Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 1987-06-15 Seal Beach, California June 15, 1987 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach met. in regular session at 6:47 p.m. with Chairman Hunt calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Hunt Agency Members Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Nelson, Executive Director Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, Secretary WAIVER OF FULL READING There being no legislative items on the agenda, no action was taken on this item. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Clift moved, second by Wilson, to approve the minutes of the regular Redevelopment Agency meeting of May 26, 1987. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER PROPERTY - PROPOSED LICENSE The Director of Development Services advised that the City has received a letter from the Department of Water and Power giving written notification as to the extent of the license I that they have proposed to the City, which is the southerly portion of the DWP site, Ocean Avenue right-of-way, and the areas southerly of that, stating that this land is within the realm of the City to develop with a bike path and passive park uses. Mr. Knight reported that the DWP Advisory Committee strongly recommended that the City seek the entire seventy percent of the site as set forth in the Specific Plan and use an incremental approach to developing the land as funds become available. He stated that if the Agency were to accept the offer from DWP, which represents the maximum area they are offering at this time, that would be consistent with the Committee's recommendations with the understanding that additional land would be sought as it and funds become available. He also reported that the City has written to DWP and advised them of the desire to expand the area, and to date they have neither accepted or rejected the request. Mr. Knight noted concerns raised by community members and the Agency as to the safety of the site due to the discovery of asbestos, and reported information has been provided by County personnel which, in summary, is that the County will certify that all known areas have been cleaned and that the site meets State standards, however neither County, City or State can certify that the site is one hundred percent free I of all asbestos, that the seven known voids have been excavated and cleaned of rubble, the County feeling that the liklihood of encountering additional rubble is very low given the clean-up effort, also that the only possibility of contacting more rubble would be when development and extensive grading is done, and that in the area under consideration for license, no foundations existed and no rubble was found, therefore no asbestos was or is expected to be found in this area. 6-15-87 I Mr. Gordon Shanks, 215 Surf Place, addressed the Agency as Chairman of the Department of Water and Power Advisory Committee, stated he did not wish to address the asbestos concern, only the 2.2 acres that are being offered by DWP. Mr. Shanks referred to the June 1st letter from the Department of Water and Power in which they advised that no additional acreage would be added, and in turn noted that a major concern of the Committee was that by licensing the 2.2 acres, the City would be realizing little by having a very small passive park while having to make an expenditure of funds. Mr. Shanks spoke against obtaining the parkland on a piecemeal basis. He stated that if it were thought that money was available to develop a first class first phase of the seventy percent parkland he would favor this offer, or if the acreage could be obtained under a five to ten year lease that would provide the potential to obtain County or Coastal Conservancy funds for development, noting that under a license that can be cancelled upon ninety day notice, no other agency is likely to participate in such funding. Mr. Shanks stated it is felt to be better to keep the 9 acres as an open site until such time as a hotel development appears to be a reality under the Specific Plan. He stated further that the Committee did not feel that a transfer of liability issue was a viable argument for the offer of 2.2 acres by the DWP, however establishing the 2.2 acre line might be seen as a precedent setting boundary. Councilmember Risner stated she had noted from the minutes of the Advisory Committee a request for information relating to the Orange County Harbors, Beach and Parks funding, and reported that although $15,000 had been granted to the City, funding of $435,000 was lost because the City did not have a long term agreement with the Department of Water and Power for the subject property which was a condition of that funding. She pointed out that she had been advised however, that if the City could obtain a commitment for this parcel of land for an extended period of time, a request for funding should be resubmitted to be included in their five-year plan. She added that she would not support any action that would disrupt the existing lease of the roadway that is the entryway to the First Street beach parking lot. Mr. Jay Covington, 4260 Dogwood Avenue, stated that as a member of the Advisory Committe he concurred with the comments of Chairman Shanks. Mr. Covington stated that the Department of Water and Power land is in the public domain, owned by the public with the DWP the steward of that land. He noted that the prior use of that property ended in 1966 and since that time here has been no use or public benefit from that property. He stated that although the site may not be developed in a manner to realize an economic return for some time, he would recommend that the City actively pursue an assertive means to have the DWP develop this land for passive recreation use, the site planted with a ground cover, bushes and trees, properly fenced and in addition, make an annual contribution to the City for its maintenance and upkeep. Agency Member Grgas reviewed the history of the site from 1922 through 1987. He also referred to the recent activities to clean and grade the property at which time asbestos was found, and stated that it was his understanding that although extensive sampling of the soils was done, it was only to four and one-half feet, therefore anything that may be deeper than that remains unknown, and asked for some clarification as to what could be expected to be found at a greater depth. He added that although the City's intent is to acquire seventy percent of that property for parkland, and 2.2 acres being a step towards that goal, the City needs to be concerned about the asbestos from a health and safety standpoint and should be absolved of any potential liability from asbestos related incidents on that site. I I 6-15-87 Mr. John Mills introduced himself as the Program Manager of the Hazardous Waste Section of Orange County, and stated he could respond to policy and procedure questions regarding cleanup of contaminated sites, however would refer technical questions to the staff person who was involved in this particular property. Mr. Mills advised that under California Hazardous Waste laws governing cleanup and disposal of hazardous waste pursuant to Chapter 6.5 of the Health and Safety Code, it states that responsibility and liability lies with the generator of the waste when the I generator can be identified, and whether the property is sold or transferred, that responsibility is retained. He stated that in this particular case the generator of the waste is known, and added that he has been informed that the Department of Water and Power has been cooperative in performing the assessments required on the site, sampling, testing, etc. In response to the Agency, Mr. Mills advised that their agency is charged with the responsibility of identifying and removing hazardous waste, and with regard to a liability resulting from exposure, stated that would be another realm of proving liability, also noting that in recent years there have been liability cases that have reverted to the manufacturer. With regard to deep pocket liability, the City Attorney stated that a deep pocket exists in the Department of Water and Power, noting that while the generator of hazardous waste would have the primary liability responsibility, some liability would lie with the property owner, as an example, if the City became the property owner of that site there could be some liability on the part of the City if there were hazardous materials on the site. He explained that a lease would provide an interest in the property as compared to a license which would provide no property interest, and I that it could be concluded that if the City were not the generator of the hazardous material nor the property owner and only leasing the property for park use, it would seem less likely that the City could be considered a responsible party. He added that the wording of a lease would be very significant to make it clear that the DWP is totally responsible for any hazardous material on the site, for instance, if it were stated that the City was responsible for maintenance and the property was determined to contain asbestos, that could be a potential cause of action against the City, pointing out that the liability regarding removal versus exposure would be entirely different issues. Mr. Fred Gaggioli, Orange County Hazardous Waste, stated he had overseen the cleanup of this site. He advised that their agency was notified of the contamination on August 8th, the site inspected immediately thereafter with a determination that there was no visible asbestos that would endanger the community on an immediate basis. He stated DWP was directed to continue watering the site to prevent any blowoff, subsequently DWP was ordered to submit a plan for sampling the area to determine the extent of contamination. He reported that plan then identified seven areas, all subterranean in nature, the voids apparently filled by the demolition contractor in 1967, where rubble was known to I exist and suspected of containing asbestos. He clarified that the sampling plan for those seven areas was different from the remainder of the site since there was possible contamination, explaining that samples were taken at twenty- five feet on center distribution rather than one hundred feet, at three depths of zero, two and four feet, with the remainder of the site put on a one hundred foot grid and samples taken at surface, eight and ten foot levels to determine if any surface contamination had occurred. He added that the sampling was done with the understanding that 6-15-87 I four feet may not be the full depth of the rubble however if any samples were determined positive the rubble would be followed to its end. Mr. Gaggioli stated that once all known areas were cleaned and disposed of properly, the DWP received approval to ,go forward with their grading, however while sloping the property towards a drainage area and making a cut of four to five feet, two more pockets were uncovered in basically the same area, which became the second cleanup. He specifically noted that once the rubble was removed there was always resampling to verify that the area was clean, and if some of the samples tested positive, more removal was done, and that all adjacent areas were also tested. In response to the Agency, Mr. Gaggioli confirmed that the area of the second find had been previously tested, however the contamination was very sparce and not a continuation of the previous finds, and advised that the depth of that find was between four and five feet however cleanup was at least four feet beyond the point of the find. Mr. Gaggioli confirmed that if any asbestos remained on the site, there is no possibility of it leaching to the surface, also reported that the boilers were removed in 1967, which was confirmed through the excavation. He added there were approximately three hundred and two hundred loads of rubble and dirt removed respectively from the site with the two finds, confirming that in many cases there were only small amounts of asbestos in those removals, and that after removal clean fill dirt brought to the site. Councilmember Risner stated she had been informed that tests showed that the leval of airborne asbestos was considerably below EPA standards. I Due to illness of the speaker, the Agency declared a recess at 7:43 p.m. and reconvened at 7:55 p.m. with Chairman Hunt calling the meeting to order. The Director of Development Services clarified that the DWP is expected to complete grading of the site by the end of June afterwhich the property will be fenced, and should the City delay their decision to license the property until after that time, relocation of the fence would be at City expense. I Mr. Thomas Irwin introduced himself as the Manager of the Civil Engineering Department of the Department of Water and Power. Councilman Grgas expressed appreciation for the cooperation of the DWP with the County to resolve the asbestos removal from the subject property. Be inquired, however, if DWP had researched their records regarding the demolition of the structure previously located on the site, the movement of dirt, etc., and if the DWP is now satisfied that additional asbestos does not remain on the site. Mr. Irwin responded that the Department has researched its files, reviewed drawings, photographs, demolition contract specifications, and the test plan, and stated the Department feels quite certain that based upon the testing that was conducted that all known asbestos has been removed from the site. with regard to the June 12th news article reporting a minute quantity of asbestos had been found as referred to by Mrs. Risner, Mr. Irwin stated that pursuant to the process in working with the Orange County agency, as the grading work was being done and areas of rubble and suspected asbestos contamination were identified, those areas were tested and if the test indicated the presence of asbestos, all rubble and the soil in the surrounding areas were removed, then retested over a broad area until all test results were negative. Mr. Irwin stated he did not know what the minute quantity was in reference to. In response to Agency member Risner, Mr. Irwin stated he could not speak to future land use agreements, that a license or lease of 6-15-87 property would be handled by their Real Estate Department, however he could state that the Department of Water and Power will comply with any and all regulations and meet their responsibilities with regard to liability for hazardous waste on the site. He also advised that in connection with disposal of property, any agreement would be dealt with through their Real Estate Division, require DWP and City Council approval, and that such process would be largely determined by the amount of interest and/or concern of the Council and DWP management. With regard to the Department's willingness to take additional samples at a I greater depth, Mr. Irwin stated his belief that that was done when the test grid was set up, that a statistical analysis was made and supplemented by additional testing at closer intervals as finds were identified. He also advised that in most cases the depth of testing ranged from the surface to four feet except in areas of rubble that were identified, which could extend to four or five feet in depth, and once removed, there were again tests from variable depths which could easily extend to eight or nine feet, or in the case of the boiler bays, to a depth of more that twenty feet. Mr. Irwin stated that in the case of development on the site, and should any asbestos be identified, the City's Attorney had informed the Agency of the responsibilities of the generator of such waste. Agency Member Risner moved to support the fencing of the entire Department of Water and Power property, that DWP hydroseed the site for dust control, that the City staff negotiate with the Department to pursue obtaining more of the property under a lease, whether it be in small increments or up to seventy percent, and that any agreement contain a statement that all liability would lie solely with the Department of Water and Power for the known asbestos problem. Agency Member Grgas suggested that the recommendations of the Advisory Committee be considered as I part of the motion. Discussion continued. Agency Member Clift stated he would like the staff to pursue the possibility of the City realizing use of the site for passive recreational purposes at the expense of the DWP. Chairman Hunt stated he felt that that direction was included and understood to be part of the motion. Agency Member Grgas seconded the motion with an amendment that the staff be directed to contact the State Coastal Conservancy and request that they consider conducting public workshops to development a park improvement plan for the DWP site. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Hunt declared Oral Communications open. Mrs. Barbara Rountree, 316 - 13th Street, spoke on behalf of the San Gabriel Parks Society and expressed appreciation to the Agency for their consideration of the recommendations of the DWP Advisory Committee, and subsequent action with regard to the DWP property, and reported that petitions will continue to be circulated in support of seventy percent of that site I for park purposes. There being no other communications, Chairman Hunt declared Oral Communications closed. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous adjourned at consent of the Agency, the meeting was 8:20 p.m. fLY