Beach 2016: The Battle of the Redondo Beach Waterfront
The Redondo Beach Waterfront. Photo
The story of the Redondo Beach waterfront was in 2016 the same as it’s been for decades: A desire to move forward is being met with an equally strong push to throw the current plan into the garbage and put a new framework in place that proponents hope would be more in keeping with their view of Redondo Beach’s future. While the debate rages, a proposed project’s prospects rests with the arcade that underlays the heart of the Redondo Pier.
January began with examination of CenterCal Development’s Waterfront: Redondo Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report, produced by the City of Redondo Beach staff and hired consultants.
Project opponents, led by Councilman Bill Brand, activist Jim Light and organization Rescue Our Waterfront, were quick to call the DEIR “insufficient” and accuse the City of malpractice, giving additional weight to the benefits of the project while overlooking their concerns with traffic circulation, density and overall massing.
Certification and approval of the finalized EIR, which took into account hundreds of arguments, comments and complaints raised by project critics and cheerleaders alike, was given by the City’s Harbor Commission in August. Light, with the support of ROW, filed for a California Environmental Quality Act-based appeal of the Commission’s decision before the City Council, which took place in October.
Brand recused himself from that hearing, saying that his bias against the project required him to remove himself from the quasi-judicial hearing.
Though Light argued that flaws with the EIR were “too voluminous and complex to cover in one briefing,” City staff countered by saying they found “no merit to any of the assertions raised” in Light’s formal appeal. Following eight hours of public comments and deliberation, the Council ultimately voted to deny Light’s appeal and approve the project.
Project opponents also took issue with shifting locations for a proposed boat launch facility, which has been required by the California Coastal Commission for any major redevelopment projects at Redondo’s King Harbor. Initial studies and surveys performed by the City and its consultants suggested the pier could be located at any of four moles (man-made outcroppings) in King Harbor. However, safety concerns and lease agreements pushed the ramp away from locations at the King Harbor Yacht Club; Joe’s Crab Shack, near the Portofino Hotel; and at Samba Brazilian Restaurant, near the International Boardwalk.
The only spot left for consideration was Mole B, which is partially controlled by King Harbor Marina, who showed willingness to work with the City on a project.
But opponents argued that the Mole B site is too dangerous, and a result of the City playing favorites so as to not disrupt the CenterCal project. “Comments from public safety experts make it clear they feel it’s unsafe,” Light argued in a council hearing appealing Harbor Commission approval of the site. “This was chosen for political reasons, and not because it’s the best and safest location.”
As with the Waterfront EIR, the majority of the City Council was not swayed by Light’s argument, choosing to trust reports from staff and consultants, and approved plans and conditions for the Mole B site.
The heart of the matter could be at the 30,000 square foot Redondo Fun Factory, which sits at the lowest level of the Pier Parking Structure. Owner Steve Shoemaker, who has leased the property since 1972, running it as a bar before converting it into an arcade. Shoemaker’s leasehold lasts to July 31, 2027, making it the longest outstanding lease in the project area.
Effectively, Shoemaker blocks the path toward any movement on a major redevelopment of the waterfront, particularly reconstruction of the existing south parking structure. Without his agreement on new lease conditions that would ultimately remove his arcade from its existing place, the CenterCal project cannot be completed as a whole.
“I’ll sell if they make me a fair offer,” Shoemaker said in January. “If they don’t, I have plenty of money to fight them.” Fair, to him, meant $25 million. Negotiations have been ongoing, according to Shoemaker’s negotiator, real estate agent Dean Thomas.
Last week, Fun Factory owner Steve Shoemaker said he and CenterCal were close to an agreement. But that was before Shoemaker received a lease amendment from the City on Christmas Eve.
According to Shoemaker, the amendment calls for a 40 percent rent increase and for him to relinquish his rights to relocate on the pier or to sue the city.
Shoemaker said the city doesn’t have a right to change his lease payments, but he acknowledged it does have the right to approve or disapprove the sale of his lease.
On Christmas Day, Shoemaker sent an email to CenterCal CEO Fred Bruning, describing CenterCal’s offer to purchase the Fun Factory master lease as “promising… until a fanged [Redondo] attorney thrust his talons deep, tearing the heart, as the project slumped to the floor, bleeding, on Christmas morning, while all the professionals were taking the long weekend off.”
On Monday, Shoemaker said he is still open to selling his lease to CenterCal, but that the city’s year-end effort to rewrite his lease greatly dims that prospect.
The outstanding lease is a question mark that caused City negotiators to include a Lease Option clause in a proposed deal with CenterCal, presented before the City Council in December. The option would haven give CenterCal a choice between developing the property as a whole, or electing to complete only the northern portion of the project, which includes Seaside Lagoon and the company’s Market Hall centerpiece.
That the clause was even up for discussion was outrageous to project opponents, who called the lease a joke that made the City look desperate to enter into any agreement, so long as it would move the project forward.
However, bringing the option forward for discussion was the point, according to Mayor Steve Aspel at a Dec. 20 meeting.
“In closed session, when [an item] is voted forward, we move it to debate it in the public eye,” Aspel said. The lease is currently being reworked by staff, and will come forward for public discussion again on Jan. 17.
However, another hurdle looms in 2017: A ballot measure written by ROW and Light that rewrites existing harbor-area zoning will come before voters during the City’s March municipal election, following in the footsteps of Measures G, B and DD before it.
“If the citizens want to vote down [the Waterfront] in March, that’s the way it is, though I would suggest it’d be another 10 years, at minimum, before anything got approved down there,” Aspel said. “We’ll let the voters decide again and go from there.”