Cities, Counties Join Long Beach in Port Fight

The legal fight to stop a Chinese shipping company from using the closed Long Beach naval base for a huge container terminal has been joined by California’s cities and counties.

The governments have jumped in on the side of Long Beach, which last year had the terminal for the Chinese Ocean Shipping Co. (COSCO) on the fast track for approval before suffering a series of court setbacks.

The biggest blow came in a ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert H. O’Brien, who sent the city back to the drawing board after ruling that Long Beach’s environmental review of the proposed terminal was flawed.

Port officials had already made a commitment to develop a terminal for the Chinese government before the review was completed, O’Brien ruled.

Long Beach has appealed the ruling, but in the meantime it had to break its lease with COSCO. The port has also spent $32 million to buy cranes for the new terminal.

Support for Long Beach in the legal case came on the eve of the final major public hearing Wednesday by the Navy, which is studying alternative uses for the 500-acre Terminal Island complex.

Passions are running so high over the development that the hearing had to be moved from a 300-seat auditorium in City Hall to a 1,900-seat ballroom in the Long Beach Convention Center.

The Navy is expected to make a decision on the properties in May.

Under consideration by the Navy is the proposal by the Port of Long Beach as well as two others: One would develop the property as an automobile shipping terminal, and the other calls for its use by government agencies such as the city police and fire departments.

The latter alternatives would allow commercial development of most of the acreage while avoiding demolition of the historically important naval base, which could be turned into a museum or office complex.

Anti-communists and veterans organizations have joined historical preservationists and environmentalists in mounting a national campaign to stop development of the Navy property for the Chinese government-owned shipping line.

Chief among concerns of the preservationists is saving the naval base, which served as home to the Pacific Fleet before its fateful move to Pearl Harbor before World War II.

A number of buildings were designed by prominent black architect Paul Revere Williams. The base is eligible for a listing in the National Registry of Historic Places, the only landmark in Long Beach with that distinction.

The base’s park-like setting, which offers sweeping views of San Pedro Bay, has proved a sanctuary for two fragile species of birds, the least tern and the black-crowned night heron. Concern that the birds’ habitats would be destroyed brought members of the Audubon Society into the fray.

More opposition came from KCET television personality Huell Howser, who filed his own lawsuit, arguing that bulldozing the Navy buildings was a misuse of tax dollars. Howser’s suit was thrown out of federal court this week.

U.S. District Judge A. Andrew Hauk called the suit “trash” and poppycock, saying that it had no legal merit. Howser’s attorney said the suit would be refiled in state court within two weeks.

At issue in the Long Beach Heritage case awaiting hearing before the state Court of Appeal is the question of “pre-commitment,” or how far a government agency can go in preparing a project before the environmental review process is completed. Local governments contend that there is some sort of predisposition or bias in favor of just about every project they propose.

Cities and counties contend that O’Brien’s ruling, if it stands, would dramatically alter the California Environmental Quality Act by making them overcome a new legal standard to get projects approved.

“If the trial court’s decision stands, it will slow the process and make it even more cumbersome than it is now,” said Torrance City Atty. John L. Fellows III, who prepared the brief for 117 California cities, Los Angeles County and the California State Assn. of Counties.

Jan Chatten-Brown, the lawyer for Long Beach Heritage, said she believes that the cities and counties are off base.

“We think the law is clear. It is unacceptable to have a pre-commitment,” she said. “Yes, you can do extensive planning. Yes, you can even have some institutional bias in favor of a preferred alternative. But at an early stage in the process, you should step back and consider the environmental implications.”

Chatten-Brown said that well before the environmental review process was completed, the city spent $7 million for planning and design on the terminal.

Nancy Latimer, head of Long Beach Heritage, said her group simply wanted a fresh and unbiased environmental review of the Navy property. She said she was ready to settle the suit after the city tore up the COSCO lease in the wake of the O’Brien ruling. But she said the city’s appeal made a settlement impossible.

Since O’Brien’s ruling, the city and port have been relatively silent on the future of the naval property, taking pains to avoid showing bias that might land them in legal hot water again.

Meanwhile, the Port of Los Angeles, locked in fierce competition with Long Beach for shipping business, has been aggressively courting the Chinese shipping company, hoping to lure COSCO to Los Angeles with incentives like a new terminal.

The Chinese shipping company has moved ships in and out of Long Beach for 17 years, but sought the additional space because it has outgrown its 130-acre site on Terminal Island.