Shortly before 2 a.m., after nearly eight hours of deliberations, the Redondo Beach City Council rendered a decision on what some speakers called a fight for the “soul of the city.”
By a three to one vote, with one recusal, the Council voted to deny an appeal of the CenterCal Waterfront Environmental Impact Report, filed by Redondo Beach activist Jim Light. The EIR was approved on August 8 by the Redondo Beach Harbor Commission, four votes to two.
“I’ve never asked how a council member or a mayor will vote on this,” said CenterCal CEO Fred Bruning, in his closing argument for the project. “The only thing I ask is for you to vote on the project you feel is in the best interest of Redondo Beach. If this is not right for the city, we shouldn’t be here.”
With the majority of the Council’s approval, another gate has been opened toward the construction of CenterCal’s $400 million redevelopment project, which would develop 523,939 square feet of waterfront real estate, resulting in 312,289 new square feet of development. The project add 19 new buildings to the waterfront’s 36 acres. Among the project’s major focuses are a market hall, designed to be reminiscent of “classic wharf-like commercial architecture”; a five-story, 45-foot tall parking garage at the corner of Harbor Drive and Portofino Way; and a redesign of Seaside Lagoon, which would open the park to the ocean.
According to staff, the project would convert acres of surface-level asphalt parking into “substantially improved” public gathering and event spaces.
District 2 Councilman Bill Brand announced on August 30 that he would recuse himself from making a decision on the project appeal because of his  bias against the project.
“As almost all of you know, I’ve made up my mind against the project; the quasi-judicial process requires me to be unbiased, as a rule of the law,” Brand said before leaving the dais. “But I’m not recusing myself from lease negotiations, and not from any discussion about the boat ramp design that might be coming to council, should it be appealed.”
The hearing opened with a presentation by city staff, which found “no merit to any of the assertions raised” by Light’s appeal. It further discussed parking and lessening traffic impact at key intersections and refuted claims that CenterCal’s plan would “degrade or restrict public recreation.”
“The project is all about public activities and recreation,” said Public Development Director Aaron Jones. “It will provide significant enhancements to public open space on the site, turning parking lots into promenades.”
Light was given 60 minutes to respond, during which time, he described called the flaws with the city’s EIR as “too voluminous and complex to cover in one briefing.”
He disputed the city’s assertions that water quality at the reconfigured Seaside Lagoon would be safe for swimmers, given the lagoon’s open-water configuration. The Final EIR, Light argued, included water quality testing on a single day in April at four points in the harbor. He said one day does not provide sufficient data to assess water safety. Despite water quality outside the harbor being rated “A” on that day day, two test points in the proposed swim area had more than twice the pathogens found in test points near the harbor mouth.
“Over 81,000 people would use Seaside Lagoon in its reconfigured state.” Light said. “You’re basically playing roulette with your toddler.”
Light also argued that proposed parking would be inadequate.
“Parking is regularly demonstrated to be at or near capacity” on weekends throughout the year, Light argued. “Parking is only increasing by eight percent, but the project more that doubles commercial development,” he said.
Bruning countered that the existing parking lot  — which Light asserted is necessary for recreational uses — was one of the worst things to have on a waterfront.
The goal of the project, he said, is to create a world-class destination by enhancing access and enjoyment of the harbor waters.
“We’d love to have the Lobster Festival, movies on the beach, sand castle competitions, all without having to pay admission…we concentrate on place-making as a company,” Bruning said. “We haven’t done a traditional mall in the last 20 years. The time of the mall has passed, and the time of the village is here.”
His introduction of architects and landscaping experts to discuss design philosophies of the project, however, did not play well with many of those in attendance, including Light.
“The decision is to approve the EIR in question,” said one person in attendance, voicing disapproval of the project. “Not us hearing more stories and a parade of contractors telling us the same things as before.”
District 2 resident Eugene Solomon brought props with him to the podium — a pair of bricks to represent the “concrete canyon” that would form between the existing Crowne Plaza hotel and the proposed parking structure.
“This would not improve and enhance views,” he said, suggesting that visitors would instead “go to Hermosa and Manhattan” for ocean views.
Fellow District 2 resident Erika Snow Robinson’s complaint laid not with the project, but with Brand. “I haven’t had any representation before, because I don’t happen to agree with him…now I literally don’t have any representation up there,” she said. “I’m proud of our Chamber of Commerce, which brings in money to Redondo Beach, while my own councilman wants to make sure businesses are too scared to approach Redondo.”
District 1 Councilwoman Martha Barbee’s foremost concern was water quality. She noted that currently-imposed conditions by the Harbor Commission call for monthly testing of water at Seaside Lagoon.
“In response to overwhelming testimony, I’d like to see if it could be re-accelerated for a year,” she said, which staff quickly agreed to.
Council members responded to opponents’ criticisms not included in the EIR appeal, such as a review of CenterCal’s financial standing, and rent structures that have not yet been set in place.
Around 1:30 a.m., District 5 Councilwoman Laura Emdee motioned to deny Light’s appeal of the EIR. District 3 Councilman Christian Horvath seconded the motion.
District 4 Councilman Steve Sammarco quickly offered a substitute motion to approve the appeal, on the grounds that traffic would be severely impacted, parking inadequate, harbor views significantly reduced and that the Mole B boat ramp location would be unsafe. His motion died without a second.
Horvath then requested a friendly amendment to Emdee’s motion, asking for two buildings planned for retail, restaurant or office uses near the current intersection of Harbor Drive and Pacific Avenue, to be removed or downsized. Emdee agreed to Barbee’s request for weekly testing of Seaside Lagoon waters.
The motion passed, 3-1, with Sammarco dissenting, at 1:58 a.m.
“There are concerns expressed by the public about view corridors, and the two buildings I picked in the condition were ones I felt would create less of an impact for some of those concerns,” Horvath said.
Many opponents to the project in the audience began walking out as soon as they saw the project would be approved.
“It’s what they do…instead of listening to 7,000 signatures in opposition, they pass the project,” said resident Melanie Cohen, referring to initiative signatures recently submitted, opposing the project site’s existing zoning. “They will be sued, they will lose, and we’ll be back here all over again.”
“Our only recourse is appeal to the California Coastal Commission and a lawsuit,” Light said. “We’d abdicate our rights if we didn’t follow up on it.”
The next step for the Waterfront project will come at the Nov. 1 City Council meeting, when the City will decide upon a developer agreement with CenterCal. Brand has said that he will be on the dais for that discussion.
