Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1994-09-26 9-12-94 I 9-14-94 street within one to two weeks, once the responses are received and tabulated the consultant will hold a public input meeting to discuss the survey responses and other community concerns, thereafter alternatives will be prepared, discussed further with the community, and finally a complete plan. Councilmember Hastings said she rec~lled that the surveys were to be sent to properties between 5th and 12th and Ocean to Electric. Mayor I Brown reported attend~ng a college Park West volleyball facility - ribbon cutting ceremony that was attended by three generations of residents, followed by a picnic; the International Friendship Association will be holding a meeting on Thursday evening relative to sister city activities; the Police Association and the Business Association played their fourth annual softball game on saturday night, the winners now tied two to two; and the Rossmoor Center Merchants Fair will be held on Saturday, September 17th. ADJOURNMENT The City Attorney mentioned that there had been some discussion of adjourning this meeting until Wednesday, September 14th at 4:15 p.m. to provide information to the Ad Hoc Base Closure Committee, and noted co do so a quorum of the Council will need to be present, and the September 14th meeting will then be adjourned until September 26th at 6:30 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, to adjourn this meeting until Wednesday, September 14th at 4:15 p.m. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:35 p.m. I of the Approved: Attest: Seal Beach, California September 14, 1994 The reg~lar adjourned city council meeting scheduled for 4:15 p.m. th~s date was convened at 4:32 p.m. with Mayor ProTem Laszlo calling the me,ating to order. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor ~roTem Laszlo Counci!members Doane, Forsythe Mayor Brown, Councilmember Hastings Absent: I I I 9-14-94 Also present: Ad Hoc Federal Base Closure Committee appointed members: James Clow, Gayle Knapp, Tom Lyon, Warren Morton '1 Mr. Ba~kston, City Manager' Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk Absent: Committee member Del smith Committee member Knapp arrived at 5:05 p.m. Mayor ProTem Laszlo stated this to be an introductory information meeting relating to upcoming federal base closures; this committee to work closely with the Long Beach committee with regard to the Long Beach Shipyard, the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, and possibly the Armed Forces Reserve Center. The city Manager said it is assumed that the same tentative calendar will be followed for the 1995 base closure process as was followed in 1993 - if that is the case in January the Department of Defense will make public its list - within thirty to sixty days the Federal Base Closure Commission will commence its site review and hearings - no later than early May the Commission is charged with submitting a list of proposed closures to the President - the President has only the option to approve or veto the list in total, as submitted - if the list is not rejected in total within thirty days the list then goes to the Congress - final decisions by the end of summer/beginning of fall - preceding the Department of Defense list, all of the armed forces divisions will submit a list of data calls - each division of federal government agencies, beyond the Department of Defense, will make inquiries within their own general area of involvement with a base - the Seal Beach Weapons Station has received just under twenty data calls, about the same as 1993 - the Base Closure Commission will be considering either base ' closure or realignment - the Weapons Station was realigned in 1993 for missile repair. Some points of information offered or discussed in general were: * If the Seal Beach Weapons Station is closed the Long Beach Shipyard will quite certainly close; * If the Long Beac~1 Shipyard is closed that does not necessarily mean that the weapons station will be closed; * Committee formed now to formulate a plan in opposition to such closures - March or April will be too late; The Department of Defense is the agency that makes the recommendations - the DDD 1995 list may have bases listed that were not on the 1993 list, there may be bases on the 1993 list that were not closed or realigned on the Commission list, yet may not be on the new 1995 list - the DDD has the flexibility to develop a totally new list - the Commission has full flexibility to put on or take off any base on that list - the DDD does not necessarily make recommendations for closure or realignment; * Unless there is further Congressional authorization, there are only four base closure rounds authorized, 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995; * * The Commission has never, as yet, added a base to the list submitted by the Department of Defense - legally they could however it would be necessary to hold further hearings; 9-14-94 * The Commission has stated they would not limit weapons stations to only one coast - there will be, at minimum, one on each coast; Some information provided to the Commission will relate to how many ships come to Seal Beach, Concord, or Washington to unload before they proceed to the shipyard for repair at Long Beach or San Diego; * For Long Beach the argument would be that they can unload at Seal Beach and proceed a short distance to Long Beach rather than a greater distance to the San Diego shipyard; * * For Seal Beach t~e argument would be why should the shipes) need to go to Concord to unload and then proceed to Long Beach or San Diego to the shipyard - even more unreasonable would be to unload in Washington and return - the cost and downtime would be considerable; * If Seal Beach Weapons station were to close, the argument for Long Beach would be gone - if Long Beach shipyard were to close the Seal Beach argument would still be it is closer for return to San Diego - there are no shipyard facilities in the northwest area; * The Base Closure Chairman previously stated that only bases having greater monetary value will be closed; * It had been rumored that Concord was the base to be considered for closure - does not seem reasonable to close either Seal Beach or Concord; * Invited representatives from Los Alamitos and cypress to attend this committee's meetings - do not want to use this issue to fight any projects - got word that Los Alamitos was safe - but need to be careful; * Will invite the Chairman of the Long Beach Shipyard Committee to the next meeting; * Commence formulating plans to fight the closures now - once on the list it is too late - until list is out there is no one to lobby - o~ce list is out there is only two months to take actions; * Need good arguments for not closing the base - point out the bad about closing here - the good about closing elsewhere; * Long Beach is spending considerable money - have hired a lobbyist who is i,n Washington - Long Beach feels their best success will come with the Weapons Station secure; Pros and cons are being formulated - much of the information is being obtained from the 1993 actions - that information now public - strategies need to be considered - the value of the land is an issue - the federal government has not made money through the disposal process - the property is firs~ offered to the State and cities - can only be sold by the federal government after rejection by the other agencies; * The Weapons Stat"on is within the Coastal Zone, that would be taken into consideration with any reuse - it is 'within the Tidelands Zone therefore the State may own all or a significant part of the station - a Commission was formed in 1993 to determine the boundaries of State owned land * I I I I I I 9-14-94 used for bases - wetlands are also an issue with regard to base closures; * The big issue is felt to be that many ships can not get to Concord - some can unload in Concord and return to San Diego - others will need to go to Washington and then return to San Diego - the cost, time'loss, and war impact could be factors; It is believed the wildlife Refuge puts the Weapons station in a different category and must be considered - the wildlife, tidelands and wetlands designation can not be changed; * Navy personnel are bound to discuss nothing with regard to base closures - some information, such as data calls, has been obtained through the federal legislators; * * It appears that the closures are based upon fiscal impact on the Navy - Seul Beach may be the most desirable in that regard - how could information be obtained to fight that argument; * Contacted lobbyist for Long Beach - ~equested any information relative to costs and time to take a ship from Washington to San Diego - will attempt to determine what types of ships could come to Seal Beach, to Concord, to Washington - figures from over the years as well; Of the three sites only Seal Beach has the ability, because of the land designation, to add to its inventory - Concord is somewhat conftned, can't expand - Washington has some expansion room - to the argument of economics on the other hand Seal Beach is the largest land owner of the three; * * After 1993 the Weapons station got some minor additional responsibilities but lost the missile repair - they did lose about twenty-percent of civilian personnel through the budgeting process - rumored they will lose some military personnel; * Inquiry as to how much Weapons station land is available for expansion; * It is now said that it will cost the government money to close EI Toro - it would have been ch~aper to close San Diego; * The Navy had six hundred ships during the period of the Cold War, have reduced the number significantly to three hundred sixty-five - that could impact the need for the current number of weapons stations; * The Navy is building four AOE-6 superior supply ships - two to be housed on each coast - all most likely completed within three to four years; About a year ago the Navy approached the City for some expansions, including a mile-long pier - are they now threatening closure to force acceptance of the expansions - will Seal Beach be compared to Concord with regard to accommodating the AOE-6 ships; * It was clarified that it is the Department of Defense that compiles the base closure list, not the Department of the Navy - politics does enter into the considerations and closures; * 9-14-94 * What would be the impact on Seal Beach with the Weapons station closure; * May want to expand this committee again in the future; * With regard to the Station expansion - about a year ago understood from Rohrabacher that the project had been put on hold for 1991 and 1992 - the entire funding eliminated in 1993 - prior Base Commander confirmed the project was a dead issue; I * Does Concord Seal Beach? have? Could Commander?; have What have facilities they want to put in similar does Concord have to offer and what do an information meeting with the Base to we * The Base is under strict orders, under court martial, from the Department of Defense that there is to be no community involvement, dissemination of information, etc. that may be influential to the committee; * Noted that if Concord were to be closed there would be no bases up north - central and southern California have basically been untouched; * Concord does not have wetlands - it is on tidelands - the tidelands issue is whether the State owns it - the wetlands must be taken into consideration and any reuse could not impact the wetlands. There was some discussion of scheduling a first meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, ten~atively scheduled for Wednesday, September I 21st at 5:00 p.m. if the Chairman of the Long Beach Committee is available to attend that meeting. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, September 26th, 1994 at 6:30 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. By unanimous was adjourned at 5:31 p.m. Approved: !/ I Attest: