HACKED BY CYBER-ATTACK - ALPERENBTN

[Johnny French]

Just emailed all the stuff below to Nick Nelson and the BORG. BTW, the January 10 City Council Meeting Agenda is silent on the issue of beach closure ordinances.

Nick,

Spent all morning Googling in general pursuit of the origin of any connection between the Padre Island TIF and the removal of vehicles from the beach. Ran across your December 9 article several times, of course, but never really found anything that sounds definite among the websites that would still open to me. Wish I could have been able to read the headlines, for example, in the C-T's April 7, 2001 edition, but all I could see was a pdf too tiny to get much from it other than to learn that was the day the TIF ballot went to the polls. I did find the C-T editorial for that date; see link below. It's most amusing to know that while the editors supported Shexnailder and the TIF back then, he later reneged on buying the bonds for it. At any rate, the editorial didn't say a thing about voting to close the beach to vehicles.

Along the way, some other interesting bits relating to the developments around Packery Channel turned up. There was this bit from the August 17, 2004 City Council Minutes: "Asset Development Corporation, headed by Mr. Paul Shexnailder," which makes me wonder about my previous conclusion that Shexnailder doesn't own any beachfront. I'd been using the City's GIS Base Map to search for his ownership under the name Gulf Shores Joint Venture, yet I also remember there were some tracts of land behind the southern end of the seawall identified by it as belonging to Asset Development Corporation. If he still heads the ADC, then my conclusion must change about what he controls.

You may also get a chuckle from the link to the November 11, 2000 C-T article about Shexnailder's previous $677 million resort, tentatively called the Great Texas Resort, that relied on the opening of Packery Channel, but not, apparently, on closing beaches to vehicles. Check out what Mark Scott said about having seen the plans for the Great Texas Resort. Do you suppose he's seen any plans for its successor, and whether he'd care to share them with the public?

Back to the TIF, the disregard for your Dec. 9 article, as evidenced by subsequent public remarks by Mark Scott, and more recently by Gladys Choyke in her Viewpoint's Page article, made me look for the exact language on both the April 7, 2001 ballot and the City's webpage about the TIF. The ballot read:
Shall the City Council continue Ordinance No. 024270 which creates a taxing Zone on approximately 1,930 acres of Padre Island to pay, solely from the increased property values within the Zone, for construction and maintenance of Packery Channel and related beach restoration, a park, beach access, restrooms, showers, walkways, parking, fishing, and related improvements?
The following outline is from the City's Packery Channel/TIF Information Sheet, found at one of the sites below:
PROJECT SCOPE -- PRIMARY ELEMENTS
1. Permanently opening Packery Channel by dredging and constructing jetties, with the following preliminary dimensions:
* 11 feet deep (7 feet deep west of Hwy 361 bridge)
* Jetties 1,400 feet in length from the Gulf shore
2. Regular dredging to maintain the channel, with the dredged sand being deposited in front of the Padre Island Seawall to restore and maintain the presently eroding beach.
3. Park complex
* North side channel complex
-parking for 200 cars
-volleyball courts
-protected kids play area and beach pavilion, with restrooms, showers and concessions
* South side beach park between south jetty and end of Padre Island Seawall
-improved parking lot
-pedestrian beach area
-boardwalks providing access for wheelchairs and child strollers
-elevated bathhouse and restrooms
-shade pavilions for picnicking
4. 8-12 foot wide walkway atop jetties from the vicinity of the Highway 361 bridge to the end of the jetties, providing easy access to water, including for those with limited mobility, and providing public access for fishing and sightseeing.
5. The channel will provide more than 7,200 linear feet of fishing access without charge.
6. Beach access parking lot on top of seawall (local project)
7. Overall greater beach access
I've underlined the three bullet items that might be interpreted to have anything to do with the TIF affecting vehicles on the beach. The references to restoring and maintaining the eroding beach, as well as to providing overall greater beach access, certainly don't sound like the TIF calls for closing the beaches to vehicles. The third bullet, "pedestrian beach area," supplies no details about where and by what means (such as bollards) the pedestrians would be protected. To infer from either the ballot or the City info sheet that there would be a closure of the beach to vehicles in the South side beach park between the jetty and the seawall is quite a stretch. Note that even the bullet about a local project for a beach access parking lot on top of the seawall says nothing about closing the beach in front of it to vehicles.

The link below to a March 4, 2001 C-T article typifies the total absence of references by both sides on the issue of the TIF to beach closures before it went to the voters. One would have thought that the opponents of the TIF, like Let Us Vote, would have seized upon beach closures as a rallying point for support if the connection had been made back then.

I recall that by the mid -1990s the beach erosion in front of the seawall had progressed to the point that parking in front of the seawall became impossible, and that traffic was made one-way south there. Eventually, the Texas Open Beaches Act regulations were amended in 1995 and 1997 to set about making the seawall stretch off-limits to driving altogether as soon as the parking area behind the seawall was ready to provide alternative access. Funding remained a problem until well into the next decade, even though the TIF was approved in April of 2001. Another requirement under the TOBA for closing the beach was that the City produce and have approved a coastal development plan, and that the proposed closure be consistent with it. The October 17, 2003 Draft Mustang-Padre Island Area Development Plan included these pertinent beach access background details, policies and objectives:
A barricaded parking and day-use area exists on a portion of the public beach between Padre Balli Park entrance and Bob Hall Pier. Vehicular traffic is routed immediately landward of both of these areas.

Currently, most of the public beach within the City's jurisdiction is fully accessible to vehicular traffic and public parking on the beach. The only restriction on vehicular traffic and public on-beach parking exist [sic] along the Seawall. Public parking is prohibited and vehicular traffic is restricted to one-way southbound along the Seawall because the public beach has eroded to the point that the remaining narrow beach area will not permit safe two-way traffic or parking.

POLICY STATEMENT F.1
The City of Corpus Christi will continue the issuance of Beachfront Construction Certificates within the City's area of jurisdiction. The purpose of the Beachfront Construction Certificate in regard to beach access is to ensure the rights of the public are being adequately protected.

BEACH ACCESS POLICIES F.2
This section provides the long-range policies and objectives addressing vehicular and pedestrian access to the public beaches and public beach parking. The General Land Office (GLO) rules are very specific as to the requirements of a beach access plan. The general concern as stated in the Purpose section, is to protect the public's right to use and have access to and from the public beach and of providing standards certifying construction on land adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico consistent with such public rights.

The City must achieve, at a minimum, the following policies and objectives:
-----
C) The City will regulate pedestrian and vehicular beach access, traffic, and parking on the beach only in a manner that preserves or enhances existing public right [sic] to use and have access to and from the beach.
D) The City will not pursue closure of any portion of the public beach to vehicular traffic, without an overwhelming public safety concern. However, protected pedestrian and beach user areas may be provided on the beach, only as considered necessary for public safety. The purpose of the protected areas is to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian and beach user areas while also providing through movement of traffic.
-----
H) The City will not abandon, relinquish, or convey any right, title, easement, right-of-way, street, path, or other interest that provides existing or potential beach access, unless an alternative or better beach access is provided.
I) The City will pursue the development of off-beach public parking as soon as possible in order to enhance public beach access and to ensure public land ownership and access along the Gulf beach. Improvement of the seawall parking lot is considered to be a high priority. The City will develop sufficient facilities to allow for prohibiting vehicle movement on the beach, should it be necessary. Such provision is determined to serve park/recreation objectives at the local and state levels.

BEACH ACCESS PLANNING AND DESIGN F.3
The existing beach access system may be adequate now and in the near future for assuring adequate access to the public beach. However, numerous natural and man-made processes have caused significant erosion of the public beaches along the Gulf Coast, including Mustang and Padre Islands.... If these processes continue, as they are projected to, the public beach may become so narrow that continued vehicular use of the beach might be physically impossible or pose a threat to public safety. Future opportunities for providing public access to the public beach may be seriously diminished as development of private property landward of the public beach occurs. Also, the increased use of public beaches will create conflicts with vehicular and pedestrian movement.
In consideration of the aforementioned variables, the City will pursue and support the following policies:
A) Continue to allow vehicles on the beaches within the City's area of jurisdiction except where it is determined to be in the overall public interest to prohibit vehicles.
-----

I've italicized those sentences in item F.2 D) to show that the draft island development plan recognized that protected pedestrian and beach user areas (such as the ones noted above at Bob Hall Pier) were acceptable means for addressing even an overwhelming public safety concern. Note that the thrust of the whole section is towards protecting public beach use and access from the effects of development, and that development is not among the reasons allowed for closing any public beach to vehicles or pedestrians alike.

The draft island development plan also has a modest section addressing the Storm Damage Reduction and Environmental Restoration Project at North Padre Island, Texas, AKA the Packery Channel Project, which broke ground two months before the plan's release. Somehow, the drafters of the plan failed to write anything about the consequences of the project's proposed restoration of the beach in front of the seawall, and thus the subsequent lacks of an overwhelming public safety concern at that beach, a need to close the beach to vehicles, and a need for a parking lot atop the seawall.

This same October 17 draft plan was the subject of Item 25 on the November 11, 2003 Corpus Christi City Council Agenda, and there were 3 pages of presentations and councilmember discussions recorded in the meeting minutes. Some of those minutes are particularly enlightening:
With regard to beach access, Mr. Payne stated that it was a difficult issue to ensure access to and from the beach in these areas for visitors and residents. He said the basic issue, especially on Mustang island, has been that beach access was at half-mile intervals. He said the development community felt that half-mile intervals were too close. Thus, the plan has changed the intervals to half-mile intervals that alternate between vehicular and pedestrian access points. In addition, Mr. Payne said beach access would be available at two mile intervals south of the city limits to the National Seashore. In response to Mr. Scott's question, Mr. Payne said that the plan stated that pedestrian beach access and parking should be purchased through GLO grants and other grants.

Council Member Scott remarked that he liked the idea of having a natural beach, with few roads. He added that the beach in front of the island seawall posed a public safety hazard because there wasn't enough room to drive on the beach and ensure the safety of those using the beach. He asked why this section of the beach was not closed. Acting City Attorney Reining stated that the GLO rules required that this section of the beach could not be closed until the city built a parking lot on top of the seawall. City Manager Noe added that there were no funds in the budget at this time to pay for a parking lot except possibly in the general operating budget. Council Member Scott asked if the parking lot could be constructed in phases. City Manager Noe replied that staff would look into it.

Regarding public services, Mr. Payne highlighted the following items: create a specific Beach Master Plan; pursue possible additional funding for beach cleaning operations; and support economic development in the Padre Island TIF by providing sufficient utility capacity.

Council Member Scott reported that we have been unable to resolve the non-competitive relationship the city has with Port Aransas in dune protection, yet the city is still attempting to maintain a dialogue with the county on this subject. He said that Corpus Christi was the only city along the Texas Gulf that did not have dune protection authority because Nueces County was reluctant to grant this authority to the city. Mr. Scott also expressed his concern about having too many vehicles on the beach because it would erode the value of the property. He again asked staff to look into building a parking lot for vehicle access.

Mayor Neal asked what the Council's next action would be on this matter. City Manager Noe replied that a public hearing was scheduled at the next Council meeting. The Council would also be asked to consider a first reading ordinance to adopt this plan. He said the second reading would be on December 9. Mayor Neal said he had met with the Padre Island residential group last night, and they were in support of the plan. Council Member Scott also spoke in support of the plan.....

What I find remarkable about the meeting minutes, aside from a group of Padre Island residents and Mark Scott endorsing the draft plan, is that no one suggested that the TIF be used to pay for the seawall parking lot. If Scott and the beach closure proponents thought a vote for the TIF in April 2001 was a vote for beach closure, how did Scott forget that the TIF was to pay for facilitating the closure? On the other hand, with the Packery Channel Project about to provide the sand to widen the beach he found too narrow, why did he still want the superfluous parking lot the city couldn't afford, anyway?

About that August 2003 groundbreaking, I can't make out the faces appearing in the photo accompanying the associated caller-com/ horizons story (see link), but it wouldn't surprise me that Scott and Choyke were there. ""I'm very impressed with what is going on, " said Gladys Choyke, executive director of the Padre Island Business Association," according to that article." What interested me most about the article was its graphic: http://www.caller2.com/specials/2004/horizons/real_estate/LARGE/G-PackeryGraphics.gif In it, you'll note that among the Packery Channel Project features is an L-shaped row of restored dunes paralleling the beach and the south side of the channel. Nick, your article yesterday mentions the city's intention to sublease the same area to Shexnailder for his resort. I doubt that will sit well with the Corps, which restored the dunes; with the GLO and Nueces County, which enforce the Dune Protection Act; and with the city's own Mustang-Padre Island Area Development Plan. "The best laid plans o' mice an' men gang aft agley."

The latest version of the Mustang-Padre Island Area Development Plan, adopted April 20, 2004, was severely revised and reorganized from the draft, but still has a lot of applicable stuff, especially its figures. Check out Figure 7: Padre Island Future Land Use, which shows no development on the beachfront just north and south of the seawall, and only public or semipublic uses between Shexnailder's property and Packery Channel. Figure 11: Padre Island Transportation Plan indicates the shoreline tract between Padre Balli Park and the seawall to be a park/recreation area. Figure 14: Hike and Bike Trail Plan shows hike and bike trails on both sides of Packery Channel. Figure 15: Padre Island Tax Increment Financing District still shows the little beachfront tract south of the seawall belonging to the state, and still gives the former location of J.P. Luby Park. Probably the best figure of all, if only you could read all that busy little booger contains, is Figure 16: Packery Channel Project. Among other things, Figure 16 seems to show intended sublease areas on both sides on the channel. All is not lost, however, for immediately beneath Figure 16 the plan reads: "POLICY STATEMENT D.4 State land, leased by the City, on either side of the Packery Channel must be developed in a manner consistent with Dune Protection and Beach Access Regulations and in accordance with the Texas General Land Office. A major goal for the City will be to provide a world-class public recreational opportunity for the visiting public and citizens of Corpus Christi and to achieve a combination of recreational and tourist-oriented economic development." I hope you can obtain a large and legible copy of Figure 16 from the city and show it to me some time.

Even though the beach restoration associated with the Packery Channel cannot have escaped its preparers, the April 20, 2004 development plan still reads on page 25: "Due to the narrow beach area in front of the seawall, and the safety problems presented by heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the City occasionally blocks off the beach to vehicular traffic. The City has acquired property for a public parking lot (approx. spaces) at a central location behind the seawall."

My favorite passages come on pages 36 and 37 of the final development plan:
POLICY STATEMENT C.13
-----
B) The City will regulate pedestrian and vehicular beach access, traffic, and parking in a manner that preserves or enhances existing public right [sic] to use and have access to and from the beach.
C) Except for in front of the seawall, the City will not pursue closure of any portion of the public beach to vehicular traffic without an overwhelming public safety concern. However, protected pedestrian and beach user areas may be provided on the beach, only as considered necessary for public safety. The purpose of the protected areas is to separate traffic from pedestrian and beach user areas while also providing through movement of traffic.
Well, my two fingers have just about given out, as may well have your eyes, so I'll sign off with this note. Whether or not he approved of the final version of the island development plan, Scott should have been conversant with Item C.13 C). Ditto Choyke; she was one of the stakeholders that prepared the plan. How could Scott possibly push for closing beaches to promote development, and why do he and Choyke persist in claiming a vote for the TIF was a vote for beach closure?

Johnny

http://www.caller2.com/specials/2004/horizons/real_estate/making_waves.html
http://www.cctexas.com/?fuseaction=main.view&page=506
http://www.caller2.com/specials/2004/horizons/real_estate/LARGE/G-PackeryGraphics.gif
http://www.caller2.com/2001/march/04/today/localnew/19330.html
http://web.caller.com/2001/april/07/today/editoria/22403.html
http://www.callerradio.com/2000/november/11/today/local_ne/8953.html

[rabbit]

Probably trying to put a their own spin on TIF instead of the spin the people voted on. If the beach closures was put in the TIF then the reopening of packery would probable have been voted down.
_________________
Fishing and Kayaking its a rough life but somebody has to do it.