|
STORY OF THE DEMOLITION |
Sat., October 26, 2002 |
Wed., February 7, 2001 |
Wed., November 25, 1998 |
Tues., November 17, 1998 |
November 10, 1998 |
November 3, 1998 |
November 1, 1998 |
October 25, 1998 |
October 25, 1998 |
October, 1998 |
Thursday, September 3, 1998 |
Tuesday, June 16, 1998 |
Preservationists will fight to have World War II-era building rebuilt. The central tower of the Administration Building at the former Long Beach Naval Station was demolished Tuesday by implosion. At top right, the tower can be seen lying on its side. The buildings on the former naval station site are being removed to make way for a cargo terminal, much to the dismay of preservationists who are trying to save some of the buildings.
Mayor O'Neill: I would like to establish the procedure; it has been asked to have more than three
minutes and when you are appealing something you should have more than three minutes so for
those that are...there are two appealing groups that is Ann Cantrell and Mr. Carstens, Mr. Carstens does have representatives here I assume so I would like to ask if Ms. Cantrell...if you would like to come forward? And anyone else that is representing you we would like to have during a ten minute period. So if you have any legal or anyone that is representing you and your appeal if that would be all part of the ten minute time limit.
Ann Cantrell: Ann Cantrell, Conservation Chair of El Dorado Audubon Society. When I lodged my appeal, it was on behalf of El Dorado Audubon and so I would request that members of El Dorado Audubon that are here that would like to speak...
Mayor O'Neill: (Interrupts) There will be time for public comment for three minutes but anyone a part of your appeal that you would like to have as part of your presentation would be part of a ten minute time span.
Ann Cantrell: I see, fine. Thank you. I...
O'Neill: Madam Clerk, are you timing it? I don't know if your clock goes more than three minutes.
Cantrell: Today I also requested that this item be laid over for another time since Doug Carstens is
not here and [Councilman] Lowenthal is not here and I did not receive any notice that my appeal was going to
be on tonight's agenda. When I was talking to you, you told me it had been appealed by Doug Carstens, Mr. Holzhaus, but you did not tell that me my appeal was going to be heard tonight.
O'Neill: Please continue.
Cantrell: May I have a ruling on this?
O'Neill: Uh, it was stated that you were notified on the 15th that there would be a hearing this evening.
It was stated by Mr. Holzhaus.
Deputy City Attorney, Dominic Holzhaus: I confirmed that you would have an opportunity to address
the council tonight - that was by telephone on the 15th and that was confirmed to you in writing today.
Cantrell: In writing today?
Audience: Today?
Holzhaus: Today.
Transcript from the June 16, 1998 meeting:
Ann Cantrell, Conservation Chair of the El Dorado Audubon Society, addresses the Long Beach City Council. Cantrell and the Roosevelt Base Foundation have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts to stop the demolition of the historic naval base complex.
O'Neill: (tersely) It was given to you on the 15th, let's stick to the point, please.
Attorney Margherita Underhill: (from the audience) Why didn't she get notice?
Cantrell: Well, I...
O'Neill: (interrupting, addressing attorney Underhill) If anyone speaks out again, I'm asking you to leave! And I mean that...please!
Cantrell: I am prepared to address this, but not address it on the appeal issue. I am prepared to speak for the... you know, as a member of the public.
O'Neill: You're not ready to appeal this on part of the Audubon?...
Cantrell: No, I wasn't aware I was going to have this opportunity.
O'Neill: On the 15th you were not aware of this?
Cantrell: No. When I talked to Mr. Holzhaus he told me that there...and I asked about whether there would be more time and I was told that there probably wouldn't be. I was never told that there would be.
O'Neill: Thank you. Then we'll ask you to speak during the members of the public...if you're not to do it at this time.
Cantrell: And... I would like a chance to have this appeal heard at a different time.
Holzhaus: Madam Chair, I very explicitly told Ms. Cantrell that her appeal would be heard tonight and it was only in response to a letter to you in which she denied that she had been given notice and that I responded in writing today to indicate that you had been given notice. [The mayor interrupted, making some of the deputy's dialogue inaudible]
Cantrell: When did you respond today?
(Mayor O'Neill interrupted Ann again to thank Mr. Holzhaus).
O'Neill: Thank you. Thank you ver..Yes, that was after the letter you sent today.
Cantrell: When, today?
Holzhaus: In response to your letter this afternoon.
Cantrell: At what time?
Holzhaus: I don't recall the time. It was probably about 4:00 o'clock [p.m.].
O'Neill: (To Holzhaus) I think that you got my letter that Ms Cantrell sent to me; I gave you a copy of that...about 2:00 p.m. I think it was...2:30.
Holzhaus: And I responded prompty after I got the copy.
O'Neill: Thank you Ms. Cantrell. Are there representatives of Mr. Carstens here?
O'Neill: ...One was Ms. Cantrell on behalf of the El Dorado Audubon, the other appeal was by the Roosevelt Base by Doug Carstens...Foundation. Are there any people here that wish to speak from those two groups. We've heard from Ms. Cantrell. Okay, thank you very much. We'll go to Councilman Drummond, uh, Donelon.
Councilman Mike Donelon: I guess I have a specific question. We are, at this moment, hearing both appeals and there will not be an opportunity to hear either of those appeals after tonight's meeting? So this is it?
Attorney Underhill: (From audience) What!?
Councilman Donelon: Is that correct?
Underhill: (Indignant) WHAT?!
O'Neill: (Furious) Madam, I'm asking you to leave!
Donelon: I'm just trying to find out exactly what the procedure is as far as what we're hearing on the agenda.
Holzhaus: That's correct, Mr. Donelon. The statute under CEQA ["See-Qua" - California Environmental Quality Act] allows for an appeal to the body. There is no point in the council reconsidering this action several times in response to several appelates that the appeals have been consolidated and now this is adequate for this item tonight.
Donelon: Okay, thank you very much.
Cantrell: Madam Mayor...
O'Neill: Yes...yes...
Cantrell: If I was notified today... which I left my house around 4:00 o'clock and I had no notice at that time. (Applause from the audience) I understood that 72 hours notice was necessary...
O'Neill: Ms. Cantrell, let me ask you, did you not hear on the 15th that there would be a hearing today?
Cantrell: I heard that...
O'Neill: (Interrupting) By Phone...?
Cantrell: There was a hearing on the 15th...
O'Neill: Yes.
Cantrell: I did not know that I would be allowed to speak...
O'Neill: (Interrupting) But aren't you appealing this? That's where the appeal is.
Cantrell: I am appealing this...
O'Neill: (Interrupting) And you asked for more than three minutes and so I gave you ten. [When addressing the council as a member of the general public there is a three minute time limit. When representing a person or group making an appeal, 10 minutes or more may be granted].
Cantrell: Alright, but I was not notified of that so I was prepared to talk for three...but
O'Neill: (Interrupting) Would you like to give your three minutes now?
Cantrell: But I could talk for longer...
O'Neill: (Laughing) Would you like to give your appeal now representing the Audubon, El Dorado Audubon?
Cantrell: Okay...
O'Neill: Very good.
Cantrell: You've been asked to certify this Environmental Impact Report, EIR, and affirm the Harbor Commissioner's adoption of the LRA [Local Reuse Authority] reuse which will destroy the historical portion of the Navy base for use as a cargo container terminal. I asked the clerk to give each of you a map of the three different alternatives. This was passed out at one of the Navy hearings on the EIR and since I don't recall seeing any of you at those hearings and I attended every single one, I thought perhaps this might be useful to you since I doubt that any of you have read these volumes of EIRs. I have also done that.
If you've read this EIR, you'll know that the Institutional Campus reuse alternative utilizing 37 acres for police, fire, port administration and museum use has many advantages over container use. This would save some use of Roosevelt Base along with most of the historic bulidings, landscaping and trees. There would be no need for the questionable mitigation of moving trees for the Black-crowned Night Herons. There would be no need for the dredging of the contaminated West Basin for the enormous cargo ships, thus illiminating the questionable mitigation for the endangered California Least Terns.
Although this institutional reuse retains space for container terminals, the shallow portion of the basin would not need to be dredged. Thus illiminating dredging and CAD (Contained Aquatic Disposal) site permits from the California Coastal Commission. And I don't know how many of you are aware that the California Coastal Commission has told the Port not to come back with any more dredging or CAD sites until they have proven that this is a safe procedure.
If the buildings are not destroyed, there will be no need for submitting plans to the Environmental Protection Agency for disposal of toxic materials such as asbestos. Many of our homes, schools and other public buildings have asbestos in them. This material, if not disturbed, is not harmful. Demolition, however, releases the particles into the air.
The container terminal plan would place the Long Beach Police Department and the Police Academy on the shipyard property in building 300. This building has been described in the EIR as being in the "hazardous footprint" of the Liquid Bulk Facility and the EIR was unable to mitigate this danger. In other words, if an explosion at this terminal takes place, there is a possibility that many of Long Beach's finest could be killed or injured.
This can easily be avoided by placing the department and the academy on Roosevelt Base, out of the hazardous area, where the recreation and training space already exists. Besides being environmentally and culturally superior, the institutional reuse also provides more of the "jobs, jobs, jobs" the city wishes to create. Therefore, I respectfully request that the council adopt this win/win plan and create the institutional campus reuse instead of paving over the base for a parking lot of shipping containers.
You will also be able to avoid a lot of mitigation problems that you have with the LRA use. You will only be losing two container terminal spots; you will have a larger shipyard which will create more jobs and you won't have the environmental problems that you face with this LRA reuse alternative. And I can guarantee that you will be fighting another CEQA lawsuit on this EIR because it is not that much different from the Port's EIR that we have already had a lawsuit about. Thank you.
O'Neill: Thank you very much.
Holzhaus: ...The action before the council is simply to review the CEQA process to see whether an adequate document with adequate disclosure was before the Board of Harbor Commissioners when they made their decision on June 1.
O'Neill: We have heard from the...those groups that are appealing this. I would like to ask just five members of the community to speak if you would like to speak to this item...We'll take five speakers only. And please note that we are not addressing the tenants we are only addressing the EIR. And if you don't know what the EIR is, and you haven't read the EIR we are only discussing those items. I only need five speakers and I have six there.
Diane Rush: Diane Rush, I have spoken before. I was going to say about item 36 that I almost missed it and that I was willing to think that this was maybe an oversight. The way it was worded - mentioned the Long Beach complex reuse. It's not clear exactly what that item is [about].
Now I can see, after tonight's display, that that's just part of the deliberate intention of Long Beach city politics to push through their plans - it's very obvious that words such as "appeal" and "to address the city council" are used interchangeably when they really don't mean the same thing and I'm sure that an intelligent citizen like Ann Cantrell would not misunderstand this.
But getting back to the EIR - I do understand that on this item, the EIR overlooks the historic and the cultural impacts of tearing down the Long Beach historical naval base.
Also what is to become of the Long Beach naval drydock? If that is to be destroyed, where would large ships like the Queen Mary be refurbished? That has major implications...
Also, I was very interested in some of the things that Ann Cantrell and Colette McLaughlin said. It is quite true that in Long Beach we have many authentic landmarks; many beautiful buildings and structures. They are authentic, what is the point of tearing those down for the sake of fake monuments? [There had been discussion of building a monument to the Navy after razing their base]. But I did think of an inscription for a fake monument if you are insistent on erecting one. The inscription should be: Democracy is Dead in Long Beach!
Richard Coke: A new resident of Long Beach...it is obvious even to me, from what I have read in the papers and what I've read in the papers berore I came to Long Beach, that the whole intent here is to get this COSCO company in once the EIR is passed.
I can only say that I don't recall, since the Chinese fought the North Koreans, I don't recall having read anything in the newspapers or any magazine or seen anything on T.V. in that whole 50-year span where the Chinese did anything good for anyone - everything I've...read is that they've always got an ulterior motive and today we see them helping get the Democrats elected and so on.
... I called the Port of Los Angeles today and asked how many containers they have and I read in the paper today how many go through the Port of Long Beach. The Total is 6-1/2 million at the present time. I called customs and asked them "how many inspectors do you have?" - and they have 150.
Assuming that they doubled their number of inspectors and assuming that the number of containers went from 6-1/2 to 7 million with the new terminal, I don't think this EIR would mean a whole lot when you've got 7 million containers going through and 300 inspectors. That adds up to one every ten minutes, one container inspected every ten minutes for them to keep an eye on everything. And that, to me, doesn't sound right... [Referring to reports of smuggling contraband drugs and assault weapons such as AK47s into the Port of Long Beach due to lax security] I would not have felt...it wouldn't rest with my conscience if I didn't come here tonight and at least take a stand and try to protect the sovereignty of the United States. Thank you.
O'Neill: Mr. Sabol...Mr. Sabol...Mr. Sabol...
Robert Sabol: Yes.
O'Neill: Yes, please come forward, one of the councilmembers would like to hear your comments. And then we will return it back to the council. Are you through will your appeal Ms. Cantrell?
Cantrell: I would ask if I could have time for a rebuttal.
O'Neill: We'll give you three minutes when Mr. Sabol is finished. That will be the last comment.
Sabol: Thank you, madam Mayor. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, members of the council; fellow citizens. My name is Robert Sabol, I reside at 5300 E. 6th Street, Long Beach and I've resided in the city for the past 45 years. I am also the founder of Save our Shipyard Committee founded under the Downtown Business Associates in 1985 - 1700 businesses. Not part of the Navy, not part of the shipyard but of the business community....
I reviewed the entire EIS/EIR and the final draft and I had spoken at all three meeting they held. And among some of the things I had asked for they had added but things I thought were very important were left out. For instance, the dimensions of drydocks 2 and 3 are totally omitted. What are they, compared to others of the world, they are graving drydocks. You have no other graving drydocks other than drydock 1.
How big a ship can they take? That can take an amphibious assault carrier and they've been drydocked there. They're qualified for 40,000 tons each. They are the largest... [inaudible] for 2 and 3. To (sic) their size, they are the strongest drydocks in the United States of America - because of the fact that we pumped oil out from underneath them [causing subsidence] and had to pour... concrete back in there in the 50s. But that's to our advantage, we needn't destroy this. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars right there.
What utilities [do] they have? Everything on the dry docks are built in completely. There are no other docks on the west coast that have it. Let us not forget the Naval Shipyard that we have here, is the only one ever built in the twentieth century, in this country. All the others are built prior - from the 1700 and 1800s.
Industrial piers you have there...1, 2 and 3. They, again, are the strongest in the country. They are anchored to bedrock, they have expansion joints on them for earthquakes, put in in the last five years.
How do I know this?... I was the last contractor for the [Long Beach] Naval Shipyard - 32 years - retired last September 30 and I am a certified instructor at the college level of marine technology. Don't you want to have this data in there [in the EIR]? There has not been one single engineering study done!
And to clarify that, and contrary to what was given by the port engineer, let me read the last answer from the Navy - where they got their data...
O'Neill: (Interrupts) If you would please summarize...
Sabol: And I'm going to give you the quote. This is what I'm going to summarize it with. I asked them about the data for the report, and I'm going to give you on page...168 of the final EIS/EIR # F-74-2 "...ship repair facility analysis were based on a shop repair facility study prepared by the City of Long Beach..." and input from Port of Long Beach and city planners. To me, that's going around in a circle. What I've asked for at all three meetings...at Allan Tibbet's first committee meeting we had a motion submitted by Councilman Sabovich in L.A. that what we wanted here...
O'Neill: (Interrupts) Summarize...summarize please.
Sabol: I'm doing that for you!
O'Neill: Okay
Sabol: You had left the meeting that day, Madam Mayor. You didn't hear the councilman...
O'Neill: I didn't hear all of them, no, I didn't.
Sabol: No. I was there, I heard it. He asked for the greatest amount of ecomomic development we could have for that amount of land. If you're going to make a hundred dollars per square foot rather than a thousand, why should you go for it? [Sabol is referring to the capital gain of maintaining a functioning shipyard, which according to his reports, generates five hundred million dollars in a single contract]. I support whatever would give us the greatest economic development. But please go out there to third parties and do your studies and find out what's going to give us the most amount of income to this city. That's what we need!
O'Neill: Thank you very much...
Sabol: Philadelphia has done it and they have moved ahead...but please go for our development. We owe it to the city's... because the city, which means our ancestors, gave that land...
O'Neill:You're right...
Sabol: to the Navy for a buck...two times. Thank you very much, thank you for letting me speak.
O'Neill: I wanted to thank you, Mr. Sabol, for all the work you did in saving the shipyard and it was a priceless asset, we're still surprised that the Navy closed it. Please, this will be our final comment, then I'll bring it to the council.
Cantrell: Ann Cantrell...as for the CAD site, there was no mention of the fact that this material that will be dredged from the West Basin is very badly contaminated. It is so toxic that it cannot be dumped into the ocean. It belongs in a toxic landfill. Instead, the Port has come up with this "ingenius" idea of taking it and moving it to south of the Navy Mole, covering it with some dirt and rocks and saying that it's going to be a shallow water habitat for the foraging of the Least Terns. If I weren't an Audubon member I would use the expression, "killing two birds with one stone". This is absolutely ludicrous!...
...it has been tried before. The San Pedro CAD site put the contaminated material into geotextile sausages before they buried them. Our material is going to be just hauled on a barge and dumped into the ocean.
Another thing that wasn't adequately addressed is the fact that there is no mitigation for putting the police department in the location with the radiant heat hazard "footprint". There is also... you quoted the number of pages that the Navy and the Port responded to - the people that wrote on this final EIR. The responses still were not adequate, they did not address the things that people were interested in.
O'Neill: Summarize, Ms Cantrell.
Cantrell: Finally, I would propose that the Port of Long Beach does not need more port space. I understand that the ports of Hong Kong and Singapore who are sending us all these containers for our terminal, have much smaller space. They work in two and three shifts. If we did that and were more efficient, we wouldn't have to expand the port constantly. I think we're createing a monster out there. And, we shouldn't... [to] save the 37 acres of the historical base is not too much to ask for. Thank you.
O'Neill: Thank you very much.
Disclaimer: Underhill is NOT being endorsed by the Turbine Tribune. It has been found that she is not licensed to practice law in the state of California and has deceived her clients.
