GELFAND’S WORLD-Cabrillo Beach is a rare wonder for the people of Southern California. The area contains the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium and the recently refurbished bathhouse, along with beaches on the ocean side and on the harbor side of the Los Angeles breakwater.
One end of Cabrillo Beach contains a mostly unknown place, a jewel in its own right, known to the locals as the Boy Scout Camp. Although it is public land, it has been leased to the Boy Scouts of America for the past 30 years.
The expectation of San Pedro residents has always been that the property would revert to public usage. Suddenly, politics has gotten in the way, and the people of Los Angeles are in danger of losing this opportunity.
A little over 30 years ago, the Port of Los Angeles signed a lease with the BSA, giving it control of the property through the year 2013. The BSA did a nice job of developing the site, obtaining grant funding to do improvements that included the installation of a 50 yard swimming pool, dining facilities, and office space.
Since the end of 2013, the property has continued under the BSA on a month to month basis. It's time to do something about the future of the site, and as of this moment, the Port seems to be doing exactly the wrong thing.
Here is what should have been done, and could still be done. The Port and the city's elected officials should have been meeting with the local neighborhood organizations and neighborhood councils to work out an agreement over the future of the property. What should that agreement entail? Most locals are wholeheartedly in sympathy with the idea that the property should be turned into a public access venue, much as city parks and swimming pools are currently run.
The former Cabrillo Beach Boy Scout Camp could be a new city park, complete with beach camping access, the nearly Olympic sized pool, and rentable indoor facilities.
The idea is not only obvious, it is actually more than 10 years old. Back in 2004, the San Pedro area neighborhood councils hosted a public forum on this subject, and the neighborhood councils have been solid in their support over these past 10 years for the idea that when the lease ran out, the property would revert to public use.
After all, this is public land as defined by state law, and is entrusted to the Port of Los Angeles to be operated for the public benefit.
What did the Port actually do? On October 8, 2014, the Port released something called a Request for Proposals (RFP, for short) which invites companies and organizations to bid on use of the property. The RFP itself is not entirely bad, since it does call for public access.
The problem is that the level of public access is not really spelled out. It's simply one element of an application process that would be scored by an as yet unnamed committee. Would public access be treated as occasional access by private groups on a selected basis, as has been the case under BSA control? We don't know, but that would be the likely scenario.
What most of us suspect is that the Port, being busy with other pressing matters, simply handed this problem off to its real estate section, and left that section to deal with harbor land as it usually does. The Port seems to have overlooked the fact that this site is not just an old warehouse or pier, but is an area of beachfront that has been under the watchful eyes of the locals for a full decade now.
There are a couple of other issues that would be amusing if they didn't complicate matters even further. The lease specifies that the improvements to the land (the swimming pool and buildings) don't belong to the Port at the end of the lease. The BSA has the option of selling the improvements to the new user or returning the land to its original condition. That would involve demolishing the buildings and the pool.
As one former Port attorney explained, this is a fairly common element of Port leases, and it would probably cost the BSA as much to demolish the buildings and pool as it could gain by selling them. In other words, repaying the BSA for the improvements it made is simply a matter for negotiation, and nobody gains by holding out for the demolition. In fact, the BSA stands to gain a million or two (or maybe more) if it can work out a deal with the next user.
{module [862]}
{module [662]}
What is of concern to us locals is that the Port sent out the RFP without really consulting anyone else over what the future of this land ought to be. Worse yet, the Port has put an unreasonably short time frame on the process. There is a mandatory meeting the Port plans to hold with potential bidders, and it is this month. Bids are supposed to be submitted in November. This is slightly crazy.
My view is that the Port should not be doing an RFP at all. There should be a public process regarding what to do with the property, and at the end of that process, perhaps we will see the Port sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Department of Recreation and Parks over administration of the site. It is possible that some local group could piggyback on that agreement as the operating partner.
There are of course issues yet to be resolved. The most pressing is, obviously, who will pay. The modest amount of money necessary to repay the BSA should not be a significant issue. The operating expenses on a year to year basis are the critical element. The city already subsidizes lots of things. The currently cash poor Rec and Parks will eventually be less cash poor as the recession subsides.
What is most important is that we don't lose public access to this property for another 30 years, as happened before.
(Bob Gelfand writes on culture and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 84
Pub: Oct 17, 2014
