Redondo Council Votes to Appeal Pier Ruling : Development: Council members also decide to put an advisory measure before voters. Court has ordered city to reconstruct the pier.

After hearing more than four hours of impassioned testimony from residents--many waving “Appeal” placards and wearing “Save the Pier” T-shirts--the Redondo Beach City Council voted Tuesday to appeal a Superior Court ruling that the city must reconstruct its landmark pier.

By a 3-2 vote, the council also decided to place the issue of whether the city should rebuild the pier before the voters in June in the form of an advisory question. The council also will form an advisory committee to study plans for a new pier.

The compromise solution will allow the city to put the question on the ballot while pursuing an appeal of the Jan. 24 court decision, council members said.

“We really should get this to the voters,” Councilman Stevan Colin said. “If the response is overwhelming to have the pier rebuilt it may be the (city’s) decision to withdraw the appeal and not proceed further, and get on with the business of getting the pier rebuilt according to the wishes of the majority of the people.”

But Albert Grossman, an attorney for Pier Properties Ltd., told the council that although he felt his clients had been cooperative with the city until now, they would seek damages if an appeal is filed. Pier Properties is the leaseholder representing 15 businesses that were destroyed in a 1988 fire on the pier.

“If an appeal is made we will not waive our claim for damages,” Grossman said. “The city could very well sustain very substantial damages by reason of its failure to act promptly.”

After the meeting, Grossman said he believes the city stands “a slim chance” of winning the appeal. “The lease is not ambiguous, the (court) decision was clear,” Grossman said. “I think they’re wrong.”

But City Atty. Gordon Phillips told the council that the city has a reasonable chance for success. However, he said, Pier Properties, which has 30 years remaining on its lease, might be “less cooperative” with city officials if an appeal is made.

Phillips outlined the city’s position in a document prepared for the council in a closed-door session last Saturday. In that document, which was made public at Tuesday’s meeting, Phillips said that if an appeal is not filed, the city would not be exposed to damages from the leaseholders, and the pier could be rebuilt without years of delay. The Redondo Beach pier was devastated by three disasters in 1988. A storm in January caused $17 million in damage to the horseshoe-shaped promenade of restaurants and shops. In April, a second storm caused $1.25 million more in damages, and in May, a fire sparked by faulty electrical wiring destroyed a third of the pier’s businesses.

Officials estimate it could cost up to $4.4 million to rebuild the structure.

“I would like to see us appeal so we could have that vote from the Redondo Beach residents, and possibly that option that the pier development would be in the hands of Redondo Beach,” Councilwoman Barbara Doerr said. “Put it to a vote and let’s find out what the community wants.”

Council members Ron Cawdrey and Terry Ward voted against the appeal. Cawdrey said he did not want to vote on the issue until Superior Court Judge Pro Tem Abraham Gorenfeld had signed the court order putting last week’s decision in writing.

City officials said they expected the order to be signed within 10 days. The city will then have 20 days to file its appeal.

“I don’t want to do anything until I see what this judge sends back to us,” Cawdrey said.

Ward said that although he had been in favor of an appeal when the ruling was first made, he had changed his mind after a special closed-session council meeting last Saturday and after Tuesday’s meeting.

“I don’t see how it can be in the best interests of this city to appeal,” Ward said.

Although city officials have yet to work out the wording of a June advisory measure, Colin suggested that the measure ask Redondo Beach voters whether they would like to see the city rebuild the pier, even if the city is not legally required to do so.

Phillips said putting the issue in advisory form would allow the city to place the question on the ballot without committing to rebuilding the pier. If the city does make a commitment to rebuild the pier while an appeal decision is pending, the appeal would be moot, he said.

City Manager Tim Casey said the annual rent the city receives from pier businesses has decreased since 1987, when the city received $995,000 in the pier’s last “normal” year of business. That figure decreased to $704,000 in 1988, and rose slightly to $778,000 last year, he said.

Casey suggested that the city work with the community in drawing up architectural plans for a new pier rather than putting the issue on the ballot, arguing that the complex issue would be difficult to explain clearly in a ballot measure.

Some residents, who had argued that the pier attracted crime, said they were pleased with the council’s solution.

Greg Diete, chairman of the city’s General Plan Advisory Committee, had previously expressed concern about whether the city was spending more money to control crime than the city brought in. Diete said the council’s decision was a good one.

“My concern was for the taxpayers of the city,” Diete said. “I hope the (June) measure passes.”

But Claudia Little-Barker, president of the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber remains “emphatically against any appeal.”

“They’ve been dilly-dallying with this issue for over two years now,” Little-Barker said. “I think once it’s gone to court we should follow what the judge has said.”

Steve Shoemaker, wearing a purple “Save the Pier” shirt, also said the city should abide by the judge’s decision. “The city has a moral obligation to live up to the leases,” Shoemaker said. “We’ve been devastated business-wise because of the loss of the lease.”