By Garrison Frost

When AES announced several years ago its intention to close down part of its Redondo Beach generating station, the announcement sent local officials into a flurry of planning. After all, the opening up of such a large swath of land right near the waterfront was a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape a city center that had been wrecked by a similar group of city officials in the 1960s and 1970s. Years later, however, the Heart of the City plan is in a shambles. After dozens upon dozens of community meetings, every plan that has been suggested for the site has been rejected.

Early next year, residents will have the chance to weight in, making their choice on an advisory ballot between two different visions for the harbor area. One vision, the Village Plan, isn't dissimilar to everything else that the public has seen. But the other, the Heart Park, is radical in its simplicity and audacity. It calls for making the entire AES property into a public recreation zone: No condos, no houses, no hotels, no restaurants, no shops. Just open land, much of it restored to the state it was in before people ever came to the South Bay.

Bill Brand is one of the lead advocates of the Heart Park plan. A newcomer to local politics, his vision for reshaping the direction of the South Bay is one of the most ambitious we've seen in decades.

The Aesthetic: I recently read a quote from a Heart Park supporter who said that people should consider the Village Plan only after they've fully investigated the possibility of finding financing for your idea. If that's your position, the Heart Plan isn't really an alternative, it's more of just something to try first. Is that how you see it?

Bill Brand: Not at all, we are talking about land use here, and our alternative "highest and best use" of this land is to restore some of the wetlands and construct some recreational open space that everyone can enjoy. One of people's favorite argument though is to point out that Redondo City Staff nor the Council has EVER explored this option, which is true. It's very viable, as has been demonstrated all over California. Redondo Beach has simply been plagued with a very pro-development council, and some of our supporters are asking why we can't consider this open space alternative before we embark on yet another development plan.

It's pretty clear the city leadership, staff and the local private sector all have their sights on some kind of commercial development, but what makes you think the city could even pull off what you're proposing even if they bought into it? After all, they haven't been able to make any headway with the plan they actually support. And we've been at this a long time at we still seem to be at square one.

If the leadership is there, a park can happen. But we're still at square one because the Redondo staff and council can't get out of the starting gate with their development plans. That's all they've been trying to do, and that's all they can think to do. They're out of touch and we've had two successful referendums that demonstrates this. In the March election three districts are up for election, plus the Mayor's seat. It took RPV four years to flip their Council, maybe it will only take us two. Irregardless of how long it takes we have other tactics, and we're in this for the long haul.

Let's examine that a bit. You've done a lot of research that leads you to believe that the park is at the very least a possibility. I take it you feel that the city hasn't done that research, or that they are so completely enamored with the idea of development that they refuse to seriously look at the option. The way the city rolled out the original Heart of the City plan seems to support the latter. And yet it wasn't hard for opponents of that plan to rip it to shreds. Why do you think this is happening? Why is the council and staff going one way and the residents the other?

You're right on both counts, the City hasn't done any research into building a park, and wishes to develop anyway. More to your question – usually, the only residents that have been willing to sit on the Council for such little pay have been real estate agents or builders. Right now we have two realtors, a mortgage broker, a real estate attorney and a fifth pro-development member setting the policy of our city. And when these pro-development people run they often go unopposed, or get elected with less than 10 percent support from the registered voters in their districts, because few vote in municipal elections held in March).

Ultimately, the government we get is the government we select. To align the wishes of the residents with our community leaders, the residents need to step-up to the plate and run, and/or pay closer attention to who they vote for and why. Redondo will be better for it. In fact, the entire South Bay will benefit. Sitting back and relying on concerned citizens to float initiatives and referendums on important issues is risky and inefficient.

I really want to talk about the Heart Park plan in more detail, but before I do I want to discuss what on earth happened with this so-called consensus building process. Isn't the whole idea of building a consensus that you emerge from it with one plan? Shouldn't the city be going back to this consultant and demanding its money back?

Mayor Hill and Councilman Cagle hijacked a survey-type process that could have only ended in a single outcome, and instead created a process behind closed doors that never had a defined end-game. Even the Planning Commission was looking for direction from the Council after hearing the two plans that emerged. It's not the facilitator's fault that a consensus was not reached, she did exactly what the city asked – develop alternative visions for the original Heart of the City area. It's the process she had to work with that was flawed from the get-go. Most importantly, only the citizens and developers that could show-up at meetings were counted. The rest of Redondo was busy with their lives, or exhausted from working all day and fighting traffic. The City will have spent almost two years and well over $100,000 by the time they hear from the citizens. And they still may not listen if the Heart Park vision wins. It's only an advisory vote.

It's my understanding that, despite what many people think, the AES plant will not be removed, but merely reconfigured. There will still be a generating station there, just on a smaller footprint. Given that, how appealing is that piece of land going to be for either a mixed-use development or a park?

Three criteria have to be met to accomplish ANYTHING on this site in the future, 1) whatever is done has to be economically feasible, 2) it has to have the support of the community and 3) it must be consistent with the Coastal Act. A re-powering of the plant will not get community support, and neither will a huge development project like the Village Plan. AES had a plan a few years ago to re-build a smaller plant on a smaller footing, and build residential and commercial adjacent to the new plant. Our referendum stopped the zoning change that would have allowed this. The residents, along with the Coastal Commission, will decide what is the highest and best use for this land, and coastal energy generation on what is now a densely populated urban waterfront area, is not looking good.

Park supporters speak a lot about how the beach cities, and Redondo Beach in particular, are park poor. Personally, I've always figured that, with the beach, we don't have any shortage of recreational land. But I've seen the numbers and must admit that they're surprising. What's your take on this, and how do you feel a new park in the harbor area will translate to a better quality of life for residents?

First, I have to address your observation because most people don't believe we are what is known as "park poor." The national average is 16.2 acres per thousand residents; including the beaches Redondo has 2.2, Hermosa 5.5, Manhattan 3.5 and Torrance 2.3. The population is not going down so those numbers get worse every year. This waterfront park will not simply increase open space, and alleviate some pressure, it will provide the entire South Bay community with a regional venue where kids can ride their bikes in the dirt, quieter souls can simply stroll through a native garden and take in the view, birders can count the number of heron hanging by the lake, people can walk their dogs, and a farmer's market can have a 7-day-a-week operation in a pleasant and safe surrounding. These are just visions, but a Central Park-type oasis that connects to the Hermosa greenbelt is EXACTLY what this area is missing. On top of all those benefits, the entire business community will be revitalized by improving the area in this way. For instance, the former Camachos restaurant which has been closed for years will become a more desirable site. There are studies after studies that show revenue to a city increases from increased property values and an improved business climate when parks are improved or opened. And traffic and crime increase when we close ourselves in with too much development. The South Bay communities, if they are to improve, have got to start looking for ways to fund the purchase of available properties for more parks. This area happens to be in a coastal zone, adjacent to a storm drain, on top of a wetland that could provide habitat restoration, all of which brings in many more funding sources than an empty lot in east Torrance, for example. But that empty lot is just as important to that community, and could provide a great opportunity. People need to change the way they've been thinking, and find ways to improve their town by acquiring land for parks.

We're talking about a lot of money, certainly. But I know you feel confident that if the city is willing to do the work, the money can be found. At the same time, I'm wondering if you and I are talking about the same city. This is, after all, the same city that destroyed its own town core in the 1960s and 1970s. It is the same city that has repeatedly mismanaged its pier area. And it is the same city that is running down its entire harbor area while dragging a planning process for a new harbor area on for years. Both "visions" that are on the table require a certain amount of political capital and skill that I have not seen from city officials thus far. And I must admit, what I fear most about the Village Plan is that some developer is simply going to outsmart city officials and turn it into a joke. Who exactly is going to pull off the park plan?

Unfortunately, no one currently on our Council supports the open space vision, in fact, all of them support the development plan...surprise, surprise. Some have made it clear that this is only an advisory vote – non-binding – so they can do whatever they want irregardless of the outcome of the vote. Hmmmm?

We have a slate of candidates that have decided to run: Ellen Allan for Mayor, Jim Light for District 1, myself for District 2 and Dave Wiggins for City Attorney. If we land at least one or two of those positions, we'll have strong leadership pushing for slow growth and Heart Park. Our vision of mounting the necessary political movement to make this project happen is not only going to require the support of the citizens, but a leadership within the city that can and will make it happen. This is how it's been done in cities like Rancho Palos Verdes, Huntington Beach and Oxnard. We can do it in Redondo as well.

I know you have disputes with the city on what the cost will be for the park plan. I've seen numbers in the $350 million range, which are sure to scare off just about everyone. Really, what's this thing going to cost? And even if we assume that the actual cost will be much less than $350 million, is it safe to assume that if your plan is ultimately adopted, nothing in the harbor area will progress until the money is raised?

Yea right, $350 million for a 65-acre park. That would be more than $5 million per acre. The Coastal Conservancy paid $50,000 per acre for portions of the AES plant in Huntington Beach, just off of PCH. We have a 22-acre tank farm identical to what was purchased, and if we had proper leadership and direction the same thing could be happening here. A phased-approach that starts with this defunct area could begin very quickly. Everyone thinks this land is so valuable, but that's only if it's zoned for residential development. When AES bought the plant it was zoned for power generation only, and they purchased that 20-acre tank farm for $10 million, but only gave Edison $4 million because they assumed the clean-up costs. It still zoned for industrial uses, and that's the zoning they should sell it under – the entire 50-acres. People don't care what it's going to cost, people care what it's going to cost them. And the projects like Ballona Wetlands, Ahmanson Ranch were both $150 million, and not one cent was paid by the local residents. Neither did the residents pay a dime for the $65 million spent to buy the Bolsa Chica wetlands.

Our vision never suggested taxing the residents, in fact, the ballot language we proposed expressly forbid it. But the Redondo City staff scoped a fiscal analysis that could produce only one outcome, "We can't afford a park, and we must continue to develop." And then the Council used this study to craft ballot language to make it sound like the Redondo residents would have to pay a ridiculous sum of money if they didn't agree to this big development plan. The fix is in, and people need to see it, or gridlock is coming to our town. If we win this vote, and get the right people in positions of leadership in our City, many outside forces with the ability to marshal the funding for a project like Heart Park are going to want to help. Things will change, but it will take time. People need to show some patience and persistence. Just asking is an important first step.

I hear what you're saying. I don't suppose Redondo Beach taxpayers paid for the construction of King Harbor, but it found a way to happen anyway. But what about the costs of building the park and maintaining it? I suppose the attraction of the Village Plan is the idea of getting someone else to pay for everything. But then you have the problem of folks using public resources to make a profit for themselves. That aside, I can see why people in the 90277 area code are interested in what happens at the AES plant, but what about the folks in the 90278. Really, Hermosans have more at stake than they do. Or do they?

All the residents in the South Bay will have a wonderful seaside park to visit, similar to many other coastal communities in America. Some restored wetlands and natural areas, more like Wilderness Park. Right now, all we have is tiny Veterans Park and the Seaside Lagoon. Kind of sad, really. We need more open space, recreational facilities and natural areas without barbecue pits.

The other reason everyone in the South Bay has a lot at stake is the traffic that will be generated by the Village development. We have people from PV, Hermosa, and all over Redondo in our group because they know this vision will generate 12,000 vehicle trips per day in this little coastal zone, and make it harder for everyone to get around. This extra traffic will also replace a good chunk of the air pollution that the power plant emits, especially the nitrous oxide emissions, a major building block of smog. And those cars and trucks will be going in all directions, including many headed to the freeways through North Redondo, Hermosa, Manhattan, El Segundo and Torrance.

Lets not forget that Hermosa Beach sued Redondo Beach over the flawed EIR that was approved when the Heart of the City passed. Seems Redondo might have been low-balling the traffic impacts. Now they won't even look at it as an important element of these alternative visions.

Also, this Village development plan is supposed to generate only $770,000 per year in additional revenue for the entire City of Redondo. That's a rounding error for a project of this size, and if it doesn't go as planned, all the residents, north and south, could end-up paying for having allowed the developers to erode their quality of life.

Who wouldn't want what you're describing? But the public has heard a lot of this type of thing over the last few years, and yet nothing has happened and we don't seem to be getting closer to anything. Both the Village Plan and the Heart Park are barely concepts at this point, and because the upcoming vote is merely advisory, it's clear that it won't resolve anything. Moreover, it's also pretty clear that public is fast losing interest. Where the initial community meetings four years ago drew a lot of people, recent community input hasn't been remotely close to a significant sampling of the residents. I suppose I'm curious how the pressure to do something, anything, will affect what ultimately becomes of the Heart of the City project. But moreover, I'm wondering if the city hasn't already lost its chance to do any kind of planning at all. I know you feel there is still an opportunity at AES, but at what point will we know for sure that this entire dream of doing something with the plant has been a failed effort and that it will be wiser to just redevelop the harbor and let history decide what will become of this power plant property?

The public has not "...heard a lot of this type of thing over the last few years...," not what we are describing and how it can be funded. All Redondo citizens have heard are corny platitudes like, "redefine the waterfront to a higher standard", and buzz-phrases like, "thematic corridors." These are code words for "We are going to build, build, build."

Never have we been reminded of the thriving brackish marsh that used to be the natural home of the Chowigna, or the shallow freshwater aquifers here. Do you think the Urban Land Institute was interested in restoring the wetland, creating a resting ground for the migrating birds on the Pacific Flyway, stormwater treatment of the Herondo drain to improve the water quality of our beaches (which got an 'F' from Heal the Bay last July), or planting a native garden with walking paths for some peace and quiet? Of course not. You've only heard this from a group of citizens who have spent the last year of their own time learning what this land truly was, and then meshing that history into a workable vision that will improve our quality of life for generations, and leave a legacy we will all be proud of. Do we really need hundreds more homes, another Crowne Plaza, and more shops?

The Heart of the City project is dead! Pushing-up daisies. What is left is a building moratorium in a large part of our waterfront that expires in September, acres of land with zoning that is inconsistent with the General Plan, and what is known as a "whitehole" in coastal planning lexicon, i.e., all building permits will go directly to the Coastal Commission for approval. It's a mess, really. And now we have this advisory vote with inaccurate ballot language that is so misleading it borders on election fraud. If you're a landowner down there, you will be plenty angry after the two-year moratorium expires and you are left with undetermined zoning.

The public interest is going to pick-up real fast after the holidays, and I hope people figure out by election time that our vision is the only one that makes sense in all three areas: it will get support from the citizens, it's financially feasible, and it conforms with the Coastal Act. All we need is leadership, patience and persistence. It's been done in Ahmanson Ranch, Ballona Wetlands, Bolsa Chica, Ormond Beach, Chrissy Field and Hearst Ranch to name a few. The state-wide forces that made those happen are ready to make it happen here. But we have to ask.

(Dec. 14, 2004)

© Copyright 1999-2006 The Aesthetic