Power Grab or Power Sharing?
Port’s Move to Form Its Own Redevelopment Agency Leaves Community Surprised, Confused
By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor

     How would you like a Del Amo Fashion Center on San Pedro’s Promenade? According to former Port Attorney Pat Nave, the development proposed in the Port’s Promenade Draft Project Description (DPD)—the official prelude to its environmental impact report (EIR)—“contains substantially more retail” than Del Amo, which is 2.1 million square feet and has 12,500 parking spaces.
     “I started adding up the stuff. I didn’t include the Westerec project, and I didn’t include the condominiums,” said Nave. “I stopped counting when I got to 2.7 million feet.”
     Port Chief Engineer Stacey Jones did not dispute the figures, but stressed differences in composition, layout, and density. “We have a cruise center, we have a fire station, we have museums,” Jones pointed out, “We’re looking at much different types of development.”
     How much different is a major bone of contention.
     Nave is one of many community activists associated with all three San Pedro neighborhood councils, who have raised a series of questions about both the scope and configuration of the Port’s plans they want to see answered before the draft EIR (DEIR) is issued. Previously, the Port went through a similar process with plans for Cabrillo Marina Phase II, plunging forward with the DEIR despite enormous objections from the community—then via the Port Community Advisory Committee and its Coordinated Plan Subcommittee (CPS). While most of the differences were satisfactorily resolved, community activists were not pleased with the process.
     If the current process is pouring salt on old wounds, the Port just added some iodine to the mix. Out of nowhere, it was announced that the Port planned to make itself into its own redevelopment agency, which would provide a $111 million-plus revenue stream of tax money to fund future development. On February 22, Assemblywoman Betty Karnette introduced enabling legislation—AB 1330—to make that happen.
     Asked what she knew about it, CPS Chair June Smith said, “Nothing. Absolutely nothing.” Jayme Wilson, who manages Ports of Call Village and has been deeply involved in development issues for years was likewise surprised, as were activists with all three neighborhood councils. “We had heard about this possibility, but this was just speculation on our part,” said Carlos Garcia, from the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council.
     Since the late 1990s, community activists have tried to get the Port involved in community redevelopment, specifically aimed at the Pacific Corridor, the main redevelopment district in San Pedro. Several false starts and broken promises have littered the path toward the stated goal—endorsed by both Mayor James Hahn and his sister, Councilwoman Janice Hahn—of development with a “seamless interface” between downtown and the waterfront. The abrupt announcement that the Port plans to constitute its own redevelopment district struck a number of prominent activists as a complete reversal of this commitment.
     But Councilwoman Hahn disagrees, and the broad resolution she carried through City Council supporting state legislation stresses joint development: “establishment of a development authority or other viable model... to meet Harbor District needs.”
     “Assuming that’s correct, and assuming its going to be used to make infrastructure improvements, that’s going to be very good,” Wilson said.
     But former Hahn aide Grieg Asher, active with the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council took the opposite view from the Karnette bill’s language. “This new plan is written in such a way that the money will be spent in the port,” Asher said.
     Karnette’s bill is just a starting point, and “The legislative process in California is very rushed,” Hahn told Random Lengths, so the initial bill had to be filed quickly, but nothing is carved in stone. The purpose was to provide a dedicated revenue stream, so Promenade development would not languish after the Hahns have left office.
     “ I would agree completely with the councilwoman,” said Jones.
     “This is exactly the time that everyone needs to get involved, so nobody’s missed an opportunity,” Hahn explained, promising, “Lots of time to work on it, change, it debate it.” And in the end, “If we don’t like it, we don’t have to do it.”
     Karnette’s Legislative Director, Ted Muhlhauser, said, “It is a sponsored bill, it came from the City, and that’s why we’re supporting it,” adding, “They gave us the bill language about a month ago and it’s been in drafting since then.” Karnette is carrying the bill because “She supports community integration of the port.”
     Jones explained that the share of tax revenue devoted to Harbor-area development would be between $111 and $182 million, with revenues increasing from $349,000 the first year to $3.8 million in year 10, $8.4 million in year 20 and $14 million in year 30. The total cost of the Promenade is estimated at $700 million.
     As for fears that the Port would ignore community concerns, Jones noted, “City council still has approval authority over everything the district does.” There is also a virtual certainty of a community advisory body, though it’s exact nature will have to be worked out.
     Los Angeles County was also caught by surprise, according to Martin Zimmerman, the County’s Acting Branch Manager with responsibility for redevelopment. “We were not aware that the city was following this approach,” he explained. And thus the County had no position yet. But they were concerned.
     Because redevelopment agencies divert tax monies that would otherwise go to the City and County, the County has vigorously opposed what it sees as exceptions to existing law. The County sued the City and its redevelopment agency over the City Center Redevelopment Project, in part because it included the “nonblighted Staples Center parking lots” that “would cost the county $278 million in property taxes,” Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky wrote at the time.
     Zimmerman said that there were special exemptions in the bill similar to ones that routinely lead to County opposition. In particular, “It has some very troubling language that the area should have its own definition of what constitutes blight.” Staff could recommend opposing the bill as soon as March 4. If not, it would be considered by the Board of Supervisors.
     The evening before, March 3, Port staff makes a public presentation on the Promenade PDP. (See Community Alerts, p. 5.)