Redondo Wants Court to Decide Whether City Must Rebuild the Pier

The Redondo Beach City Council has called off official debate over the future of the damaged Redondo Pier until a court determines whether the city has a legal obligation to rebuild it.

City Atty. Gordon Phillips, who recommended the legal route, said a ruling could be issued in three to four months and would cover a number of related issues, such as the design and size of a new or rebuilt structure--if the court finds that the city must restore the pier.

About half of the pier was destroyed by ocean storms and a fire last year. The council voted in November to rebuild, but that decision soon faltered in the face of vocal opposition from some residents. They demanded a referendum on the issue, while others at numerous public hearings urged the council to proceed with the project.

Council members Thursday expressed relief over prospects of another jurisdiction resolving the contentious and increasingly complex pier question.

“It’s the smartest and safest way to get the issue settled and avoid litigation in the future,” said Councilman Stevan Colin. “We had the cart before the horse, but now I think we’re back on the right track.”

He and other officials noted that city political campaigns earlier this year were a factor in delaying council decisions on rebuilding the pier.

Phillips and City Manager Tim Casey said the idea of calling on the courts was prompted by a council decision Aug. 1 to hire a consultant to draw up various design plans before deciding whether to call a referendum on the pier’s future.

However, that approach “ignores one basic legal question that remains unresolved and raises several more,” Casey told the council Wednesday.

He recalled that Phillips, in August, 1988, offered his opinion that the city had no legal obligation to restore the destroyed portion of the pier, while lawyers for the leaseholder, Pier Properties, said it did.

“Without resolving this conflict now,” Casey said, “the city may be developing planning options, raising public expectations and seeking voter commitment to one or more project designs that could be legally invalidated at a later date.”

Other questions the court will be asked to answer, Casey said, include whether the city can construct a public building on a new pier, whether a new pier would have to be exactly the same shape and design as the structure destroyed last year, and whether Pier Properties would have any rights if the city chooses to build a pier whose boundaries would lie wholly or partly outside the present leasehold.

Jay Robinson, a general partner in Pier Properties, said he will also welcome a court resolution of the legal issues.

“I have agreed that it’s the best way to go,” he said. “Let’s get squared away in language that people understand.”

Robinson’s lease, which covers the destroyed portion of the pier, was obtained from the city in 1962 and runs for another 40 years, he said.

Phillips said he would file the city’s request for declaratory relief in Torrance Superior Court. In such an action, the court is asked to interpret legal issues and questions arising from them.