Council Moves Ahead With Waterfront Plans

With a 4-1 vote, the Redondo Beach City Council on Tuesday night decided to amend the memorandum of understanding with CenterCal Properties and approve other staff recommendations, in addition to requesting city staff bring back a request for proposal for an independent feasibility study.

Read below for a live blog of the discussion; entries are in chronological order. Please excuse any typos or misspellings!

6:18 p.m.: Mayor Steve Aspel requests that people respect others opinions. "In July, the council did approve the MOU agreement with CenterCal Properties. It is nonbinding," he says. Tonight's agenda includes amendments to the MOU.

"This could be a long meeting," he says.

6:20 p.m.: City Manager Bill Workman starts the presentation. He explains that this project is about respecting, rebuilding, restoring and renewing the waterfront.

6:26 p.m.: Pete Carmichael, the director of harbor, business and transit, is speaking now. I missed the first part of his presentation due to people who came in late.

"Really what we're asking for tonight is direction for further study in way of that (environmental impact report)," Carmichael says. He gives a quick history of the revitalization efforts, which have been about 10 years in the making. He covers the Pier and Harbor Stakeholder Working Group, the  Pier and Harbor zoning process that became Measure G, which was approved by the voters.

"The Measure G consensus was important," he says, noting that there is no residential and limited square footage. He continues describing CenterCal's outreach efforts and more recent steps.

6:34 p.m.: You don't have to look far in our harbor area to see the redevelopment it needs, says Carmichael. It's no longer a destination for Redondo Beach residents. 

Significant costs are looming; the city is not a long-term landlord; and water quality is poor, says Carmichael. Seaside Lagoon operates at a $200,000 loss annually. The Pier parking structure must be replaced within the next 10 years at about $50 million. There is sea level rise in Basin III, where it occasionally floods businesses. There is untreated storm water runoff and disconnected, poor circulation—whether on foot or in a vehicle.

The city earns $1,031 per person in the city—behind Santa Monica, El Segundo and the other Beach Cities. It is above Rancho Palos Verdes. Carmichael says that this lag comes from sales tax losses.

The concept includes a mixture of outdoor and pedestrian-oriented uses. It will include a waterfront promenade, enhanced water recreation and Seaside Lagoon. There will be open space, shops and outdoor dining. There are also plans for a Market Hall with fresh produce and seafood vendors, similar to Pike's Place.

"The revitalization concept as currently proposed is within the voter-approved Measure G zoning," he says. It includes 150,000-200,000 square feet of net new retail, restaurant and entertainment. This does not include creative offices or the hotel.

He addresses the AES site briefly, just saying that it's only zoned for parkland and industrial now

6:47 p.m.: Next is Larry Kosmont, the city's consultant on the harbor redevelopment. "I think the most important thing you have to look at … is to make sure at least we're characterizing it properly," he says. He calls this a lifestyle-centered project. "It's must different in nature and character than a regional mall."

He says a regional mall is generally 400,000-800,000 square feet that's indoors; a lifestyle center is an outdoor setting. "People want a sense of space—they want to go to a public living room … They want to experience open amenities, open space," he says.

The ocean makes this spot different, he says. The proposed lifestyle center fits long-term market demand. It will have a "classic urban village profile," public gathering spaces and public amenities, whether they're recreational, cultural, etc.

"It is a waterfront lifestyle center," Kosmont says. "It is meant to restore the vitality of a waterfront that is not drawing the quality demographic that resides in this area."

Back to Carmichael. The next step is further evaluation—an 18-24 month EIR project. 

Documents before the council tonight: an amendment to the memorandum of understanding. Here are the details:

CenterCal is investing a minimum of $200 million upfront for public and private improvements. This would limit city risk and cost and reduce the need for city borrowing. (This would pay for part of the parking structure that needs replacing.)

In return, CenterCal wants a 10 percent return on their costs, including future capital investment and accrued, unpaid returns.

Subsequent capital investment in years 20-80 would be amortized over the remaining years of the lease, which incentivizes reinvestment in property.

For ground rent, city would get 25 percent of the profit after CenterCal's 10 percent. After year 30, the city receives a minimum $1 million rent annually. After year 55, there will be periodic appraisal adjustments to the rent, and after year 80, the city will approve all capital investment. 

"There is no guarantee here," Carmichael says. 

The city will invest $25 million. $7 million will come from restricted capital improvement funds and $18 million will come through new project tax revenue—the sales, property and hotel tax. Without the project, the city investment would be about $50 million without new revenue to pay for it, Carmichael says.

The city benefits because it reenergizes the pier and rebuilds key infrastructure. The CenterCal partnership reduces city risk and costs. The project creates jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities and brings the city significant revenue.

6:55 p.m.: Kosmont will discuss the fiscal analysis. He calls the waterfront a "fixer upper," so the city is looking for a public/private partnership. To do this, the city tries to get significant private investment to revitalize an area. Here, that's CenterCal. He says it's common for a few things to happen: a public agency will buy a bunch of land and give it to a developer; sharing all tax revenue from the project with the developer; the third way is to figure out a participation framework. 

"When I look at this transaction, it's pretty straightforward," he says. It's time for him to start throwing around numbers. The city will collect rent and taxes. Over the life of the lease, that's about $2.4 million in today's dollars in average net revenue per year.

Without the project, there will be a $1.2 million average annual loss over the life of the lease to cover the cost of the $50 million parking structure, says Kosmont.

7:02 p.m.: Carmichael addresses the amendment to the reimbursement agreement. It outlines costs of up to $1.928 million, which will be reimbursed in full by CenterCal. The largest cost will be the EIR, which is up to $987,258. The Council is also to approve the hiring of CDM Smith to do the EIR, which is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. 

Next person to speak is Jeff Green, who did the feasibility study. In his report, he's addressed the existing retail landscape, the trade area, the population and demographics, lifestyles (psychographics—how do people spend their money in certain areas?), daytime population, tourist population, growth of retail expenditures and projected sales of proposed project.

7:07 p.m.: He looked at the market hall, the retail, the restaurants and the theater—about 321,000 square feet. The net new retail space is about 200,000 square feet.

He forecast first-year sales in 2016 at an average of $719 per square foot. Manhattan Village does about $600 per square foot; the Galleria does about $300 per square foot.

He sees it increasing about 15 percent between 2016-2018 due to maturity. It usually takes about three years for a business to mature. The project could go from $231 million to $236 million in revenue.

He explains how he came to his conclusions. This is written in greater detail in his report.

7:14 p.m.: "The site has the potential to serve a strong tourist base," Green says. It could keep people here. "We need to strengthen our retail magnet." 

Something unique will bring in more people, which would, in turn, help other retail—including Riviera Village or Pacific Coast Highway. He says there is moderate competition from Del Amo, Hermosa Beach Pier, Riviera Village, Manhattan Village and Plaza El Segundo. None of these are direct competitors—they don't have the size, appeal and attributes that this site has. 

The site does not have strong regional access, but neither does its competition.

7:18 p.m.: Fred Bruning of CenterCal Properties goes up to the podium. He really appreciates being here, and he says that the EIR process will allow people to voice their concerns. He also notes that the project will bring in revenue, which will pay city employees.

"The issue is do you believe in Measure G?" he asks. "We followed that 100 percent to the letter."

"Calling our project a mall is like calling the ocean a desert because they both have sand," Bruning says. The project is not 100 percent retail. "The largest component of our project is open space by square footage." 

"Not only do we have skin, we have our heart; we have our soul; we have our minds," he says. "We wouldn't be here if we thought we couldn't be successful."

7:22 p.m.: "All the uses we're proposing were once on this waterfront," he says, noting that it used to have a hotel and a theater. He talks about the public process, and he shows how the site plan has evolved. He uses Seaside Lagoon as an example—he wants to enhance the experience. He continues to show photos of examples and ideas. 

Bruning also notes that you don't generally find market halls in the mall. He says it would be a great spot for Quality Seafood, or perhaps Naja's if it converted to a beer bistro. The Naja's comment brings laughter from the people behind me. 

7:28 p.m.: A theater has already submitted a letter of intent to occupy the theater space in the project, Bruning says. This would be a "very safe" theater he says, comparing its perception to Del Amo and the Galleria. Yes, the project will have retail—but he doesn't want Best Buy or Bed, Bath and Beyond, he says. "This is not a big-box center." There are no anchor department stores, so the center will be efficient.

The hotel will be located by the pier. "You don't find boutique beach resorts in malls," he says. About six hotels have approached CenterCal about this project.  It will be beach-oriented.

7:30 p.m.: Retail is only 22 percent of this project, compared to 14 percent for the market hall, 20 percent for dining, 24 percent for hotel and more. He also shows a video from Meredian, Idaho.

7:36 p.m.: Carmichael's wrap-up: He reiterates how it took 10 years of public input; the project is within Measure G; the waterfront is facing a $50 million infrastructure cost; the proposed public-private partnership will reduce the city's cost and bring in a bit of revenue. City staff recommend that the council approves the two amendments, receive and file the feasibility analysis and approve the contract with CDM Smith Inc. for Environmental analysis.

7:46 p.m.: Councilman Bill Brand is the first to speak. He calls up Bruning. He also explains to those present that the council is not voting whether to approve the project as a whole. 

Brand tells Bruning that he's upset with CenterCal, as are others.

"In the beginning, it started off—this is not going to be a mall," Brand says. "Come March, you came out with a good plan." He says he liked the plan—"this was inspiring."

"But then, it just did a 180—all of a sudden the parking for the hotel on the south end is above ground ... there's just much, much more buildings and square footage," Brand continues. "It was just going downhill from there." 

"All the charette sessions ... I didn't hear anybody say, 'Yeah, we want movie theaters.'" This comment is met with applause and cheers from the audience. 

"Really, ultimately, the problem here is size ... because we really do need to revitalize our waterfront," Brand says. He asks if the community gave more money, would the project be smaller? 

Bruning says they tried to share their best ideas with the community. The hotel shape changed because the hotel operators didn't want it. The subterranean parking would have been far more expensive. "What this represents is what we think can be built and be successful on the waterfront," he says.

He says downsizing the project would reduce revenue but not reduce the amount of infrastructure repair required. It would increase the public subsidy. "We think there's a certain importance to critical mass," he says. "If we were to drop the size of everything ... would you just make any of these components so small that none of them would work?"

He says that in his heart, he knows the project works. They would be happy to look at downsizing, but he's not sure it would work in his gut. 

Brand calls it a mall, and notes that Plaza El Segundo is a mall. He also notes that CalSTRS (the California teacher retirement system) is a partner on this. "This is almost a rounding error for CalSTRS," it's so small. 

Brand talks about Measure G and reads the ballot language for it.

7:50 p.m.: Fred Bruning trusts his gut more than he trusts feasibility studies. CenterCal typically doesn't do them. 

Mike Webb explains some legal stuff about the MOU and what they're voting on tonight.

Brand asks Carmichael about where the CIP funds would come from. Carmichael says from roadways, storm drains, etc.

Brand asks Green how long he had to do the feasibility study; Green said two weeks. He got the call on Nov. 1, and he had until the 15th to do it. City Manager Bill Workman interrupts. 

"The council had asked that we come back and have CenterCal pay for that study," Workman says. City staff came back to the council with a consultant who could accelerate it. "The full intent had been to have it as part of the CenterCal MOU, and then the study would have been done."

Brand is confused about the numbers. He's doing an in-depth analysis of the feasibility study, which only included retail, and not hotel. Brand asks Green why the Peninsula Center in Rolling Hills Estates was not broken out in his analysis; Green said that the Peninsula Center is not doing too well, so it wouldn't provide moderate competition.

8:17 p.m.: It's Sammarco's turn. He asks Carmichael if the Nov. 12 staff report indicated that Green had worked with CenterCal. Carmichael says the work for CenterCal was not used to vet people. There was also no formal request for proposals. 

Green says he's never done a "product like this for them." He has accepted money from CenterCal, which paid him for work he did on the behalf of tenants. Sammarco notes that he had specifically asked for a third party, independent analysis.

"I just can't support this MOU until I truly have that," Sammarco says. He gets applause from the audience."

Councilman Pat Aust's turn. He thinks that this has gotten somewhat skewed. He says CenterCal told the council the 10 percent return was required at the very beginning. "That's where we've been the whole time. That hasn't changed."

He notes that the city's investment is "$25 million of Fred's money." If the city does nothing down there, it won't make more money—it will make less, and the city won't be able to afford it.

8:23 p.m.: Aust says the infrastructure repairs are needed now—there are concrete chunks falling down. "Fred's putting up the money. If it fails, it's Fred," Aust says. He's pretty much repeating himself, explaining that if you put up a lot of money, you want a guarantee on some of it. He brings up PERS and STRS—they always get a guarantee. 

Aust feels that feasibility studies are like parachutes—they're only there if you want to bail out and feel that you're covered and safe.

8:27 p.m.: If you put hot water into the ocean in the 1960s, you'd get sea monsters, according to Aust. Seaside Lagoon was built to air-cool the hot water coming out of the old power plant. Opening it up to the ocean once the old plant is gone will actually save the city money in fines.

"Every time (CenterCal) showed a concept at a public meeting, they denoted it was a change," Aust continues. He's basically giving his response to everything that Brand brought up.

8:35 p.m.: Aust decides he's done when Al Meisner of Residents for Appropriate Development interrupts him. 

Aspel says it's almost time for public comment. He says that Sammarco is unhappy that the feasibility study was not done to his standards. Still, Aspel believes that Green was unbiased in his study. He also believes that a more in-depth study will be required in the future.

Aspel also notes that he heard from Eric Pendergraft of AES Southland, who said that the timelines between the two projects (CenterCal's and AES' repowering) aren't compatible.

Brand says he spoke with Jennifer Didlo and Pendergraft recently, and that AES is working with land-use consultants right now. Brand believes the timelines are close, and that it's not up to the city to wait for AES.

8:46 p.m.: There are 32 written requests. First up is Mickey Marraffino from Forest City, which owns the Galleria. She's lived in Redondo Beach since 1995. "I was so shocked to hear there was going to be a mall at the waterfront, and I was very familiar with the CenterCal project and wasn't really clear on how it had turned into a mall," she says. She did research, including looking up the term regional mall in her dictionary of retail terms. 

"Forest City has the South Bay Galleria, which is a regional mall, in Redondo Beach, and we support the CenterCal project, which is actually a mixed-use lifestyle center," she says. She reiterates definitions given earlier today. "CenterCal is projecting 321,000 square feet of retail, and will not be enclosed. SBG has 910,000 square feet of retail, and is enclosed."

She believes the CenterCal project will complement the Galleria.

Next up is Earl Turner. He has a "no mall" sign. "The taxpayers deserve options, I think," he says. He wants the city council to seek out a developer's options without a hotel, because a hotel and a theater had already failed at the site. If he's talking about Hotel Redondo, that failed after the red cars stopped bringing tourists to the area, before cars were common, if I remember my history correctly.

"Measure G I think should be considered invalid. It should be re-written and we should re-vote," he says. He says this development is not what the people voted for.

"The numbers that come out of a computer are only as good as the numbers you put into the computer," he says. "We're not going to change the clientele here at the pier. People come down here and want to have a good time ... I don't think we need a mall at the pier ... They compared this development to every mall in the area, so I'd say it's a mall."

Time for Gary. He's going to focus on big-picture things. He says he requested a fiscal analysis, but that the numbers were blacked out. He's also unhappy that the Tidelands fund would be losing millions of dollars because of insufficient rents.

No numbers were run during the construction period. "It doesn't quantify any of the lost revenue while this thing is happening," he says. "I think it is completely irresponsible of this city council to charge ahead into an EIR without having all the facts."

He says master planning stopped 10 years ago. "Don't blame the residents that we're the ones holding up the show," he says. "What we have is piecemeal land planning, and what we have is 10 pounds of sand crammed into a 5-pound bag.

8:48 p.m.: Joy Corradetti of Mystical Joy on the International Boardwalk is next. She welcomes changes. "I thought it was great ... I so think they're doing a marvelous job," she says. "My store is down on the boardwalk, and Pat, you're exactly right—it's dilapidated." 

She also says she voted for a movie theater because it would draw people down to the pier during the week in the fall and winter. "It is not a mall. They've said it 40,000 times—it's not a mall," she says. "I personally as a resident here, I don't believe it's a mall."

She wants to applaud CenterCal, and she thinks it's a great project. 

Jack Epstein is at the podium. He's reading an item that he saw on the front page of the L.A. Times two weeks ago. It talks about Obama, and "perpetuating a system in Washington where politicians and beaurocrats" make decisions behind closed doors. 

"There are some very intelligent people in Redondo Beach who are trying to show this council the error of their ways," he says. He thinks continuing on this project could "bankrupt this city."

9 p.m.: Frank wants to give his time to Jim Light, but Aspel isn't sure if this is legal. Webb says there's nothing that would prevent him from doing so. Kilroy says that they need to establish ground rules if they are going to start changing the rules. They're now reading the rules on the agenda.

Now Frank is speaking. He reiterates points that he liked that Brand brought up.

Barbara Epstein is next. "Your agreement with CenterCal was a terrible idea for several reasons," she tells the council. "The plan that's on the table is unacceptable, and there are a lot of questions about it. We don't come to the waterfront to shop."

She says the agreement is "terrible" because it gives the waterfront to CenterCall, which "can't be trusted," for 99 years. CenterCal apparently is not trustworthy because it is including a public road that people didn't want, in her mind.

"This plan squeezes people into small spaces with limited views," she says. Her time is up, but she's continuing anyway.

9:06 p.m.: Nadine Meisner of Residents for Appropriate Development is speaking. She wants a balanced redevelopment that "preserves the character of the beachfront and harbor." Plug for RAD's email address.

She says that CenterCal was not listening because people didn't want a road and a theater. She also feels that the density is a bait-and-switch. 

"The opposition is really swelling up, if you don't take a step up, if you don't reassess, if you don't truly have collaborative workshops, you're going to have a repeat," she says.

Joan Irvine approaches the dais. She's been in Redondo Beach for six years. She says she can't comment on the MOU and the design. This debate has been going on since at least the late 1980s, she says. She wants a waterfront that she can be proud of—where she can feel safe riding her bike and bringing her guests. She wants a hotel, fine dining, a theater, shops, and more. "We need to move into the 21st century. We can't afford to be stalled again, or we will be here in 2028, debating the same issues." 

Theresa Johar endorsed CenterCal; however, she's disappointed in the design CenterCal has submitted. "I'm very concerned, and I'm absolutely appalled by the proposed amendments of the MOU for your consideration tonight," she says. She "cannot fathom" what would prompt the city staff to ask the council to approve "a deal that will most certainly bankrupt the city of Redondo Beach." She doesn't like the guaranteed 10 percent return for CenterCal; she doesn't like the market feasibility study. "This deal is tantamount to giving away the city's waterfront for free, and the city paying for the privileges."

9:19 p.m.: Barbara Williams is speaking to the council. She can't see council meetings on television. She says the city was originally designed as a wagon wheel. "You need the master plan," she says. 

"I know that you have good intentions, and I know that you've been working very hard to really place something that would bring money into this city," she says; however, she does not support the current agreement and calls for the council to reconsider.

Engleberg is up next. She is also very concerned about the building of a mall. She also lives in Clifton Heights. She wanted to avoid annexation. When she has company from Europe, she does not take them to a mall or to the movies. She takes them whale-watching and to the Seaside Lagoon. (As a note, Seaside Lagoon and the commercial part of the harbor will stay, despite the redevelopment.)

Yvonne Daly is up. She's a builder. She builds plants, like Baxter and Johnson & Johnson. She doesn't have too much to say about the builder, but she doesn't like the square footage. The city will make $4.84 per square foot. 

"I want Redondo to look beautiful," she says. "I want to get rid of that frickin' power plant." She doesn't want a parking structure, or a road, or to feel unsafe. "I want to feel like I've come home."

She asks about compromise—she'd rather spend the extra money for underground parking than see a 10-story parking garage. 

9:22 p.m.: Linda Neal is next... but she's not here. Time for Rob Gattis. He's going to keep it very short and cover only 1/10th of what he was going to talk about. He says the council should consider that the city won't be seeing any rent anytime soon. He says the council should ask what percentage of their tenants have leases with similar terms. Clearly, he's not a fan.

9:26 p.m.: Joan Smith supports the project. Charlie Szymanski appears to, too. He's wondering what the holdup is—an EIR is required.

9:35 p.m.: Delia Vechi is up! I wonder if she's going to start bringing out her Puff the Magic Dragon references like she does with AES? "Selecting CenterCal for the job was a big mistake," she says, saying they've always wanted to build a mall. She's not a fan of this at all.

Julian Katz is next. He is a resident of Hermosa Beach, but he's a 25-year tenant in the King Harbor Marina. He says Hermosa Beach residents are examining their quality of life; this shopping center in Redondo would not help residents' quality of life, he says. He suggests a smaller scale operation.

Andrea Giancoli, who works for the Beach Cities Health District and whose name I probably spelled wrong, hopes that the design will improve the walkability, ridability and livability of the waterfront area. Right now, it doesn't encourage much natural movement.

Ralph Ferdinand is next. He is a Realtor with Keller Williams. He thinks the revitalization will be a really good thing for the city. He would go to a movie theater, too. "I'm all for this to see it go through.

9:45 p.m.: JoAnn Galen is up. She doesn't have a written speech. She loves the city, "but the waterfront looks like crap. We all know it. It's unsafe." 

"Let's stop fighting. Let's just look at this and do something. This is a great opportunity for our city, and I hope you guys vote on it," she says.

Jeff Melodia, a local business owner, is speaking. His business Keeping it Local promotes local businesses, which are anxiously awaiting this project. "Delaying this will only hurt these businesses," he says. "Let's not worry about the color of the bathroom tile. That's not what we're deciding ... it hurts all of us by delaying this."

Don Szerlip says, "It's all about the process." He invokes the late John Parson's name. He's giving the history of the project. "$300 million ... we ought to take advantage of it," he says.

Deborah Shepherd is not here anymore. George Takeda is up now. He found the feasibility analysis in the binder of the agenda, but he could not find anything about the fiscal analysis. He wants to know where it is. I'm not sure what his point is. I believe he's against the project, though.

9:50 p.m.: Al Meisner, who is the one who created the anti-mall signs, is speaking to the people at home. He is highlighting what he believes are important points, including what he's identifying as misinformation. He asks how Green could have left out a traffic analysis, though Green earlier explained that he does not have a background in traffic analysis. The traffic studies will be part of the EIR.

"I spent a lot of my time over the last 10 months, and a lot of wasted time," he says. Meisner says it's wasted time if residents are considering inappropriate projects. "Until you get the right information before the right people you're putting the citizens of Redondo Beach at great risk of bankruptcy, future tax consequences." His time is up, but he's still talking.

Meisner also believes that Redondo Beach Patch is a city publication—at least that's what he told me earlier today.

10:04 p.m.: Stan Gleichman, a 16-year resident of Redondo Beach, is at the podium. "I can honestly say this is the best and nicest and most wonderful place I've ever lived," he says. He's reading a letter to the editor against the development that was published in the Daily Breeze.

He suggests that it wouldn't be too expensive for the city to send a survey out to all residents to ask what they want.

He says the council is seeing a lot of showmanship right now. "There's no sin in changing direction again," he says.

The next person, whose name I've forgotten, says this is like old times. He says the locals knew immediately that Pier Plaza wasn't going to work. He also says the city didn't support James Blackman's Civic Light Opera at the Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center. I'm not sure if this speaker knows that the CLO was evicted from the RBPAC due to more than $200,000 in unpaid rent.

Walt Howells is next. I'm not sure what his point is. He says the city needs a consensus. Instead of developers giving the city their vision, the residents should give the developers the vision.

Cheryl is next. She notes that the people here are not representative of all of Redondo Beach, but she urges the council to halt all talk with CenterCal. She says that the council is racing forward (to which Aust will probably say something about how this process has been going on for at least a decade).

She wants to know if online shopping has been taken into account in the feasibility study.

10:17 p.m.: Dean Francois is the last written request. He doesn't seem to be a fan of the project. He says the bicycle path is getting smaller, but he also says that if people get too unhappy, they'll bring it up with the Coastal Commission.

Jonathan Nook comes to the podium. He doesn't see what the new roads gets the city, other than more collisions with people and cars. He brings up the Venice incident where someone ran over people. 

The next woman is speaking, but I didn't catch her name. She loves Redondo Beach and she loves King Harbor. 

This man is a member of King Harbor Yacht Club. He's in favor of the project.

Elaina, a RAD member, does not support the project. She keeps it short and sweet—thank you!

Mary Ewell's comments are not nearly as short. She also opposes the project. She says residents elected the council to think critically. "It is tough to manufacture an ocean, the soul of our city, and a mall given to high-end consumerism and tourism is not what the residents are asking for," she says.

10:23 p.m.: I didn't catch this woman's name, but I think she opposes the project. "I really feel like I let the citizens down when I got so many people to vote for Measure G," she says, with a lump in her throat. She says Redondo needs more fancy restaurants and not more shopping, hotels or movie theaters, and she calls 8 acres of recreation "a drop in the bucket"—but 8 acres is half of the 15 acres offered for development. She suggests an ice skating rink.

John Mirassou is pro-CenterCal plan. He says locals aren't going down to the pier, and that people who visit the Portofino don't come back. He also goes into the history.

10:34 p.m.: Rob Resnick, the master leaseholder for the Redondo Landing, is speaking. "This is, clearly, not a proposal to build a mall," he says. He says it's more than a lifestyle center. "I think this is really a proposal to create a center for community life in Redondo Beach." He notes that Redondo Beach's downtown was demolished to make way for the Village condos—where many of the members of Residents for Appropriate Development live.

He says this is necessary. People aren't coming here just for the view—they want to enjoy themselves and be entertained. He says this last 18 months have made up a master planning process. He says that CenterCal has given residents "80-90 percent of what they wanted."

His comments are met with groans from the audience.

"Their voices are being heard," Resnick says. 

"No, they're not," says a member of the audience.

Al Meisner interrupts as Resnick concludes his remarks.

And now Mark Hansen of the King Harbor Boaters Advisory Panel—and the fastest speaker in Redondo Beach—says he's been giving presentations, and people are very excited about the opening of the boat ramp and the Seaside Lagoon. He thinks the studies offered have been "just a touch conservative" because of all the interest from boaters. 

Jim Light says he's never been polled about the harbor. He says staff are calling this a low-density project, but it's twice as dense as other nearby projects. 

"This fits the description of a mall by Miriam Webster," he says. He goes into issues that he's already gone into in greater depth in his Patch blog, and he asks the council to not repeat history. "You can see the groundswell building," he says.

10:38 p.m.: Nancy Burke-Barr, who had no intention of speaking tonight, is confused about this view—she says she drives down Harbor Drive all the time, and all she sees are empty parking lots and battered buildings. I think the views that people are talking about are the views from the Village condominiums. 

"I'm not getting any benefit from driving down Harbor Drive," she says. She says that she wants Redondo Beach is the kind of place that's generating tax dollars and keeping up city infrastructure so people will continue to live here. "We have to grow or die," she says. "It can't stay little old Redondo forever."

10:51 p.m.: Marna Smeltzer, the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, says she hopes she's the last speaker. (I do, too!) She says the chamber urges the council to move forward with the EIR, as it will answer many of the questions. "I would submit that we are not moving forward," she says.

She wants to see balance between North Redondo and the Harbor. Right now, North Redondo is the tax base, and she wants to see the waterfront hold its own—North Redondo should not subsidize the harbor. 

"We all know that the harbor is falling down, and it really needs a lot of help," she says.

Lezlie Campeggi is up. She's taken issue with Smeltzer's comments. She calls the feasibility study flawed, and says a full-blown one is necessary. "There should have been funds to deal (with the aging infrastructure)," she says. She doesn't trust staff's recommendation because the money should have been there to fix the infrastructure. 

Lisa Rodriguez is also wondering why money wasn't set aside. She says the waterfront is the heart of the city, and it needs to be resuscitated. "It desperately needs progress to move forward," she says. "I am a supporter of a unified and responsibly growing economy ... We don't want overdevelopment; we want responsible growing economy."

It's another RAD member! She says she's committed to promoting wellness where she lives and works, and she knows how to read and interpret administrative reports. She's unhappy with city staff, and she opposes the project. 

Joann Newman is speaking. She says the potential is important, and that the parking structures paying for their construction is not a valid reason for building large parking structures.

S. Ryan wants the waterfront project to move forward. He calls the Redondo waterfront "his local Detroit," but he means it "in the nicest way possible." You want to get in, get out and not spend much time there.

AND PUBLIC COMMENT IS DONE.

11:12 p.m.: "The pier is not a dump," Aspel says. He mentions Kincaid's, Tony's, El Torito, Barney's Beanery, Quality Seafood—there are places "down there." He wants tourists visiting to come to Redondo and stay in Redondo—not go shopping in Torrance or go to the pier in Hermosa Beach. "We need people to use our pier, our area and spend their money here." 

He asks for the net gain in square footage. Pete Carmichael isn't sure, but he guesses the total is probably 350,000-400,000 square feet.

"We know how you stand, Mr. Mayor," says Al Meisner, then he signals handcuffs. He wants to be arrested to get more publicity.

Aspel says he doesn't want a major mall down there. "There's no tractors or bulldozers showing up the day after tomorrow if the council puts it through," he says. Meisner is clearly unhappy.

"What sounded like a lot of square footage 10 years ago, doesn't today, and tomorrow it might sound like a lot," Aspel says. He refers to a letter from Jim Light written in 2008, commending the council on its compromise.

Matt Kilroy's turn to talk. He thanks everyone for coming down. "I think there's been some real good points brought up," he says. He wants to address those points.

He asks Green if the potential dollars can be divvied between tourist and local dollars. Green says sort of—about 15-20 percent of total sales would be from tourists, he estimates. Kilroy says that he would prefer to have tourists spending money in the harbor and elsewhere.

"When I've worked with CenterCal in the past, for example, Apple asked me to do a feasibility study for Station Park in Utah, by the way the developer's paying for it," Green says. He still has to give Apple a good forecast, otherwise Apple won't hire him again.

Kilroy says that he has more questions than answers about how the project shakes out financially. He says that the city is trying to get the best numbers, and he needs some kind of professional to do some kind of analysis. He doesn't disagree with some of the comments the audience members have made.

He asks if the boat ramp money will come from grants, not the general fund. He asks Carmichael if this is true. Carmichael calls the boat ramp a "good target for grant funding." 

In response to questions about who would get the revenue from the parking garages, Carmichael says that whoever finances would get the revenue. Kilroy wants to require that the city keep funds set aside for repairs. 

Kilroy says that CenterCal does not get a 10 percent guarantee—rather, the city does not get rent unless CenterCal gets 10 percent revenue. If CenterCal does not meet the 10 percent, the city does not receive rent, but it doesn't need to make up the money again.

Kilroy says it's taken years for this council to put together everything for the harbor and pier area. He says that expanding it to the AES site is not feasible in his mind—there has to be a vote, there are many moving pieces, etc

11:22 p.m.: Kilroy is still talking. He says that CenterCal was listening to residents—everybody got something. Meisner retorts that he got nothing. Kilroy says he still has issues, including view corridors and density. "I'm trying to work forward, but that's the key word: forward," he says. "The EIR will be an 18+ month process. This is not something that will happen tomorrow."

He expects two years before any legal agreement is signed with CenterCal. Meisner argues that there's not enough data, and prepares to storm out of the room. 

Kilroy wants a 3D model, and he won't vote to approve anything at the end until he has one. 

Brand's turn again. He asks Webb if any of this is binding. Webb says it's a contract, but it's not a lease or anything that obligates them into entering into a lease. The 10 percent is already in the MOU that was approved in July. If approved, the MOU basically outlines what the lease will say. 

Brand and Webb are examining exactly what parts of the memorandum are being changed. 

11:33 p.m.: Brand is not a fan of the parking garage, especially because it indicates overdevelopment in his mind.

Carmichael says it could be $2 million to $4 million to renovate Seaside Lagoon, and the money could be coming from grant funding.

"We don't need a mall to get that done," says Brand.

He also wants to see a worst case, best case and probably case scenarios

He's not comfortable with a 99-year lease. He doesn't like the 10 percent return before rent. He is for the residents approving a bond so that the scale doesn't have to be as big. 

"It's a huge increase in what's going to be down there," he says. His comments get applause. 

11:40 p.m.: Brand is still talking. He says they should definitely consider the AES property, and that if it were included in the package, there would have been more developers interested.

Aust's turn. "We're saying, it's not a mall," he says. Aust claims that Brand wants to stall the whole process because he knows that if the AES property is in the discussion, CenterCal will leave. Or something. Now we're getting the history of Heart of the City. Aust says he correctly predicted that Heart of the City would never be built.

11:47 p.m.: Aust is giving the entire history of the city of Redondo Beach's waterfront. I've now been at city hall for seven hours.

12:14 a.m.: Councilman Jeff Ginsburg is last. He notes that he is one of the newbies, and he appreciates Aust's history lesson. He's thinking of the worst-case scenario and wonders what will happen if a giant earthquake hits. 

"We have to deal with the parking structure—there's no question about it," Ginsburg says. 

"We're looking to do something really incredible down there," Ginsburg says. "I'd rather not call it a mall."

He thinks that the numbers being brought up are conservative, and that the result will actually be better. Ginsburg understands Sammarco's concerns over the feasibility study, but he still thinks Sammarco should support the amendments. 

"It's the next step, but we're not really committed, per se, but you'll get your numbers," Ginsburg says. "You know I've been in the real estate business. This project will do well."

He understands the concerns, and he asks people to concentrate their efforts on specific areas—not just saying to throw the whole project away. Ginsburg moves to follow the staff recommendation. 

"Jeff's right, to a certain degree," says Sammarco. "I know how to look a man—or a woman—in the eye and shake their hand and expect that they're going to do what they say. There's that part to this, too."

He wanted an independent, third-party study, but he says he's getting confused—can one be done or not? He says he's seen red flags, such as the drawing of the site plan getting changed. "I can't live with this process," he says. "The process is flawed."

Sammarco wants a third-party, independent analysis paid for by the city of Redondo Beach. He wants the council to pick the person to do the analysis, and it not to exceed $50,000.

"There's no way I'm going to be voting for this."

Aspel says that Sammarco should have requested this analysis during a council meeting, and created a motion and gotten a second. Sammarco wants a friendly amendment for a "truly independent market analysis," as well as a fiscal analysis.

Webb is giving instructions about how to make a motion, and what can be requested. He suggests that Sammarco ask for a request for proposal for a fiscal and market analysis. 

Sammarco's friendly amendment calls for an RFP process.

Now Aust has to ask a question, which leads to an argument over when Sammarco found out Green had received payment from CenterCal.

12:18 a.m.: Brand still doesn't like the amendments and won't vote for them. Ginsburg says that he believes this arguing is working out for the best because he is confident that the study will produce good results.

The motion passes 4-1, with Brand dissenting.