Everyone,
Things continue at a good pace and in this
update we'll brief you on a visit from the State Coastal Conservancy,
status of the South Bay Parkland Conservancy; good news from the Sierra
Club; the City's recent planning for the Vision vote in March, 2005;
and another profile of Open Space success.
General News
On October 6th, we had a great meeting
with Peter Brand (no relation) of the State Coastal Conservancy, where
he discussed some of the projects they have funded and completed that
are similar to our Heart Park vision. Peter also laid out the
process by which communities organize around their desire to secure coastal
open space and secure State funding. Peter is a State official who has
spent the last 20 years restoring and preserving many coastal
areas for open space and has been working regularly with us since
March of this year. As with most communities that Peter has worked
with, he reinforced that the most important thing is for the community (both
City leadership and citizens) to first decide this is what they want and
then begin the proper land-use designations. Peter told us that
Heart Park is definitely a viable option for this site and has worked with
AES, in particular, in acquiring other power plant property in the
State.
Sierra Club passes Resolution to
support Heart Park
The Palos Verdes South Bay (PVSB) group of the
LA Chapter of the Sierra Club passed a resolution in October, to formally
recognize and endorse the Heart Park vision. We are
very proud of achievement for several reasons. One, this
endorsement proves that, along with the State Coastal Conservancy, a major
institution with a strong reputation believes our vision is a viable
alternative to over-development. Second, this will garner additional
publicity for us throughout the South Bay, publicity that will also call out
the real danger we have in over-development. Third, we can anticipate political, organizational AND
financial support from the PVSB group as we get closer to our advisory
vote in March, 2005. Many thanks to Barry Holchin, Johanna Zetterberg,
Al & Barbara Satler, and others at the PVSB/Sierra Club for all
their help and encouragement. Several people in our Heart Park group
are also members of the Sierra Club and we thank you, too. If any of
the rest of you are interested in learning more about the PVSB group or
joining the Sierra Club, go here:
The SBPC continues to gain
ground
The South Bay Parkland Conservancy
(SBPC) is gaining members and beginning its fundraising
activities. After the first meeting in September, they have
raised $3,300 and continue to build
their membership. They have a goal of 500 members by
year-end and are putting together a Communications budget, fundraising
plans and a push for new members. The SBPC is a non-profit, public
benefit corporation that seeks to educate the public on the need
and viability of open space in the South Bay, to preserve our quality
of life.
If you are interested in joining the SBPC,
annual dues are $25 for adults and $40 for families; dues are
tax-deductible. Or please make a tax-deductible
donation of $50 or $100 to help them get the word out on what
the South Bay stands to gain with more open space, and what we are at
risk to lose with more over-development. Make your check out to:
South Bay Parkland Conservancy and send to P.O Box 7000-408 , Redondo
Beach, CA 90277
Open Space Success
Profile
Most everyone has heard of Hearst Castle. If not, its a mansion
on the Central Coast of California built by William Randolph Hearst, the
publishing magnate and land baron. I highly recommend a visit if ever
you find yourself up there, just north of San Luis Obispo.
Well, for many years the heirs to the Hearst family fortune wanted
to develop their land - 82,000 acres with 18 miles of coast
line. Originally they were going to build 400 homes, 2
hotels with a total of 640 rooms, and golf course. Sound
familiar? Spread-out over 82,000 acres that doesn't seem so bad.
Down here in Redondo, if you ditch the golf course, all we need is 50
acres. In fact, we already have a name for it, The Village Plan.
Anyway, The citizens in this community realized the value of what was
about to be developed and mounted a long campaign to find a way to save this
area for all the generations to come. We are often struck by the
enormity of what we are trying to do, but can you imagine the courage it
took to think you could somehow save 82,000 acres, and 18 miles of
coast line in California, AND YOU HAVE NO MONEY. Now that sounds
familiar. We can only imagine what a fiscal analysis of their
vision would have looked like after zoning all that land for 55 units per
acre.
Forge ahead they did, and with the help of the State Coastal
Conservancy, the Federal Government, and the citizens of the rest of
California, success is finally theirs! You can read all about it in
the above link, but let me explain the financing of the deal to give
everyone a taste of how complicated, but doable these projects are.
The land was valued at $230 million by an independent appraiser and is
being bought for $95 million by the California State Coastal
Conservancy. The Hearst Corp. is seeking a federal tax write-off for
the difference, which gets them another $70 million, approximately.
They also will receive another $15 million in state tax credits.
Of the $95 million being packaged by the Conservancy, $23 million will come
from the federal transportation dollars to preserve scenic highway views,
$57 million from Proposition 40, and the balance from the Wildlife
Conservation Board.
Obviously we have our work cut out for us, but again, can you
imagine the odds these people were given of success just 5 years ago,
never mind the 20 they've been working on this project?
And lest we forget, the citizens of this area are not paying
a dime for this deal! Not even a
penny.
City's Fiscal Analysis of HOC
Visions:
Overview and summary:
At the Oct. 12th Council Meeting, the results
of the Fiscal analysis were presented, by the City's paid consultant, David
Taussig & Associates. As you might expect, the study painted a
grim picture of the potential of the Heart Park vision, but also cited major
risks with the Village Plan. Bottom-line, the
consultants said both plans have minimal financial chances for
success. For Heart Park, the key point is acquiring the State funding
(ie. Coastal Conservancy) to buy/build our Park and wetlands, which in the
consultant's opinion has a low chance of happening. For
the Village Plan, financial success depends heavily on the 400-500 room,
5-Star resort hotel and the 50 room boutique hotel, because the proposed
residential development (350 units now) is a big net money-loser for
the city. The consultants went to great lengths to
state their analysis was basically number-crunching only, NOT a feasibility
analysis. In particular, they strongly recommended that if the City
chose to move forward with the Village Plan they should do a hotel marketing
study first to truly evaluate the hotel's potential.
For our vision, other than having to combat the
outrageous cost numbers being thrown around, nothing has changed.
We've always known that our vision depends on State bond funding and NOT
pushing City coffers over the brink. Given that the State has raised
$billion (yes, billion) over the last 6 years for acquiring/restoring
Open Space along the coast.. we feel pretty good about Redondo's chances, IF
the city and residents give it a chance. For the other guys... well,
how badly do you want another hotel in the area? And a
resort/convention destination hotel at that. Doesn't that Development
plan sound more and more like the original HOC plan??
More details:
In terms of summarized dollars and cents, the
study calculated the one-time costs of the Village
Plan to be ~ $50Million and for Heart Park at ~ $350Million. Why the
outrageous variance you say? Well, the consultants ignored the cost to
acquire, clean-up and build ALL property associated with the Village
Plan's residential and commercial (Hotel, retail) components because it is
assumed that private development would pay it all (including
the 65foot-wide canals!) and that calculating all this cost was
out-of-scope. In contrast, all the costs were included for Heart Park
because no private development is anticipated. It's important to note
of the study's $350M number for Heart Park, nearly $320M is for acquisition
and remediation of the land (mostly to AES even though they are required to
clean-up the land), based tax-assessed value and AES's own estimated
costs for clean-up. In follow-up last week, the consultants indicated
privately, that obviously this $320M would also be part of what Private
Developers would be expected to pay BEFORE they begin their additional
infrastructure development of canals, roads, utilities, etc. Funny how
that didn't make the final printing.
As for recurring
annual costs (mainly the forgone annual revenue from AES
plant's tax pmts [~$900K] + annual operating expenses of each
vision, net of revenues generated), the study shows Heart Park "costing" the
city about $2.9Million/year. This is way inaccurate, because the Study
assumes that Heart Park is 76 acres and replaces all of Village
Core South with green grass and trees, which was NEVER our intention.
PRO zoning allows for visitor-serving commercial which... guess what... is
what is already there at Village Core South!!! As we've publicly
stated earlier, we are happy with VCore South the way it is.
Plus, Heart Park is only ~ 60acres of Areas A, B and C. So if you
correct for this error, our vision's "lost" revenue for the City goes from
$1.8M, down to $1M/year. Plus, the Study mostly ignores the potential
for significant revenue from our parking structure, fees from playing
fields, aquatic center and fees/sales tax of our proposed
community center/restaurant near the corner of PCH and Herondo Streets
and concession revenue along Harbor Dr, which could further reduce the
annual net "loss" to around $1.5M/year.. not $2.9M. And this
doesn't include any money that City of Hermosa Beach may be willing to
contribute to help operate and maintain a 55+acre park directly across
the street from their Southern boundary. Given that Hermosa was
suing Redondo over the original HOC plan for the negative impact it would
cause, it's fair to say that HB may be a willing neighbor to
help with operating a park that will help increase their property
values too. We just have to have the vision to
ask.
Meanwhile, the Village Plan is estimated
to "earn" the City about net $775,000 a year in fees,
revenue, etc. Think about that for a minute. After
incurring the risk of private development building 350 homes, 2 hotels
with fractional-ownership condos, 5 acres of freshwater lake
and 65foot-wide canals (built 12ft above Harbor Dr), a pedestrian
bridge to the pier and 100,000 sq ft of additional commercial space...
generating over 12,000 additional DAILY car-trips... over X number of years
of construction and financing... our City earns $700K or about 1.2% of
the City's current general fund of $50M. You evaluate that risk/return
balance and make your own decision.
What's next?
At the November 9th City Council meeting,
Council will review and debate proposed language for the description of each
vision on the advisory ballot. This ballot language will need to be
finalized by early December to meet the March 8, 2005 election
deadlines.
See you next Tuesday at 6:00 p.m., at the Beach Cities
Health District, 514 N. Prospect Ave., Beach Cities Room,
Floor B, to for our meeting with Katherine Spitz and Eric Gibson, of
Katherine Spitz Associates, a land scape architectural firm in Marina
Del Rey. The Coastal Conservancy cajoled them to do a
pro-bono design for our vision. The same Coastal Conservancy that
cajoled $95 million for Hearst Ranch.
Bill Brand
310-374-4001