenue generation, and public access to the harbor. Similarly, the Public Amenities Plan identifies over 40 projects in the harbor with the intent to increase the quality and type of amenities offered to visitors of the Harbor area. The Amenities Plan anticipates increased visitation, which will result in increases to traffic, parking, and circulation impacts that not only will affect the harbor area, but also the area north of Harbor Drive. One of the first projects to be undertaken by the City is the construction of a new public boat launch at Mole D. The boat launch project will require Harbor-wide studies on parking, traffic, and circulation that will provide a basis for potential impacts for all projects moving forward within the Harbor. The Harbor Commission will be tasked with reviewing the entitlements needed for the boat launch project and will be required to understand the various studies in order to render a decision. The Harbor Commission, being well-versed in the dynamics of the harbor area, could holistically assess and adjudicate the diverse uses and impacts that future development will have on the Harbor and vice versa, ensuring a more cohesive approach to development in and around the Harbor area.

Capacity and Development Considerations

In addition to the identified potential development impacts, the Amenities Plan directs the City to further explore potential locations for dry boat storage and a food hall. The increased square-footage associated with a new food hall structure would also trigger additional parking requirements. Meeting the requirements for amenities, such as parking, and accommodating highly desired additions, like boat storage, could necessitate the utilization of properties adjacent to the harbor. If the City acquires additional property in the area, the Harbor Commission would have the authority to integrate necessary additions and manage the increasing demands.

In summary, Harbor Commissioners emphasized that, given the anticipated City-initiated redevelopment projects in the harbor, the potential private redevelopment of properties just east of Harbor Drive, as well as the proximity of the proposed expansion area to the harbor, that the Harbor Commission could support a holistic approach and effectively advise on coastal priorities and amenities in, and near, the harbor.

After reaching unanimous support to identify the expansion area, the Harbor Commission also discussed the possibility of including Czuleger Park and Veterans Park as part of the expanded purview. According to the Harbor Commission, much like the recreational nature of the harbor area, both Czuleger Park and Veterans Park are open space areas and are considered gateways to the harbor area. Inclusion of the parks within the expanded Harbor Commission purview area would provide the Commission with authority over future improvements of these harbor gateways, similar to their authority over Moonstone Park. For these reasons, the Harbor Commission agreed on a second vote to indicate support of a second recommendation that the parks also be included in the expansion area.

Planning Commission Recommendation

On March 21, 2024, the Planning Commission was presented with the recommendations from the Harbor Commission.

Following deliberation, the Planning Commission took several roll-call votes regarding the potential expansion. First, the Commission voted against the inclusion of Czuleger Park and Veterans Park in the expanded purview area, indicating that the parks wouldn’t be congruent with the rest of the Harbor Commission geographical purview area, notably skipping over existing residential units that would remain under the purview of the Planning Commission. Then, the Commissioners ultimately agreed with the Harbor Commission regarding the expansion area to include properties west of N. Catalina Avenue and N. Pacific Avenue, as shown in the red area marked on the map. However, the Planning Commission recommended that purview of CUP applications within the newly expanded area remain with the Planning Commission. According to the Planning Commission, review of a CUP is essentially reviewing a change in use, which is a similar review process when deliberating on applications for Zone Changes and General Plan Amendments. Given that applications for zone changes and general plan amendments remain with the Planning Commission City-wide, they felt CUPs should do the same as well.

The Planning Commissioners also discussed the need for a vision or plan for the proposed expansion area similar to the vision that was provided to the harbor with the adoption of the Public Amenities Plan.

It should be noted that bifurcating review of planning matters in any one area would have financial and administrative impacts. Extending the purview of land area to the Harbor Commission, but requiring CUP’s be reviewed by the Planning Commission would make the Harbor Commission a recommending body on all CUP applications, and would require an additional public hearing for applicants. The cost of submitting a public hearing notice ranges from $150 to $300. Two public hearing notices would be required, doubling the cost of submittal for applicants to a range of $300 to $600. In addition, the entitlement process for CUPs would extend an additional month to accommodate the additional public hearing, increasing the entitlement review process for applicants.

This item provides the City Council with an opportunity to discuss the concept and the related recommendations of the Harbor and Planning Commissions, which are summarized below, and provide direction on next steps, if any.

• Consider expanding the Harbor Commission purview to include properties west of N. Catalina Avenue and N. Pacific Avenue (supported by Planning and Harbor Commissions)

• Consider expanding the Harbor Commission purview to also include Czuleger Park and Veterans Park (supported by Harbor Commission but not Planning Commission)

• Consider extending review of CUP’s within the expanded area to the Harbor Commission, and mirror the purview that the Harbor Commission has within the current harbor area (supported by Harbor Commission)

• Consider keeping review of CUP’s within the expanded area with the Planning Commission (supported by Planning Commission)

• Or, make no changes to the purview of either commission.

Any changes supported by City Council would require staff to prepare text amendments to adjust applicable RBMC sections and maps. Specifically, the jurisdiction of the Harbor Commission is currently limited to the harbor area as delineated on the maps below, set forth in Section 2-9.714 and Section 10-2.2512 of the RBMC. Additional text updates would be required if the City Council supports the Planning Commission’s recommendation to keep review of CUPs under its purview.

Section 2-9.714 Map

Section 10-2.2512 Map

COORDINATION

This report was prepared by the Waterfront and Economic Development Department.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact to receive and file this report.

APPROVED BY:

Mike Witzansky, City Manager