Panel Delays Decision on Port Expansion

The California Coastal Commission signaled this week that it may not allow the Port of Long Beach to bury tons of contaminated silt in an offshore disposal area, delivering a potentially huge blow to the port’s plan to build a cargo terminal for its fastest-growing tenant.

The panel, at its meeting Wednesday in San Francisco, put off what was expected to be a routine decision on the port’s application for a construction permit, and is expected to take up the issue at its next monthly meeting.

But that delay could push back the port’s start date to a time of year when heavy storms pound the coastline, making underwater construction work difficult and slow. “We’re very disappointed,” said port spokeswoman Yvonne Avila.

Building the terminal is expected to take about 18 months, and if the port fails to finish the project by July 1, 1998, its tenant is released from a lease it has signed for the property. That tenant, a large Chinese shipping company, has already been courted by the adjacent Port of Los Angeles, which is building hundreds of acres of terminal space.

The state commission has approved a permit for the Long Beach project’s land-related work, which calls for razing the now-closed Long Beach Naval Station and erecting a 145-acre terminal on the site for the China Ocean Shipping Co. The application discussed by the commission this week was for the water work, which involves dredging about 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment in the West Basin to deepen berthing areas and approach channels for container ships.

As part of that work, the port would dredge about 730,000 cubic yards of contaminated silt, seal it under five feet of clean silt, and store it within a new shallow-water habitat for California least terns, to be located on the outer edge of the so-called Navy Mole, a finger of property that juts into the water near the port. The port must build the bird foraging area to make up for the destruction of an existing habitat during the planned terminal construction.

Environmentalists applauded the panel’s action, saying the commission should not let the project proceed before the state and federal environmental agencies study it further.

“This is just insane,” said Mark Gold, executive director of Heal the Bay. “This is not a project to rush into for the sake of commerce.” Gold also objected to the port’s plan to use the contaminated sediment in development of the tern habitat, calling it a “bad precedent.”