The Environmental Quality Control Board will review the Final EIR for the Bay City Partners project on Monday, April 16. The DWP Advisory Committee will review the project on Tuesday, April 17.
The Environmental Impact Report for the Bay City Partners project said all potentially hazardous materials are within the limits imposed by regulatory agencies.
The Final EIR for the oceanfront property was released Monday, April 2.
The final version incorporates the draft version by reference.
The EIR was written by RBF Consulting. Seal Beach Senior Planner Jerry Olivera said the city hired RBF and that Bay City Partners would reimburse the city.
Brian Kyle, one of the Bay City Partners, was pleased with the report. “I just think it’s awesome,” Kyle said.
He said he and the Bay City Partners have been saying for years that the site is clean.
“I’m getting about a 90 percent high five from everybody in town,” Kyle said.
However, some individuals are not so enthusiastic about the project.
DWP Committee member Rita Strickroth commented on the report, apparently in response to a request from then-Director of Development Services Mark Persico.
“I would like to see the goals of the DWP parcel developed with the 70/30 preserved and still provide for a nice community of homes,” she wrote on Dec. 19, 2011.
Strickroth told the Sun on Monday, April 9, that she was about two-thirds of the way through the EIR. Asked for her thoughts on the report, she said she was worried about the density of the proposed housing.
Strickroth also said she was concerned that selling the parcels and building the individual houses would take longer than the EIR anticipates.
The environmental report assumes 24 houses will be built each year in 2014 and 2015.
Strickroth also said the buyers of any houses would have to pay taxes on improvements that are normally paid for by the developers.
Seth Eaker, of the DWP Advisory Committee, said, “Based on my understanding of the EIR process, and having no preconceived notion for the final outcome of the project recommendation, I feel the Final EIR effectively addressed and answered all of the questions that I asked.”
The largest part of the Final EIR is the comments section, 278 pages of comments and questions from the public and replies to those comments.
The 18 individuals or organizations that comment on the report included three members of the DWP committee, a member of the Ad Hoc General Plan Committee, a member of the Tree Advisory Board, a planning commissioner and one member of the Archeological Committee.
Comments in document
Eaker asked if the definition of “scenic view” was limited to the west only.
The report said in the case of the project, views would include westward views toward the coast.
Eaker also asked if affordable housing could be incorporated into alternatives for the project.
“The proposed project does not include an affordable housing component, nor do any of the project applicant’s goals include providing affordable housing,” the report said.
Eaker asked about asbestos mitigation.
The Final EIR said no hazardous materials had been found above the allowed limits for residential use.
Resident Rick Roussell said he preferred the original 70 percent open space specific plan for the property.
“It is my strong preference that no building take place on the beach side of Central Way,” he wrote.
Roussell lives on First Street, near the property.
In a Dec. 15, 2011 memo to Seal Beach, Jim Caviola referred to a February 2000 report that said asbestos levels could pose a threat to human health under certain types of land use. He asked if the city agreed with that conclusion.
The Final EIR response said that according to assessments of more than 400 asbestos samples by Parsons Engineering Science and Tetra Tech, the health risks were within the Environmental Protection Agency’s “acceptable” range.
“Consequently, because conditions on the project site are below regulatory thresholds relating to hazardous materials, there is no basis for concluding that the project presents any risk to human health or that any additional clean fill is required,” the EIR said.
Robert Goldberg said he was submitting comments on the EIR as a citizen and not as a member of the Planning Commission. (The commission is scheduled to review the development project on Wednesday, May 2.)
“The final EIR should include views and vistas as they would exist without the opaque fence,” Goldberg wrote.
The California Coastal Commission raised a similar issue.
The report’s response to the commission said: “Case law holds that environmental documents are not the proper place in which to analyze this issue; instead, the environmental baseline must be determined based on what is physically on the project site.”
The Coastal Commission letter said the proposed project would reduce the percentage of visitor serving space on the property.
The Final EIR said the specific plan for the property was internally inconsistent because the legal description of the property did not match the description in the so-called DWP Specific Plan.
Health agency letter
Among the issues raised by residents included the possible presence of asbestos on the property, which is undeveloped except for one occupied residence.
The Bay City Partners say the property was cleared by the Orange County Health Care Agency in 1987.
A copy of the letter clearing the property appears in the comments section of the Final EIR.
However, a member of the Tree Advisory Board and a law firm representing the mysterious Seal Beach for Open Space group have asked why there is no current record of the 1987 document.
Jim Caviola, an attorney and member of the Tree Advisory Board—which reviewed the Bay City Partners project on Feb. 14—requested a copy of the letter from the Orange County health agency on June 29, 2011.
The county agency wrote back in July. “We were unable to locate any records on the above location,” the letter said.
“It is understood that such records could exist another spelling, name or classification, but with the information furnished to our office and to the best of our knowledge, no such records exist in our files,” the letter said.
The Final EIR includes an Aug. 17, 1987 memo from Seal Beach Director of Developmental Services Ed Knight to City Manager Bob Nelson that refers to the Health Care Agency letter.
“As the letter from the county indicates, no further action is needed on the DWP site, and the cleanup has been completed,” Knight wrote.
The memo is followed by the Aug. 3, 1987 Health Care Agency letter from Supervising Hazardous Waste Specialist William Diekmann, addressed to Rick Allison of the LA Department of Water and Power.
The Diekman letter said his office took the position that decontamination was complete. However, he said that did not relieve the Department of Water and Power of responsibility for cleaning up any future contamination that might be found.
The Health Care Agency letter was followed by a report titled “Final Cleanup Report Seal Beach Generating Station Property March 1986.”
The report was prepared by the LA Department of Water and Power for the Orange County Health Care Agency.
The last paragraph of that report said the health agency had confirmed that asbestos had been cleaned from the site.
A copy of Caviola’s request for records and the county’s “no records” reply was attached to a letter from Chatten-Brown and Carstens, a law firm representing Seal Beach for Open Space.
The members of Seal Beach for Open Space are unknown. The group’s legal council has accused the city of being committed in advance to approving the Bay City Partners project.
To make a comment on this story at the Sun Newspapers’ Web site, go to www.sunnews.org.
