Cindy said:
This is very amazing. The city "just happens not to know about the clearing", the developer is "unaware of the rules" regarding permits and laws protecting coastal zones and waterways, they completely level it before the city stops them. I don't buy this "whoops we didn't know" story at all. Private property or not there are laws. And all that is disclosed when you buy property. This was a dump site, most likely an environmental hazard and it probably needs cleanup. Did anyone do any soil tests or whatever before they started digging into it? Who knows what just got released into the air by the dust from this. Thanks a lot, I live downwind. Not only was all this "overlooked" by the city and the land owner but they are also wrecking what could be a restored habitat. Things like this is exactly why our wetlands were destroyed in the first place. This needs to stop, wetlands are very important to the marine environment--if you don't know about that please do some reading up on it. Encourage city officials to protect the wetlands.
mrfrankle said:
is there a possibility we/they can drain the sludge so that its no longer a wetland,then surly the wildlife will vacate peacefully with time then they can resume cleaning that mess without harming the birds , we need to get that cleaned up!
Timothy said:
How do you tell your child that you decidedly ripped up and destroyed such an area for personal gain?
Do you tell your child that you did it for them so they can play soccer with their little friends? I understand the “it’s only business, don’t take it personally” attitude that some persons take, but are they teaching their child that this IS the way to do business? I can’t even get my head around that one.
The purchaser knew going in. This happens over and over again. “If I do this, what’s the worst thing they [they meaning the people I know and do business with] are going to do to me? I didn’t know, no really, I didn’t know. “Try that one the next time you get drunk and drive... and get pulled over. I guess it would be all right if you were good friends with the officer….. Maybe get a ride home.
This is similar the Johnnies Broiler Diner developer in Downey that was required a permit that needed an EIR and a study to address the historic significance of the site, [before starting any work], was ignored and the building was demolished without a permit. The developer knew they could not get a permit for the work they wanted to perform, so they did as much demo as possible, before they were stopped, by public members.
I haven’t checked Las Vegas yet; does anyone know the odds of any real resultant penalties for these intentional actions?
PB said:
You've got to be kidding me. Ruehle says " . . .reports from WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR YOU (caps mine). Doesn't this make you wonder whether the City of Long Beach had a prearranged agreement with Tom Dean that encouraged his original purchase of the wetlands last year for sale to the city?" and assumes there is a conspiracy? I don’t think Mr. Dean is dumb enough to purchase land that City staff had no ability to provide a firm promise to repurchase?
Or is it much more likely that the "for you" means Mr. Dean is delivering copies of the disc associated with the property purchase "for you". Better grammar would have been to insert the "For You" earlier in the sentence, not at the end, but many people do not focus on grammar (or spelling if they don't have spellcheck) when writing emails.
IKK said:
Funny how statements just get thrown out there and we read them and just accept it. I heard that the city environmental consultant visited the site and confirmed that there was no "nesting" and that no "habitat" was destroyed. There was no indigenous plants removed and no signs of any dead or injured animals or birds.
Why doesn't this information get reported?
Egrets only nest in trees and none were nesting in the palm trees, yet someone just says they were and we all beleive it?
Mike Ruehle said:
There is another curious comment Mr. Dean made on February 12, 2009 when he sent an email to Mike Conway titled, Closing of LCW part 1, where he talks about closing the sale of the wetlands. In the email Mr. Dean states to Mr. Conway, “I look forward to closing the first part of the trade with you…. I am putting together six copies of the due diligence disc that has the reports from WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR YOU (caps mine)."
Doesn't this make you wonder whether the City of Long Beach had a prearranged agreement with Tom Dean that encouraged his original purchase of the wetlands last year for sale to the city? If so, what was the agreement and why wasn’t it disclosed from the beginning?
Mike Ruehle said:
The following is a portion of the wetlands negotiations emails prior to presentation to City Council. On October 14, developer Tom Dean emails Public Works Director Mike Conway, “It looks like we have an Amerigas appraisal but not the Sports Park, am I missing it?”
Mr. Conway responds to Mr. Dean, “I PURPOSELY AVOIDED APPRAISALS SO THAT VALUE WAS NOT THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF THE TRADE (caps mine)....How do you want to handle?”
Mr. Dean responds to Mr. Conway, “Are you going to need one for the trade?”
Mr. Conway responds to Mr. Dean, “I don’t currently intend to.”
First, if Mr. Conway does not wish to use the property value as the basis of negotiations, what is he using? How does one negotiate a trade without knowing the value of what is being traded?
Second, is it common for the city staff person negotiating in the best interest of the public to ask his counterpart how they want to proceed with the negotiations?
local lover said:
"You should be able to do whatever you want on private property"
Oh, really? So you oppose all zoning laws? I should be allowed to build a ten story apartment building in the middle of Belmont Heights? How about an adult book store across from a school? Dump my old motor oil in my backyard? Open fires?
What bunk. No one believes private property means one can do "whatever they want."
Water tables, animals and air dont recognize property boundaries. Duh.
Mike Ruehle said:
Hello JS,
I think you do an admirable job twisting my point to support your argument. Good try. That is not what I meant.
Mike Ruehle said:
Regarding putting petroleum based asphalt on the wetlands, the following is the email sent from Lenny Arkinstall (wetlands steward and city contractor) to Tom Dean on October 17th,
“I am still researching the road problem and will keep you posted. Catalina Island conservancy have sent me some information on a approved product that they use at the Island, not that you are going to use it. I am going to talk to Chuck Posner. I am excited about selling mitigation credits, if the numbers work in your favor it could be a good thing, at least something to consider.”
So where was Lenny Arkinstall, the wetlands steward and city contractor responsible for keeping the wetlands clean, when the asphalt was being dumped on the wetlands? Did he oversee the job as indicated by Mr. Dean?
Mike Ruehle said:
This is not an issue of whether Sean Hitchcock, Tom Dean or the City knew about putting petroleum based material on the wetlands. The city and Tom Dean discussed in detail and planned doing so. The following are excerpts from the Public Records request emails.
At 4:46 PM on October 14th, Long Beach Public Works Director Mike Conway sent the following email to city employees Mark Christoffels, Phillip Balmeo and Gillis Monroe, “If you have any asphalt roadway waste, Tom Dean would be happy to accept.”
At 4:52 PM, on October 14th, Mr. Dean responded, “We will probably bring in Lenny Arkinstal to over see the coverage so as not to hurt any of the wetlands.”
At 5:11 PM, on October 14th, Mr. Conway responded, Tom, I'm wondering...how is Coastal and conservationists going to look at this? Remember when you mentioned the Bixby's draining some wetlands? How will laying down petroleum products around the wetlands be perceived? How would the City be perceived in providing the material? I may be all paranoid, but, I know they're out there.”
At 5:21 PM on October 14th, Mr. Dean responded, “I will call Lenny if you have the extra product and maybe try to not only get some feedback but get some positive mention for the cities efforts. Your paranoid perspective is well placed fyi.”
JM said:
This absolutely depressing, just when you thought this city was taking a step to being more environmentally friendly it took six steps backwards. And if everyone thought with the mentality of some of the people who post comments on here about how it isn't a "real" wetland, this world would be really f-ed up. You (yes im categorizing) obviously have no idea the beneficial attributes wetlands bring to our water supply and other local estuaries. GO READ A BOOK, or if youre too lazy to do that, watch Discovery Channel, they did all the work for you, so all you have to go is sit on your butt and watch.
JS said:
I think Mike Ruehle has a good point. We shouldn't allow community leaders who serve on non-profit boards, or people who are philanthropic and donate money to charitable causes, to serve as elected officials in Long Beach.
Mike Ruehle said:
Hello Dennis,
I believe you miss my point and attempt to cloud the real issue. Please show me where I said civic leaders are not to serve on boards or committees or where I said anything negative about their conduct on the Board of Memorial Hospital. My point is that Mayor Foster and Councilman DeLong have had past personal and business relationships with developer Tom Dean. This is a topic both have downplayed in the past. Furthermore, Mayor Foster and Councilman DeLong have appointed people familiar to Mr. Dean to be our civic leaders, some of which, including themselves, have received significant campaign contributions from Mr. Dean. There are 500,000 people living in Long Beach. So, I guess you don’t find it even a little coincidental this handful of civic leaders all serve together on one hospital’s board of directors? This comes from a person who applied to be on a commission and never received a response back from the city.
Mike Ruehle said:
I understand Councilwoman Schipske has asked the Mayor and her fellow Councilmembers to add the wetlands exchange deal to tomorrow evening's City Council agenda. She has indicated that she is being told by the City Attorney that it must be done in closed session because it is a real estate transaction. Why in closed session? My understanding is that it could also be conducted in open session so the public would have an opportunity to observe the discussion on this subject. I believe that is the transparency we all want and the Mayor constantly talks about.
Mike K said:
By the time we get the facts if we evfer do... the land will be destroyed. Get real if you care for our legal procedure go to Mexico!
Neighborhood resident said:
DENNIS,
Well said!!!! And glad someone said it.
Folks should wait for the facts before launching personal attacts.
Allyson said:
This was absolutly recklace and the developer had to have known. It just a shame he doesn't relise how valuable the land really is.
Charlie said:
Whether it used to be a dump or not at one time it was a wetland. Are there no rules for these Long Beach big shots? This guy knew exactly what he was doing. Do we need to have every piece of open land in the city filled with asphalt. Do we really need another "Big Box" ugly site for Long Beach?
Dennis said:
Ruehle: Your attempt to tie in the board of directors to Memorial Medical Center and this is issue is ridiculous and insipid. Is it your argument that civic leaders are not to serve on non-profit boards in our communities? That those who have stepped up to roles of leadership in government and business are not supposed to use their experience, their networks, and their skill sets to benefit our community and the many non-profit organizations that provide critical and necessary support for our community? Or should they join those organizations and boards and therefore leave themselves subject to imbecilic attacks and comments from a self-styled antagonist such as you? Your same old comments on the blogs across the city bashing every government official and community leader is getting boring. This latest comment takes the cake however in your besmirching the time, effort and resources donated by many people to support a hospital in our community because of an issue in which all the details are still unknown but even so you are more than willing to trot out your tired attacks and conspiracy theories. Even though I am connected with another hospital in Long Beach I am grateful that all those you mentioned, and more, are committed to providing health care to those in need in our community at Memorial and hope they have rightfully ignored your comments for what they are, a desperate call for attention—yet again. You owe an apology to those who volunteer for the betterment of our community whom you slander with your comments here; show us your integrity…for once.
Mike Ruehle said:
Would you believe Sean Hitchcock, the construction company president who claims he didn’t realize there was an issue with bulldozing the wetlands, also is on the Board of Directors of Memorial Medical Center? This is the same Board of Directors that includes Mayor Bob Foster, developer Tom Dean, Planning Commissioner Alan Fox, Planning Commissioner Charles Durnin, and the husband of Planning Commissioner Donita Van Horik.
Is it not amazing how so many folks working on development issues in Long Beach also serve together on the Board of a local hospital? Are Councilman DeLong and Mr. Dean’s partner Jeff Berger hoping all of their past contributions to the hospital will also get them the same favorable treatment from Mayor Foster?
Moreover, I highly doubt Mr. Hitchcock was unaware of the preservation issues surrounding the wetlands. Mr. Hitchcock and his wife Linda live less than 2 miles from the wetlands, just off Studebaker Road on Nipomo Avenue.
Cindy said:
This is very amazing. The city "just happens not to know about the clearing", the developer is "unaware of the rules" regarding permits and laws protecting coastal zones and waterways, they completely level it before the city stops them. I don't buy this "whoops we didn't know" story at all. Private property or not there are laws. And all that is disclosed when you buy property. This was a dump site, most likely an environmental hazard and it probably needs cleanup. Did anyone do any soil tests or whatever before they started digging into it? Who knows what just got released into the air by the dust from this. Thanks a lot, I live downwind. Not only was all this "overlooked" by the city and the land owner but they are also wrecking what could be a restored habitat. Things like this is exactly why our wetlands were destroyed in the first place. This needs to stop, wetlands are very important to the marine environment--if you don't know about that please do some reading up on it. Encourage city officials to protect the wetlands.
Paul said:
These are the same mentality of people that bulldozed the Pacific Coast Club in the middle of the night, and washed the least tearn chicks to their deaths from barges. They are the likes of the people that brought us the crackerboxes and now are back at dealing themseves money and property with their "City Family" connections. Like Kell stood by, Foster is too. Nothing changes in that cutesy self serving team in City Hall.
environmental scientist said:
Those who are unaware that these are wetlands obviously don't know what they are talking about. Nature is very important and I can't believe that not more precaution is being taken. The reason that piece of land doesn't look like a wetland is because humans have already destroyed it. People need to be less anthro-centric and start thinking about other organisms other than themselves. PROTECT THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS! Deny the permit.
hrmm said:
Seems like someone should be able to do whatever they want on their own land... If you wanted to keep it wetlands, you should have bought it yourself.
Mike Ruehle said:
Maybe Mr. Hitchcock can help me with this question. Can you please tell me why a businessman such as yourself would buy a piece of property to turn into a park? Exactly what business purpose does that serve? If philanthropy is your bag, why not purchase the Amerigas or Hilltop facilities to turn into parks? These are areas of the city that could certainly use more open space and parks.
I find the story about excavating the site to comply with the fire departments request to be interesting. I'm curious why the city doesn't use bulldozers for weed control on the city owned properties if that is the most effective method.
Little by little the wetlands are getting filled in by people above the law with well rehearsed excuses.
John Greet said:
Ok, so I’ve now read all of the coverage and all of the comments and even, this morning, visited the site itself. I can report that, as of 1030am or so, there was no activity and no vehicles about on or near the site other than one unoccupied car marked “AQMD”. Although I did not see the diver, it’s possible that that person was taking air samples in response to complaints about possible methane release caused by the new owner’s (Mr. Hitchcock’s) heavy equipment the day before. If so that’s some very quick work on AQMD’s part! Several things are still less than clear to me. Is the area in question zoned, as “Coastal Advocate” on TDW and other sources claim, “Brackish Pond and Wetlands Overlook” or is it, as the new owner and other sources claim, “Commercial”? Hitchcock’s latest comments as reported on LBR seem to indicate that his only intent was to “clear and weed the site for hazard” in compliance with an order to do so from LBFD and as relayed to him by the former owner (Mr. Dean). If this is so, how is he to do this *without* disrupting some of the native flora and fauna to some extent? Hitchcock claims to have been using heavy equipment due to the size of the parcel and also claims that he his intent is to plant grass and leave it as “open park space”. If this is so, why truck in waste asphalt, what Hitchcock alternately calls “gravel”, “the City’s gravel” and “their rock” and dump it on the site? He claims it was to fill voids in the land fill and to let the trucks come in and out”. This seems reasonable for the stated purpose of mitigating weeds and debris but, if it is not, why not? Mr. Hitchcock freely admits to having purchased the parcel recently but won’t tell us what he paid. I wonder why? Mr. Hitchcock claims he has spoken with City representatives about his activities but will not tell us who. I wonder why?
Wetland Scientist said:
This area is adjacent to the healthiest piece of wetlands in Long Beach known as Steam Shovel Slough. There are laws that protects land adjacent to functioning wetlands. The wetlands are also protected by the Clean Water Act, Coastal Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Endangered Species Act. This land may not look like wetlands to the average person, but it has the potential to be restored to full functionality. At the very least, it can be utilized as a visitor or cultural center for the restored wetlands in the future. All of Los Cerritos has the potential to be restored!
LBPD said:
WELL, WORK WILL CONTINUE ON MON 03/23/09 CITY HAS GIVIN THE GREEN LIGHT
wetland ops said:
ABOUT TIME SOMEONE GOT THAT MESS CLEAED UP!!! HATS OFF TO 2H
Wally G said:
The new owner is going to build a car suspension repair shop
so you can get your car's suspension broken and repaired on lyones
Neighborhood resident said:
This is not an official "wetland" and is an old dump site. Why is the media reporting this as a wetland habitat? Granted permitting process must be followed, but come on!!!
IKK said:
Did you ever consider that maybe the owner does know the situation of the property and that information is different from what all the negative bloggers think? I checked the wetlands map and this area is not part of the wetlands. Therefore, it is just a privately owned landfill. Why is it that a private land owner of a landfill can not clear the overgrown weeds from their site (in many cases doesn't the city force them to do so)?
Critic said:
Billy: for your info, I respect true habitat, not fake, manmade so-called habitat. When I was in the desert I watched as a nearby empty lot that had over the years become a nesting place for birds, lizards, bunnies and the occasional egret be bulldozed for houses. The fact that it was in the middle of what was designed to be a development didn't change the fact that nature will always adapt to what surroundings they find. I wish we people would do the same. That landfill is for development, not habitat. It belongs to a private company, not the public. How would you like me to start camping out in your front yard just because I happen to consider it public land?
smith said:
It is an old city dump site, just like the area the people complaining from the mobile home park are on. How do you propose that a landfill turned into protected wetlands?
kplin said:
Isn't this area an old city dump site? The same city dump site that the adjacent mobile home park is on? Where does the label wetlands come from?
Sander said:
When the owner purchased the land, I am quite sure he knew it was protected, and that development was restricted. These kinds of things are required by law to be disclosed. That being the case, one could easily assume that this action was taken with the full understanding of its illegality, and that there could be severe and punitive actions taken by the City, and California Coastal Commission. There may even be Federal laws to consider as well. I cannot imagine a scenario where the enforcement officials would choose to ignore this breach of the law, unless their desire is to encourage this kind of behavior.
earth-hater said:
One day, all the birds and trees and grasslands will be malls, and God will smile. I hate nature. Build more Bestbuys! Grass and mud do nothing for ME, therefore they are BAD. I can't wait until every meadow is paved, every ocean a toxic waste dump, and only human beings, our pets, our livestock, and a few zoos for nostalgia left on the planet. Then, we will know what true beauty is. Nature is ugly.
C'Mon said:
I know.....let's let a sinking & everchanging former landfill site site there for 50 years, get saturate with water so, duh birds & wildlife inhabit the area & we'll deem it "Wetlands"!
Billy said:
Critic was the one driving the tractor
former lbc res. said:
nice to hide behind a computer and call a nesting place bad names...maybe people should call your front yard an eyesore
Laurie said:
lol.........Wild Wild West......
Judy Griffith said:
I jsut drove by, When I saw Workers. And lots of women out there. I knew something just happened.
helen said:
good reporting on this, POST - btw you don't have to be a liberal to want development to be "planned". It may be an eyesore (eye of the beholder) but it is a nesting area for birds. Whatever becomes of this space should be well thought out and a little light shining on plans would be prudent.
critic said:
What wetlands? Mud ponds and a lot of weeds? right . . . only a liberal would see that land as so-called "wetlands"
Citizen said:
So much for private property rights
GLENN said:
How dare a land owner clear an Eye sore on his own land. Stopping a grass fire before the dry season comes should be aginst the law.
Leslie B. said:
This is just awful. We all live with this eyesore of an intersection every day -- comforted only by the fact that it's a refuge for many beautiful birds. I am shocked that it was ruined without any officials taking notice. Frankly, shame on the city for sending just a stop-work order and not the police?
Dave in Alamitos Beach said:
Absolutely appalling. Good work on the part of the local citizens. Please keep us informed as to who the new owner is and what really happened.
Solarboy said:
If they didn't have a permit, it sounds like aggressive developers run amok. The city really should procecute the perps, fine them millions and send them to jail as an example. Who do they think they are?!
Mark Hawkins said:
Amazing. It takes years to develop a sustainable environment and hours to bulldoze a habitat.
|
Archives
