Redondo Council to Spend $50,000 on Architect’s Concepts for Rebuilding Pier

The Redondo Beach City Council, after a long and sometimes emotional debate over the future of the storm- and fire-damaged Redondo Pier, has agreed to pay an architect $50,000 to come up with a set of detailed concepts on how the structure might be rebuilt.

At the same time, the council agreed Tuesday night to vote--after it reviews the concepts--on whether to let residents make the final decision on the pier’s future. The decision was a compromise, with a minority of the council successfully pressing their colleagues to honor election pledges to hold a public vote on rebuilding the pier.

Equally Divided

The audience of about 60 people appeared equally divided between advocates of rebuilding the pier and those who either opposed any reconstruction, or who favor a referendum on the issue before a decision is made.

Council members Kay Horrell and Terry Ward said they needed more information to make a decision. “We should take this a step at a time,” Horrell said.

They were joined by Councilman Ron Cawdry in a 3-2 vote to hire Edward Carson Beall & Associates of Torrance to prepare the concept drawings. Cawdry restated his longstanding position that “people elected me to make the tough decisions and I’m not going to cop out.” However, Mayor Brad Parton immediately vetoed the decision, insisting that the council must make some form of commitment to involve the public in the pier decision.

“I want to make clear that I’m personally in favor of building an even better pier,” he said. “But first I want to hear from the people.”

Parton’s stand blocked further efforts by the majority to limit the council’s decision to hiring the architect. Four votes on the five-member council are required to override the mayor’s veto, and council members Steve Colin and Barbara Doerr were insistent on a referendum.

“Some consensus building is needed . . . the pier is a very controversial issue,” Doerr said. She said many residents have a “love-hate” attitude toward the 60-year-old structure.

Horrell and Parton said their contacts with people during their campaigns convinced them that a majority favors rebuilding the pier. Most of the resistance, they said, comes from residents who live near the structure and object to the crowds and noise.

Parton finally broke the impasse by guiding the council to a compromise proposed by Doerr--the commitment to a formal council vote on the referendum issue after more information is acquired, and a change in one of three pier reconstruction alternatives in the original staff proposal.

To provide what she termed a full range of options, Doerr said one of the options should focus on a “passive pier” of less than 6,000 square feet that would exclude any new restaurants and shops. About 40 businesses are operating on the old pier, which would remain.

“Many piers just have a public building out there at the end, and some don’t even have that,” she said.

The other options are: Replace the approximately 21,500 square feet of commercial space lost to two ocean storms and a fire last year, or build a larger pier with 27,500 square feet reserved for restaurants and shops. The architect is not restricted in how large the non-commercial portion of the pier can be.

Compromise Accepted

The council voted 4-1 to accept Doerr’s compromise, with Cawdry opposed.

The most ambitious version of the pier project would cost the city about $6 million, with another $2.5 million paid by private interests for building or reconstructing restaurants and shops, according to past estimates.

City Manager Tim Casey said the Beall pier concepts should be ready for council review in early or mid-November.

In the staff proposal, which is based on past council and public discussions, the option replaced by Doerr’s compromise would have provided 18,000 square feet for private development and a public building.

The design firm will incorporate six levels of building density with one- and two-story height variations, a choice of three architectural styles and various theme possibilities.

Before the 1988 disasters, the pier’s total area was about 100,000 square feet. About half of that total footage and 16 of 48 businesses were destroyed.

Speaker Rebuked

At one point in more than three hours of debate Tuesday night, Councilwoman Horrell rebuked a speaker from the audience who seemed to imply that some council members were controlled by pier business interests.

“I’m durned well not going to take that any more,” Horrell shouted into her microphone. “Don’t you ever, ever come in here again and accuse me of being in somebody’s hip pocket. I’m not in anybody’s pocket.”

When the audience member attempted to explain his remarks, Parton called him out of order and declared sternly that he would not tolerate attacks on the personal integrity of council members.

Advocates of the council’s move toward a pier rebuilding plan generally contended that the pier issue is too complex to submit to the public. “You have the information needed to make informed decisions,” Judy Milner, a pier businesswoman, told the council. “We can’t go back to town meetings (as a way of reaching community decisions).”

Bob Reznick, a pier master leaseholder, urged the council to move ahead quickly with the architectural study. Continued inaction, he said, will cause more pier businesses to fail, leading to claims for damages against the city.

Lawyers Differ

Lawyers for the pier businesses and City Atty. Gordon Phillips differ on the extent of the city’s legal obligation to repair or replace the damaged pier.

On the other side of the issue, some speakers said they aren’t concerned about the fate of the pier businesses. “All they want is to make a fast buck,” said Bud Moran, who lives near the pier. “They don’t care about the quality of life” in nearby neighborhoods.

Deloris Theissen was among several speakers who reminded council members of their campaign pledges. “You promised us a ballot,” she said. “Before you spend any more money (on studies), let’s have a vote by the people and let’s make it legally binding.”

Casey said he doubted that such a vote could be legally binding on the council unless it was put on the ballot through an initiative petition. The issues related to the pier do not lend themselves to a “yes” or “no” ballot question, he said.

As alternatives, he suggested a survey by professional poll takers, or more public hearings and workshops on the pier issue. He said the issue raises three basic questions: Who will pay for a new pier? What will it look like? What types of businesses will be permitted?

The answer to the first question has already been answered, Casey said. It should be possible to rebuild the pier without direct cost to local taxpayers. He said the state Office of Emergency Services will provide $2.7 million and the rest of the city’s cost can be covered by federal disaster assistance, reserve funds from King Harbor operations and redevelopment money.