Another Side to "Beach City Enlists Private Partner to Rejuvenate Pier"

Rebuttal to NYT article 
“California Beach City Enlists Private Partner to Rejuvenate Pier”

(It has been brought to my attention that I reversed my fractions with respect to the downsizing of Seaside Lagoon. It's being reduced by 1/3, not 2/3. And the new parking garage is in addition to the current structure, which apparently, is fixable - bad news/good news. Also, I may have conflated the closing of Walmart with Macy's - I'll check that in the morning. Thank you for kindly being a stand for truth and transparency.)

On Sunday, January 12, the New York Times Commercial Real Estate section ran a one-sided, laudatory article titled “California Beach City Enlists Private Partner to Rejuvenate Pier,” written by Lauren Herstik. I’m a Redondo Beach resident (since 2002) and I think local readers deserve to hear another side that was not presented, and isn’t getting much press in local, commercial ad-dependent papers.

After reading the entire 6,883 page Draft Environmental Report (DEIR) and attending one open community meeting to learn as much as I can about this proposed project, I am left with many unanswered questions and unaddressed concerns. Foremost of these relates to the amount of risk in which this transaction places the city’s residents – taxpayers – and about the development of a shopping mall, which requires the destruction of popular ocean-related amenities and local businesses.  I guess this makes me one of what Redondo Beach Mayor Steve Aspel describes as the “small vocal minority” even though I was part of the majority of voters that rejected Measure B last March and the much smaller retail element that AES proposed on the adjacent property.

The current city leaders and their chosen private partner, CenterCal Properties, insist that a new, four-story tall, ocean- and peninsula-view blocking parking structure is the solution to a problem of a disintegrating public parking garage.  I agree that the existing  partially-underground parking garage, located at our famous Redondo Pier, is in need of much attention, but that is actually a symptom of the another, more serious, problem.

Our city has underfunded and deferred the appropriate and necessary maintenance and repairs to the pier parking garage for years. Now, some of our city leaders are trying to justify abandoning a repairable and adaptable structure in favor of building this expensive proposed concrete block in a prime harbor location that takes away public water and marina views. The solution that is so attractive to our leaders -  CenterCal paying for new public infrastructure - disguises the real problem: our city has not invested the public’s money in the required upkeep, and so we require rescue in the form of corporate crony cash. This kind of public/private partnership could lead to an addiction to maximum-revenue-seeking behavior to satisfy even an more expensive public infrastructure maintenance habit.

Ms. Herstik wrote with impressively glossy, if incomplete, detail about Redondo Beach’s proposed harbor-front redevelopment, presumably because it is reportedly the largest such current redevelopment opportunity in the United States, and because Redondo Beach has a well-known reputation as one of only two harbors on southern California’s Santa Monica Bay. This proposed project would not be newsworthy to such a renowned publication 3,000 miles away except for what makes it truly special – its location on the beautiful Pacific Ocean, and the easy public access afforded to water-related recreational, commercial activities and spectacular natural views. A massively ironic aspect of the proposed shopping mall, (even CenterCal ‘s CEO, Fred Bruning has referred to it as such), is that many popular, commercially-successful, unique ocean-related features and amenities will be completely eliminated, while others would  be scaled back and repositioned in such a way as to severely weaken Redondo Beach’s attraction as an ocean-front beach destination for locals and visitors alike. 

As described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) CenterCal submitted for public input are many examples of our soon-to-be- disappearing ocean-front lifestyle: The Sportfishing Pier, the Seaside Lagoon, Lanakila Outrigger Canoe Club boat launch ramp and the current capacity for public boat ramp usage to name some of the major losses.  What CenterCal, the shopping center developer, proposes to do with them shows that they are clearly outside of their wheelhouse when it comes to appropriate, authentic, permitted coastal redevelopment, as I explain below.

Redondo Sportfishing Pier, which was built in the 1950s has been labelled “optional” in CenterCal’s plans, which in real people speak means “not part of the base model and, for land’s sake, we’re shopping center developers, ill-equipped to help Redondo Beach figure out how to sustain an integral harbor asset that supports successful locally-owned businesses.”  Highly-successful sportfishing and whale-watching businesses, as well as Polly’s On The Pier, the go-to breakfast and lunch destination for locals and visitors will fall off the radar – with the shove provided by those who support this public/private partnership. 

Our unique and incredibly popular enclosed Seaside Lagoon, which has served as a protected sandy swimming beach for families for decades is slated to be reduced in area by two-thirds. This cutback significantly reduces public access for families wishing to swim, picnic and relax in a safer environment than that provided by beaches open to the ocean. 

Remember that huge new parking structure proposed to replace the existing one in need of maintenance? They plan to build it right next to the Seaside Lagoon: a four-story concrete parking behemoth right next to a quaint kiddy pool. In addition to a much smaller lagoon, CenterCal also proposes to accommodate public access to the water by designating part of the lagoon as a beach for launching ocean craft such as kayaks and stand-up paddleboards. 

Additionally, the proposal seeks to relocate our hugely-popular Lanakila Outrigger Canoe Club so they will also launch and store their racing hulls at the lagoon. Currently, the club uses a launch ramp located in another part of the harbor, away from congestion posed by other recreational users.  If this proposed CenterCal redevelopment is built as described in the DEIR and marketing materials, what was once a child-friendly, family-oriented protected lagoon will become a hazardous, over-crowded, high-traffic launch site. But that’s still not the worst of it.

CenterCal is also proposing to open the lagoon, which has been closed to the open ocean for all of its existence, to the harbor.  Where children and families have previously swum in treated, calm water over a pleasant, shallow, sandy bottom, away from marine wildlife, this part of the plan will expose children and adults to several unpleasant effects.  Fuel and other marine pollutants that currently do not reach Seaside Lagoon swimmers will freely drift into the new, smaller environment. Our ever-present California sea lions, always a challenge to keep off of the marina docks and boats, can make their way into the lagoon to take up residence on the swimming and boat-launch beach.  It is likely that once the sea lions discover the Seaside Lagoon, they, like millions of humans before them, will want to come back time after time. Under California marine wildlife protection laws, that gives them more legal rights than many immigrants. Seaside Lagoon will be degraded for the first time ever by aggressive sea lions fouling the water and beach with poop and stench.

If you’re already thinking twice about wanting to come visit Redondo Beach’s newly-compromised  Seaside Lagoon, here’s another CenterCal proposal that will make you decide to go to Marina del Rey instead. Adjacent to the now-open-to-the-ocean lagoon, CenterCal is proposing to put automobile-launch lanes for trailerable boats. That’s right, bobbing babies, dog-paddling adults, kayakers, stand-up paddleboarders, power- and sail boats all together, sharing a relatively small space. This area is already the turning basin for King Harbor, where all of the commercial fishing, whale-watching and sailboat charters navigate to get in and out of the harbor.  The proposal also would reduce the number of boat launches per day due to severe space limitations. The Portofino Hotel next door doesn’t want their outdoor wedding business affected by smelly, noisy boaters.  If I operated a hotel smack dab in the middle of a busy harbor and several busy marinas, I wouldn’t want that either.

 If your reaction to these examples is “No thanks, it sounds awful, I don’t think I want to enjoy the ocean at Redondo Beach” who could blame you?  If the problem were too many people coming to Redondo Beach because of its location and unique outdoor, water-centered offerings, CenterCal’s plan would be a perfect solution. Our inland visitors who return here time after time, spending their hard-earned cash in our city, could easily be forgiven for thinking that goal might not be too far from the truth.

There are many other aspects to this particularly ill-suited shopping-centric proposal that I personally don’t think are workable at this site for the public and in particular, for Redondo Beach residents. This land is property of the people of the State of California and is held in trust for their use and pleasure by the City of Redondo Beach. This public/private partnership the city is considering with CenterCal puts residents’ tax money at too great a risk based on too few financial details and no guarantees for my comfort.

CenterCal has presented very pretty drawings and a flashy video selling the hoped-for benefits of their bailiwick, a shopping center.  Ms. Herstik’s article has trumpeted how generous CenterCal is going to be in putting up their money to make Redondo Beach’s waterfront redevelopment dreams come true. What is never mentioned is that the economic assumptions upon which their forecasts and pitches to as yet unknown and possibly non-existent shopping center investors are based, are no longer representative of reality. (Hmm, do you suppose the purpose for promoting this project in the New York Times Business section was to try to manufacture interest from potential investors?)

I see evidence that Redondo Beach does not have significant unmet retail, dining and hotel demand that correspond to the scope, location and nature of the proposed project. In fact, other popular malls in the area are struggling and investing heavily to create unique and relevant lifestyle experiences to draw shoppers. Macy’s, the anchor tenant of neighboring city Torrance’s Del Amo mall is closing. Nordstrom already left Redondo’s own Galleria mall to go to the Del Amo mall.

Toyota of America, one of the South Bay’s largest employers, many of whose 3,000 employees live, recreate  and spend in Redondo Beach,  is moving to Texas and taking their families, and their consumer  and outdoor recreation lifestyle demands with them. There are no economic trends that support the promise of growth in retail demand for CenterCal’s mall as the centerpiece of Redondo Beach’s harbor.  

Due to decades of medium- and high-density residential over-development in Redondo Beach, nicknamed ReCondo Beach for our view-blocking high-density residential buildup along the waterfront, there is not even much room to meet any increased demand if it suddenly appeared. We shouldn’t expect much consumer demand based on housing growth.

The ugliness and lackluster performance of our existing infrastructure and business mix that our town’s leaders cite as justification for their support of this shopping center are the result of decades of water-front redevelopment projects that were once entered into, funded and built with the same hype and high hopes that CenterCal is promising now.  That this proposed project is orders of magnitude higher in cost should be of great concern to Redondo Beach residents, our neighbors in the South Bay cities, and any potential investors.  If this shopping center performs the same way the current redevelopments have performed, the risk to taxpayers is great, while the risk to CenterCal’s business is much less. 

It is my understanding that with the current agreement, CenterCal can sell their interest in this huge capital project and walk away as they inevitably move on to other places and projects. Redondo Beach could find itself at a disadvantage in partnership with hedge funds or foreign investors who could then control our waterfront and our community’s invaluable natural and built-asset. There is no guarantee that whoever buys CenterCal’s interest will be as invested in our town as our residents and visitors. I was always taught to “dance with the one what brung ya” so I’m not comfortable with the prospect of the private part of this public/private partnership being able to leave the dance without me.

Redondo Beach does not have a Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning for our waterfront area.  Despite residents repeatedly clamoring for our city’s leaders to undertake creating a cohesive, community-driven plan, we are left to vote on major projects, one at a time, as if the cumulative effects of each and all of them are nil.  The last such redevelopment project, on land adjacent to CenterCal’s proposed waterfront shopping center, also contained multi-use retail, along with another hotel, medium and high-density residential and very little open space for public access. In contrast to what our Mayor repeatedly characterizes as a “small, vocal minority” the majority of Redondo Beach voters clearly demonstrated that they oppose significant expansion of retail in our valuable waterfront location. That concept was a losing proposal in last March’s election when the voters rejected it at the polls. Despite a heavily-funded campaign in support of that initiative, largely underwritten by AES Corp. who owns the land, voters said No then  to 85,000 square feet of additional retail and many of us are saying No to CenterCal’s  524,000 square feet of parking garage, national-chain retail mall, hotel and reduced water access and open space.

I am not anti-development and I agree that our waterfront, pier and harbor need upgrades and improvement. I am even in favor of expansion of waterfront infrastructure, amenities and appropriate revenue-generating businesses based on maximizing the value of our greatest natural asset – the Pacific Ocean. I am not inclined to support redevelopment projects until we have a Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning to focus efforts on community-driven needs. I am also, seriously questioning, studying and challenging this particular proposed retail redevelopment, at this particular waterfront location, from this particular kind of shopping mall developer, with this particular company, under these proposed troubling economic terms, at this particular time.