The Harbor Commission had extensive discussions on a sport fishing pier with consultants and renderings. Could we use this analysis as a starting point? I also believe similar discussions have already been had regarding a boat ramp and the formatting at different Moles. Seems we could shrink the time line with many items already examined
Please ensure District #2 has a pathway in approving what changes occur in the waterfront/power plant area. If District #2 is not supportive of any future plan, it will not pass. District #2 will feel the brunt of any negative affects from changes whether it be traffic, noise, or view degradation. We have to make sure District #2 is on board early in this process before we go down the long road of approval and implementation again.
As a King Harbor Boater, I support the improvements in the harbor, and that should include expanding the breakwall, providing for mast-up storage (perhaps at the AES site) and locations to launch personal watercraft such as SUPs. I would also like to see dinghy docks in every basin. If you go to many harbors in the area, there are mutliple dinghy docks, allowing a boater to hop in their dinghy, tie up near their favorite restaurant to get a bite to eat. Simply having one dock by the hoist is not adequate. Lee Coller, Redondo Beach Resident and boater.
We all know our Waterfront is special, and we've learned that local character alongside economic viability is the winning combination. Both ends of the spectrum seem no longer acceptable -- large development from outside developers, nor neglect of an area that needs significant investment. The public has entrusted you to make progress, to learn from past relationships, mistakes, and successes, and to take full advantage the downtime that COVID is providing to move this area forward expeditiously. BeachLife Festival provided a glimpse of the potential of this area -- despite initial negative sentiment -- and delivered a great community event while fueling $6.6m into the local community.
While I'm sure that a third-party consulting firm would excel at outlining the technical requirements necessary as it relates to the boat ramp, a potential sport fishing pier, etc., I believe we've learned that what is equally important is finding a solution that is based in the creativity & spirit of local knowledge that comes from a stakeholder approach, and that will be around long after the consulting agreement has finished. A potential proposal: Direct the Harbor Commission to engage any and all individuals/groups in the Community to and come back with 2-3 viable top-level plans (creative, community-minded, viable) within a 60-90 day period, spend another 30-60 days with a third-party professional survey to get public feedback, and THEN engage a consulting firm to validate those ideas. Essentially this proposal would be a reverse-engineered plan, precisely opposite of the current discussion where we would lean on an outside firm to tell us what we want.
BeachLife is very engaged and interested in optimizing the Waterfront, we are local stakeholders, and we are ready and willing to contribute to the conversation to move this issue forward in the near future, and not in the next 10 years. While we are not opposed to your current discussion, please be mindful that in the traditional business sphere, consulting is usually a last-ditch option, not an optimal preference.
I am pleased to see the city finally taking steps to improve and revitalize our harbor after 4 years of delays, created by lawsuits that were completely avoidable. If only our city council listened to residents 4 years ago then we would already be enjoying the improvements we all want.
As more court rulings throw out the ridiculous lawsuit claims of Redondo Beach Waterfront LLC (aka CenterCal Properties) lets continue to move forward.
We all hope the city council can this time listen to our residents to take steps to Revitalize Not Supersize our harbor, and focus on recreational activities that will be a strong economic driver for our city instead of a shopping mall.
The Harbor Commission had extensive discussions on a sport fishing pier with consultants and renderings. Could we use this analysis as a starting point? I also believe similar discussions have already been had regarding a boat ramp and the formatting at different Moles. Seems we could shrink the time line with many items already examined
Please ensure District #2 has a pathway in approving what changes occur in the waterfront/power plant area. If District #2 is not supportive of any future plan, it will not pass. District #2 will feel the brunt of any negative affects from changes whether it be traffic, noise, or view degradation. We have to make sure District #2 is on board early in this process before we go down the long road of approval and implementation again.
As a King Harbor Boater, I support the improvements in the harbor, and that should include expanding the breakwall, providing for mast-up storage (perhaps at the AES site) and locations to launch personal watercraft such as SUPs. I would also like to see dinghy docks in every basin. If you go to many harbors in the area, there are mutliple dinghy docks, allowing a boater to hop in their dinghy, tie up near their favorite restaurant to get a bite to eat. Simply having one dock by the hoist is not adequate. Lee Coller, Redondo Beach Resident and boater.
We all know our Waterfront is special, and we've learned that local character alongside economic viability is the winning combination. Both ends of the spectrum seem no longer acceptable -- large development from outside developers, nor neglect of an area that needs significant investment. The public has entrusted you to make progress, to learn from past relationships, mistakes, and successes, and to take full advantage the downtime that COVID is providing to move this area forward expeditiously. BeachLife Festival provided a glimpse of the potential of this area -- despite initial negative sentiment -- and delivered a great community event while fueling $6.6m into the local community.
While I'm sure that a third-party consulting firm would excel at outlining the technical requirements necessary as it relates to the boat ramp, a potential sport fishing pier, etc., I believe we've learned that what is equally important is finding a solution that is based in the creativity & spirit of local knowledge that comes from a stakeholder approach, and that will be around long after the consulting agreement has finished. A potential proposal: Direct the Harbor Commission to engage any and all individuals/groups in the Community to and come back with 2-3 viable top-level plans (creative, community-minded, viable) within a 60-90 day period, spend another 30-60 days with a third-party professional survey to get public feedback, and THEN engage a consulting firm to validate those ideas. Essentially this proposal would be a reverse-engineered plan, precisely opposite of the current discussion where we would lean on an outside firm to tell us what we want.
BeachLife is very engaged and interested in optimizing the Waterfront, we are local stakeholders, and we are ready and willing to contribute to the conversation to move this issue forward in the near future, and not in the next 10 years. While we are not opposed to your current discussion, please be mindful that in the traditional business sphere, consulting is usually a last-ditch option, not an optimal preference.
I am pleased to see the city finally taking steps to improve and revitalize our harbor after 4 years of delays, created by lawsuits that were completely avoidable. If only our city council listened to residents 4 years ago then we would already be enjoying the improvements we all want.
As more court rulings throw out the ridiculous lawsuit claims of Redondo Beach Waterfront LLC (aka CenterCal Properties) lets continue to move forward.
We all hope the city council can this time listen to our residents to take steps to Revitalize Not Supersize our harbor, and focus on recreational activities that will be a strong economic driver for our city instead of a shopping mall.