QUEEN MARY &
CARNIVAL CRUISE

The eighth month of 2001 revealed that a plan very similar to the original 1992 Disneysea Park drawn up by Eckstut & Ehrenkrantz, would be adopted. After the two citizens groups (The Queen Mary Foundation and Surfriders) objected to the project on historic and ecological grounds, the city and its agents devised means to render these groups financially and politically disabled.

According to Long Beach Historic Preservation Officer Ruthann Lehrer, this Carnival Cruise check-in area will occupy D-Deck which is presently exhibit hall, museum and office space. Just how much of the area will be used has not been confirmed.

Queen Mary's lessee takes on Carnival Corp. and lays claim to all rights to the name Queen Mary, heedless of the Cunard - Long Beach contract of 1967. This appeared in the Business Section of the Press-Telegram on March 20, 2000.

Council Meeting transcripts on Carnival Cruise

List of lawsuits against Prevratil

Return to Issues Index

Joseph Prevratil:
My name is Joseph Prevratil, I am the president and chief executive of Queens Seaport Development, Inc. The Carnival project is a project of Queens Seaport Development, Inc. and I wanted to just commment on the subject of why we do not feel that there should be a delay in the hearing.

And I might add, we recognize the importance of and welcome public comment -- it's a part of our process and we certainly have been going through that process for some time. We started with the harbor commission on our enviornmental impact report back in June and it is a fulll environmental impact report. During that process there has been ample time for public hearings -- as a matter of fact there was a scoping hearing, there was a first hearing, and then there was the most recent hearing during that entire period of time. And where on Monday of this week, the Board of Harbor Commissioners certifed the EIR. The same people who are objecting or would like to have a delay, they have been a part of this process. They have spoken at every one of those hearings and the issues are the same; they involve noise, they involve quality of water, they involve air quality, traffic…and I believe that the process has accommodated all of their objections and I believe… certainly make sure none of their questions were left unanswered. And I think that process has taken place.

Also I'd like to say, this PD-21 that we're talking about today, is in conformance with the Port master plan, it was approved by the coastal commission and it is [inaudible] at the cruise terminal to the permitted uses of our PD-21 and the inclusion of a cruise terminal is consistent with the goal of increased tourism in Long Beach.

What I would like to address on the subject -- if there was a delay what that effect would have on the project itself. And we have been planning with Carnival Cruise Line well over a year on this project. On November 13 the EIR was certified, on November we were issued our development permit, November 16, today, you are hearing the amendment to our PD-21. On December 12, the city council would hear the PD should you move it forward. And there would again be ample opportunity for any additional public hearing--any additional comments that the individuals who are seeking delay--would have that opportunity before the city council. However, if the delay was scheduled, what it causes us, ultimately, is over a one-year delay in terms of moving the project forward. And while I don't want to take all of your time on it, but I certainly could go through that process.

The most important issue is that Carnival Cruise Lines (assuming everything moves on schedule) could be in construction in the first quarter of this next year. In order to open in 2002, the second quarter, which is the goal, it needs all of the promotional efforts that Carnival has to take into consideration to move forward with this They put all of their advertising and promotion materials--they advertise that almost a year in advance. So, if we have a delay here, the economic hardship, not just to ourselves and the Queen Mary, but to not being able to move on a timely basis would easily put this project in jeopardy in terms of the time frame. It is not a simple matter of just, 'well why not wait two extra weeks'. We have been waiting many, many weeks and have gone through the process. And I think it would be very unfair to not only ourselves but to Carnival if we were to delay the process because it would ultimately delay the project by over a year. And I don't think that's in the best interest of either Long Beach or ourselves.

And I'm happy to go through the lengthy schedule of what needs to be done from the time where we are here, to getting our building permits, you know, to moving forward.

There's also another question. And that is, there is a very expensive and extensive Swedish docking device that has to be ordered by Carnival which takes a year to manufacture. And it is so complicated that it accommodates all ADA individuals so that it's easy for wheelchairs to go back and forth--it's a very very complicated project. And I believe it's a device that's going to be very unique and different, but in order to get in line for the development of that particular docking device, I think that a delay here would cause Carnival for pause in going forward with the ordering of that docking device. If you have any questions, I'd be delighted to answer them.

Surfriders' Foundation, Eco~Link and other activist organizations of Long Beach assembled behind the magnificent Belmont Olympic swimming pool, protesting against Carnival Cruise establishing a docking facility in Long Beach Harbor.

The dumping of raw sewage near public beaches and the marine diesel exhaust create serious hazards for the population of the city. Here is an aerial view of the protest—the word "Carnival" created from trash bin liners and crossed out in red.

Ann Cantrell:
Good afternoon. Ann Cantrell of El Dorado Audubon. And I was one of the ones that asked that this be held over because of so many questions. And coming here today, I have even more questions. I received not one, but two notices, of this public hearing. The first one said this would be appealable to the coastal commission. The second one said 'whoops, this is revised, it's not appealable to the coastal commission'. Then today, when I come down, I find out that you aren't being asked to amend this. You're being asked to recommend the city council approve the proposed amendment to this ordinance! This was changed since I received this notice. This is not what you have in your packet. It's not what was on the notice. So therefore, I am again appealing to you to lay this over.

Another reason why this needs to be laid over is the State Lands Commission was here in August and there were issues raised as to whether this intended land use of the Queensway Bay project were allowable under the trust agreement with the state. It would seem prudent for the Planning Commission to wait until the State Lands Commission has acted on this issue before amending this land use.

According to your information packet, the Planning Commission approved this new master plan around the Queen Mary where there were going to be all kinds of entertainment venues and now, you have no detailed plans on this cruise line even though you're told it's not Carnival Cruise all you're doing is letting a cruiseship line come in. But the Carnival Cruise Line is what the EIR was based on.

I call your attention to your PD finding "A" in your packet which states, "the proposed designation will not adversely affect character, livability or appropriate development of the surrounding area". This statement was obviously written before the staff had access to the EIR because it wasn't available 'til Monday. Even a cursory look at the EIR will show that traffic will be increased on the 710, air pollution will occur when the ships are running their engines while docked, environmental damage will occur with the required dredging as the contaminated dredge spoils will have to be disposed of. There is no proposed mitigation for these insults to the environment and the health of the residents of this area.

I understand that tourism is a goal for many in this city but this commission is charged with protecting the quality of life for the Long Beach citizens. I ask you again, do not approve this amendment and lay this issue over until you have heard all the arguments. Thank you.

From: Ann Cantrell, Conservation Chair, El Dorado Audubon Society
Treasurer, Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force

"I was born in Long Beach when it really had a 'Long Beach'. In my lifetime, Long Beach has lost 5 miles of beach and now only 6 miles are left of the original 11 miles of beach coastline. I would like to die in Long Beach, NOT Short Beach!

In 1960, the citizens of Long Beach voted to create a park on the tidelands landfill between Alamitos Avenue and the Los Angeles River.

In 1981, $2,024,000 of land and water conservation funds were given by the federal government to the City of Long Beach to develop a 'passive waterfront park along the edge of downtown Long Beach known as Shoreline Park'.

In a letter dated May 31, 1995, Ralph Cryder, Director of Parks, Recreation and Marine, wrote to Barry Jones, State Department of Parks and Recreation: 'Unfortunately, it (Shoreline Park) has not become a popular park and day use is generally low. On the other hand, it has become very popular for special events...' Cryder goes on to say that: 'The city proposes the conversion of up to 20 acres of the 43-acre park to more active visitor-serving uses. All of the affected areas and facilities will be replaced in kind on nearby waterfront sites of equal, fair market value where they will serve the same population as the existing shoreline'.

Following adoption of the Queensway Bay Development plan in 1995, Shoreline Park was bulldozed and regraded in its entirety in order to build the Aquarium of the Pacific, a parking structure, commercial harbor, boat docks and the proposed 4 acres of commercial uses. Thus, over $2,000,000 were squandered in violation of the terms of the grant from the State of California and the National Park Service which requires one-acre for one-acre replacement of park space taken for non-park purposes.

Section 6 (F) (3) of the LWCF Act states: 'No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses'. Both the LWCF Act and the State Parks Protection Act of 1971, declare that park conversion must use land of equal value, habitat, size and be used by the neighborhood it serves. The City has 'acquired' at least 20 acres of Shoreline Park for non-park uses which include the aquarium, parking structure and the proposed restaurant row between the aquarium and Shoreline Village. This represents only a portion of the tidelands which were once beaches and parks along Long Beach's shoreline and are now filled with office buildings, hotels, the convention center and parking lots.

In addition to the LWCF Act, The Public Resources Code, Section 5404 states: 'If the city takes the park land for other uses, park land must be substituted which is comparable in cost, size, characteristics and located in an area which would allow for use by generally the same persons who used the existing park land'.

The portion of Shoreline Park once used by families for picnicking, with free play equipment for children has been replaced by the aquarium. There is play equipment inside the aquarium, but families have to pay to use it. The portion of Shoreline once used for special events has been moved across the harbor next to the Queen Mary. This is not accessible by pedestrians as was the former location.

According to the 1995 letter from Ralph Cryder to the State Parks Department, Shoreline Park was not being utilized and the population of downtown has decreased. This is contrary to other information, including census figures and overflowing schools in the downtown district. The downtown area of Long Beach is extremely deficient in public park space. Exacerbated by a large influx of young families, the majority of them poor and with large numbers of children, yet within walking distance of Shoreline Park.

Phase one of the Queensway Bay Plan was to build the aquarium and parking structure on 9.75 acres of Shoreline Park, removing the 6 acre recreation vehicle campground and 3.75 acres of open space and parking along the shore of the lagoon. The Shoreline RV campground was replaced with a new 5 acre RV campground. This site was moved to Golden Shore Park, once the location of Palm Beach Park. How can the city replace a park with a park and call it an equal conversion? A new 6 acre boat launch ramp with two boat launching ramps and 60 parking spaces were built next to the RV park. Thus, the RV park is 1 acre smaller and the 6 acre boat launch replaced the 3.75 acres of open space.

Phase two involved the development of commercial facilities and a small craft harbor. The impact on Shoreline Park removed 5 acres of open space and 5 acres of tidal flats. The replacement sites included a 7 acre tidal flat mitigation and a 4 acre special events park.

The area selected for the tidal flats was an unused boat launching facility, rendered useless due to silt build-up along the mouth of the Los Angeles River. This does not sound like 'land of an equal value' to me; and so far, despite dredging and plantings, this area has failed as a recreated wetlands.

The 4 acre special events park is across the Queensway Bridge, next to the Queen Mary. It is not accessible by foot, so is not able to serve the same downtown neighborhood, as required by both the Public Parks Preservation Act and the LWCF grant. There are only 10 parking spaces provided, requiring the public to park in the Queen Mary parking lot for an $8.00 fee.

No new park land has been acquired in this far-flung landswap. The city has just been playing musical parks with Shoreline, Golden Shore and Palm Beach Parks.

I am aware that these possible infractions of State and Federal law are under the jurisdiction of the State and National Departments of Parks and Recreation. These agencies have been advised of our concerns. However, the State Lands Commission is the landlord of the tidelands and the City of Long Beach is a tenant that is flagrantly destroying priceless, irreplaceable oceanfront park land. Even absentee landlords have a duty to oversee their property and it is hoped that after this workshop, the Commission will hold a hearing to address all of the concerns we have raised today. Thank you for your consideration".

"The above remarks were prepared for the July 20, 2000 hearing. I would like to respond to some of the testimony made at that hearing by Dennis Eschen from the Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine.

Mr. Eschen read a July 5, 2000 letter from Keith Steinhart of the California Department of Parks which indicated that the City of Long Beach had complied with the required conversion of park lands to replace those areas of Shoreline Park taken for the Queensway Bay project.

In June of 2000, I had talked to both Keith Steinhart and Odell King about this conversion process. I was told it was based on the letter from Ralph Cryder indicating the park was underused and the population of downtown had dropped. I was also told that the City had not yet submitted a complete map for the project. When I attempted to discuss the locations of the areas which were being destroyed and those being replaced, Mr. Steinhart was unable to find them on the old map he had, as the project had been changed since 1995. At that time, no one from the State Parks Department nor the Department of Interior had visited the site to determine if the statements made by the city officials are indeed valid.

I called the Planning Department and also went to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine, asking for a map of the Queensway Bay Project. No one was able to provide one for me. I was very pleased to finally be able to see one at Thursday's hearing.

In his testimony at the July 20 hearing, Mr. Eschen also alluded to a new 13 acre downtown park, complete with play areas, etc. This park is Caesar Chavez Park and was created with county money from propositions passed by the voters in 1992 and 1996. This park was NOT part of the conversion for Shoreline Park. In fact, one of the arguments for Caesar Chavez Park was that the recreational needs of downtown Long Beach were greatly underserved and there was a great necessity for more park space. This was at the same time that Shoreline Park was being bulldozed and diminished.

Mr. Paternoster [Project Manager of the Queensway Bay development] stated at the hearing that the Queensway Bay project would 'celebrate the water'. It is very difficult to imagine how a bookstore, movie theaters or nightclub will do this, especially when the public will only be able to view the water from a fake roller coaster bridge or by walking on a rainforest-wood boardwalk. If the testimony of the City is carefully read, I am certain it will be apparent that the goal of this project is not to 'celebrate the water', but to help the developer make money using public lands. There was testimony that the retail project was needed to bring people to the aquarium. There are already restaurants and tourist shops in Shoreline Village, right on the other side of the commercial boat harbor beside the aquarium . In my estimation, a new retail complex will not only take tourists from Shoreline Village and downtown, but the aquarium will lose revenue from its gift shop and restaurant.

As was indicated before, many of the issues that were brought up at the hearing are not under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission, but it is obvious that there are numerous problems with this project that need to be solved before the City receives permission to move forward. Again, thank you for your consideration".

"Although this is probably an exercise in futility because our city officials have a long history (before you guys even) of subsidizing failures. This needs to be said publicly because there will be another election in the future.

What the city is proposing to do is not a new concept -- dining and shopping overlooking water has had mixed results in Shoreline Village, Marina Pacifica, Sea Port Village in Long Beach and Ports O' Call in San Pedro. All of these projects have been in and out of bankruptcy so many times you would think they were gas stations. Seaport Village - twice, Shoreline Village - twice, Ports O' Call - three times and Marina Pacifica, who knows how many times? To jeopardize downtown's open space on the water for a very expensive, risky-type venture raises serious doubts. The commercial effort for the last 20 years of Long Beach has been focused on downtown -- namely, upper Pine Avenue. It has several elements that have succeeded but considering the hundreds of millions of public investment dollars, is still very shaky and requires continued attention and investment energy to really turn the corner.

Queensway Bay development is a serious, unwise and illegal attempt to expand the boundaries of its local economic development downtown area into state tidelands for its own economic benefit. Urbanization of the tidelands can in no way be justified economically or legally. This area before the landfill was a beautiful beach. I came here in 1951 so I remember that. Before the breakwater, it was the prime beach and piece of coast in Southern California -- the warm breezes, the water, sunshine and magnificent view is this area's history and heritage. To build concrete structures, to put cars or build large movie boxes without windows or block the public view of the water are all gross misuses of all that we were given to care for. Although this part is pure emotional and probably dismissed by most politicians and bureaucrats, this project defies logic. There are better uses that will cause people to come to the water and the beach and enjoy that experience. I have a question -- are you going to file a validation action? If so, I want to be notified by certified, and return mail -- and I have my address information here so I can give it to the clerk? Thank you".

"Mello Roos bonds always seem to be something-for-nothing -- it seems like you're going to take a piece of land and you're going to encumber the future value of the land. But as you know there's no such thing as something for nothing. Eventually, the taxpayer winds up getting stuck with these bonds -- these obligations and the insurance companies have to come in and pick up the slack.

Mello Roos bonds were originally intended for areas where there was -- for times when there was a credit crunch by senator Mello and Roos where there was a credit crunch and there was no money in the banks and we needed something to break the log jam. You come to a piece of vacant land and everybody was in favor of there being a development and you could come in and incumber the land for the infrastructure needed for the project. That's not what we have here. What we have is a misuse of beach land. You're taking Mello Roos bonds, you're misusing them to put infastructure in an area which is supposed to be by councils' -- that you've signed, prior councils have signed and agreed to -- by granted state lands and Tidelands Trust -- these can only be used for beach purposes.

So why are we issuing Mello Roos bonds for these purposes? Now I have a long memory - I've been here in Long Beach a long long time. I can remember back when there was a beach here. I can remember back when you had the old library, back before the downtown got messed up. Now, I can tell you one thing, if they had taken 1/20th -- your fellow council people at the time -- 1/20th of the money that was spent on the mall downtown and used it to support the local businesses that existed here at the time -- we now wouldn't be in the situation of having to rebuild that stupid mall and regain all that money that you wasted!

This is what we need to do -- is to enforce what we have already got -- we need to support the existing businesses and expand upon them, not take some new half-witted project out in the middle of the ocean, fill it in with dirt and build movie theaters so that people can go to the beach to see movies! It doesn't make any sense, it's crazy! We need to expand on the existing businesses. Take some of that money, clean the streets, support our businesses, build new streets -- some of the streets are aweful! I remember I was here when a kid came down here and said, 'You know -- what's wrong with our downtown? How come we can't clean it? Let's steam-clean the streets let's support our businesses, let's paint the businesses!' Let's come in and give them adequate transportation (which you've already done some things for) -- and let's support the aquarium, let's take the aquarium and make it be a true beach-related useage. Why build a parking structure on the beach? This is not an appropriate use of money.

By approving these bonds, not only will you be misusing the funding, you will be opening we the taxpayer up to paying these things off when the whole project goes belly-up like all the hare-brained schemes they've come up with over the years. The money we lost on the mall alone -- ! Please do NOT vote for these Mello Roos bonds; it's only going to open a can of worms. There's a workshop upcoming next month with the State Lands Commission concerning the use of these Tidelands Trust. And please postpone this whole issue until after that workshop! Thank you".

Back to Index Page