March 16, 2006 - Michael MuCutchon is a member of the Beach Access Coalition and sent the following press release out to all local media.

Good afternoon. My name is Michael McCutchon. I am the elected spokesman for the Beach Access Coalition, a group of citizens concerned about public access to our public beaches. The purpose of this conference is to enlighten the public, and give input to the city council, regarding their upcoming vote on an ordinance to ban vehicular access to more than a mile of our city’s beaches.

Let me tell you first that I was not initially a member of the Beach Access Coalition. I initially supported the city’s effort to create one area similar to South Padre Island where tourists could come to enjoy a beach experience without cars. The seawall is the only geographic area where it makes sense to do this. Access to the beach for the public is pretty good there. My only reservation was that we would be setting a precedent for further beach closures.

When the city council passed the seawall ordinance, I thought the city dealt with the issue of setting a precedent. Their amendment to that ordinance stated that no further beaches would be closed. I was satisfied that they intended to keep their word. Their intent was very clear, as evidenced by their comments.

Melody Cooper, that day, said, “I can promise you that I will go no further in allowing any further prohibition of vehicular traffic on the beach as long as I’m on the council.” She went on to say, “I’ll be right there with those that oppose it in preventing it from happening.”

Brent Chesney said that the “precedent issue…is an extremely valid one,” and “Maybe (extending the ban to) the jetties would have been appropriate, but I’m not going there.”

Rex Kinnison said, “I can also pledge that 18 months from now, I look forward to standing on the other side of this chamber…and I have no problem standing on the other side, and holding whatever the future council is accountable for the action we’re taking here today.”

On the subject of closing beaches to vehicles at locations other than the seawall, where the walk to the beach would be a long distance, Mark Scott said, “That’s not an invitation to the public to come to the beach, that’s a declaration to the public that we really don’t want you on the beach.”

Less than two months after these comments were made, the majority of the city council was ready to go back on their words. Their argument was that they didn’t know a developer would ask for this, in Mark Scott’s words, “declaration to the public that we don’t want you on the beach.”

The argument that they didn’t expect a developer to ask for beach closures does not hold water, when you consider the amendment they passed that day. It reads:
“…by the adoption of this ordinance the City Council is directing the City Manager not to process any requests for the closure of the beach to vehicular traffic that may be submitted by a littoral property owner…”
Two months later, we had a request from a littoral property owner to close the beach to vehicles. The city council clearly anticipated this situation. They are simply going back on their word if they vote to close the beach north of the seawall.

I joined the Beach Access Coalition because of the Mayor’s, and some of the council’s, intent to go back on their word, and extend the vehicle ban to the jetties. What is wrong with extending the vehicular ban north? The answer is simple. There is no $30 million dollar taxpayer-funded project at the seawall. There is at Packery Channel. What’s more, we voted to create Packery Channel based on the clear promise that it would be a public recreation area for ourselves and for all tourists. Now some council members want to take that away from us, by endorsing a resort’s plan that would put the public’s access point at a minimum of 1/4 of a mile, and perhaps over a half mile from our jetties, and by turning the south jetty into part of the resort. We didn’t vote to spend $30 million of our tax dollars to get only half the project.

The general public has consistently been told that Packery Channel was to be public park space, accessible by vehicle from both sides. The following list of legal documents and policies point to this fact:

1. City Ordinance #025215
This ordinance is the final plan for the TIF zone that was created when we voted to fund Packery Channel. In it, the city council outlines “park amenities that encompass approximately 14.2 acres providing access to Packery Channel, the beach, and the jetties (note plural tense); passenger and RV parking; walkway; restrooms; and vendor facilities. The location of two…City park areas is proposed along the area nearest the Gulf of Mexico reach of Packery Channel.”

2. Padre Island TIF Land Use Map
This document, which is attached to the above ordinance as Appendix C, clearly shows that the land between the proposed resort and the beach, as well as the entire length of the south jetty and the 300’ wide strip between the jetty and the proposed resort, is designated as public park space. All of this land is governed by:

3. State of Texas Coastal Lease #CL20020005
In this document, the state mandates that this area is “to be used as a public park and dredged channel, including, without limitation, amenities, public parking, bait and tackle sales, food and beverage sales, convenience stores, beach amenities….Lessee shall not use the Premises for any other purpose…” (than a public park).

4. Texas Open Beaches Act
According to Texas Natural Resources Code 61.017 (c)(1)(C), “permanent roadway easements exist within 1,000 feet of each end of the seawall affording vehicular access from the nearest public road to the beach.” The proposed vehicular ban would force vehicles off the beach and into a parking lot, the location of which has been only suggested, but not identified. Such a plan would violate this law, which was intended to assure that, should vehicles be taken off the beach at the seawall, vehicles would be allowed on the beach on either side of the seawall.

5. City Ordinance #022165
This is the city’s Dune Protection and Beach Access Plan. Section E (3) has the following statement, which is taken from wording in the Texas Open Beaches Act: “The City shall regulate pedestrian and vehicular beach access, traffic, and parking on the beach only in a manner that preserves or enhances existing public right to use and have access to and from the beach.” Our existing right is to access the south Packery jetty by vehicle. Banning vehicles would neither preserve nor enhance existing public right, and would therefore be in violation of this city ordinance.

6. Mustang-Padre Island Area Development Plan
In this document, passed by the current city council, section B.33 states that, “Vehicular access along the Gulf beach shall not be restricted unless necessary for public safety.” Also, in section C.13 (C) is the following: “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.”

7. If these ordinances are not enough, remember that the city recently rescinded a ban on vehicular traffic in front of the seawall while that ordinance was under petition. Now the Mayor proposes to reinstate substantially the same ban that was under petition, while adding more to it. Such an action is equivalent to denying the public the right to petition.

Despite all of the above-mentioned problems with banning vehicles north of the seawall, the Mayor and some of the city council are intent on pushing this thing through. They keep telling us that this is our one big chance to get a major development here. That is simply not the case. Development is proceeding on Mustang Island at a rampant pace. In addition to three major subdivisions which have already been permitted between Packery Channel and Port Aransas, public presentations have already been made on two high-rise condos in the same stretch of beach, all within the city limits. When I say high-rise, I mean far taller than anything in downtown Corpus Christi. The two plans being presented are both over 25 stories high, and one may be up to 42 stories, and three towers. The city planning office is in contact with these developers. Public documents indicate that a dozen more projects of similar size to these beachfront skyscrapers are expected to be presented this year. If the city council is ready to give away our beach access for the development at Packery, we can expect that they will do the same for these larger developments on the way. What’s more, these projects are proceeding without regard for whether the Packery deal gets signed. This Packery project is small by comparison, and is not, as some on the city council would have you believe, a “make or break” for our area’s development.

Other arguments for giving the Packery Channel development what they want need to be addressed. First of all, there is the argument that the TIF financing plan will fall through, and the channel will silt in, if we don’t get this development. The public needs to know that, in the most recent fiscal year, the projected tax income for the city’s $10 million bond repayment was $680,000. The actual taxes brought in were over $1,000,000, which is 32% over budget. We are way ahead of schedule without the resort. The bond repayment and channel dredging will be funded whatever comes there.

There is also the safety issue. The Beach Access Coalition and the Surfrider Foundation have consistently advocated a pedestrian beach use area similar to those in Port Aransas and at Padre Balli Park, in which pedestrians are separated from vehicles by wooden posts. This is also the model that the Mustang-Padre Development Plan says should be used when pedestrian beaches are created. This model provides public access while creating a safe, vehicle-free area on the majority of the beach.

The Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Corpus Christi Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Corpus Christi Regional Economic Development Corporation weighed in on the subject of vehicular restrictions on the beach with a joint resolution earlier this year. These organizations, regarded as community leaders by the city council, said that “the City should engage in discussions with the various interest groups to examine the broadest range of options for assuring public access to these Pedestrian Beach areas.” So far, this public interest group has not been granted any such meeting. The joint resolution further stated that “The new plan also should provide that the City will not implement the restrictions on vehicular access in a Pedestrian Beach area unless and until the developers of the adjacent property have performed their part by actually commencing the construction of the desired resort facilities.” We would take that one step further. The city should not implement restrictions on vehicular access until such time as the inconsistencies in their own policies and in state law are rectified. They should also not promise us a park along the south jetty, then lease it to a developer to build a resort.

Should the city council attempt to pass an ordinance banning public vehicular access to the south jetty, in violation of its own policies and of state law, they should expect another referendum seeking reversal of the new ordinance. Should they, instead wish to pursue a beach plan that we can all live with, we remain available to meet with the Mayor and council to discuss public access to the public beaches and parks that we have been promised.