L. A. Port Urged to Relocate Waterfront Petroleum Plant

In a move that could help bring recreational uses to the Wilmington waterfront, an influential Los Angeles City Council committee on Tuesday urged Port of Los Angeles officials to relocate a waterfront petroleum storage operation now at the foot of Avalon Boulevard.

The facility, Wilmington Liquid Bulk Terminals, is located at Slip No. 5, an area south of downtown Wilmington that was identified by a consultant last year as ideal for recreational access to the harbor.

‘Want to Find a Way’

“I really want to find a way to develop that area” for recreation, Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores, who represents the harbor area and heads the three-member Industry and Economic Development Committee, told port officials. “I see it as the only area that has potential for actual waterfront access.”

Committee member Robert Farrell, who represents South Los Angeles, told the officials to listen to Wilmington residents who for years have decried the lack of public waterfront facilities and who in recent months have called for the removal of Wilmington Liquid Bulk Terminals to make way for recreational development.

“The oil facilities can be relocated someplace,” Farrell said. “I hope that we can find a way that Wilmington can have that direct access.”

The committee members’ recommendation came during a discussion of a port plan to move hazardous facilities away from populated areas. The plan, which is in draft form, targets nine facilities in the harbor for relocation but does not recommend moving Wilmington Liquid Bulk Terminals.

The City Council has no direct authority over the relocation plan, but its Industry and Economic Development Committee has traditionally taken an active interest in port policy and has influence over council decisions regarding the port. At the committee’s recommendation, the City Council last summer requested that the port provide the council with the relocation plan.

Final Report

Ezunial Burts, the port’s executive director, said in an interview after Tuesday’s meeting that his staff will “look very carefully” at the committee members’ suggestions. Port officials are expected to present a final report on the relocation plan to the committee in July.

“It is an issue that we have not closed the door on,” Burts said. “We are really trying to wrestle with the various interests. . . . When you have (requests from) a couple members of the City Council, probably more closely reflecting basic constituent and public concerns than anyone else, I think we have to go slow and look carefully at these things.”

In a letter to Flores last week, Burts said the port did not include the facility in its plan because it is in an industrial area and poses no “land use conflicts” with residential or commercial areas. He also noted that the company has an agreement with the port that allows it to remain at the current site until June 30, 2005.

Burts said in the letter, however, that the Harbor Department continues to look for other “potential options” for waterfront access in Wilmington. “These options do not require the relocation of Wilmington Liquid Bulk Terminals,” he wrote.

But Flores disagreed. Based on a study of the Wilmington waterfront conducted last year by former Los Angeles Planning Director Calvin Hamilton, Flores said removal of the storage facility is essential. “I don’t know where else you are going to have waterfront access besides that one location,” she said.

Bernie Evans, Flores’ chief deputy, said later that other possible locations exist--for example, near the yacht anchorages along the East Basin--but he said Flores believes those areas are too far from downtown Wilmington, which Flores hopes to link to any new waterfront development.

“The Wilmington Liquid Bulk location may not be the only location, but it appears to be the one that could have the most success,” Evans said. “It is the most easily accessible location.”

Second on List

Flores told Burts and several other port officials at the committee meeting that the Wilmington storage facility should be second on the port’s list of facilities to relocate. Only the Union Oil tank farm across from the Cabrillo Marina in San Pedro should get higher priority, she said.

The port has included the Union Oil tanks in its plan to relocate various hazardous storage facilities to a landfill to be built near Terminal Island by 1995. But Flores said Tuesday that the tanks should be moved sooner. She said the port should consider a proposal submitted by Beatrice Atwood Hunt, president of a San Pedro environmental group that has been fighting for several years to get the tanks removed. Hunt has proposed moving the tanks to an existing 190-acre landfill next to Terminal Island.

Sid Robinson, who heads planning for the port, said the port is already studying the possibility of using the 190-acre landfill, known as Pier 300. He said port officials will meet with Hunt to discuss her proposal.

Later, in an interview, Robinson said the 190-acre landfill, built from dredged material in the harbor, is still settling and is not yet ready for development.