Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-09n �J MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Study Session and Tour Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 - 5:00 PM - TOUR COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Winchell, Kenefick, Schumacher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Porter, Greer, Bauer At 5:00 p.m. the Planning Commission and members of the City planning staff toured the individual areas of concern which are included in the pending General Plan Amendment No. 80-2. 7:00 PM - STUDY SESSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bauer For the information of those present, Chairman Porter outlined the format of this meeting. Staff will review information on the steps taken to date on implementation of a request for the con- struction of a 224-unit condominium project at the southeast corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. The environmental con- sultant for the project will make a presentation briefly summar- izing his report on the soils, groundwater, and vapor impacts due to previous chemical waste disposal on the site. Following this presentation, the Commission will review and discuss the environ- mental implications of development of the site. Although the public has been invited to attend, no public testimony will be taken at this meeting; all public continents will be heard at the public hearing on September 16, 1980. He also announced that rep- resentatives of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the State Department of Health Services, and the City of West Covina are present at this meeting. Mr. Porter asked that if the members of the public in attendance at the meeting have questions which arise out of the discussion here tonight they put those in writing and submit them to staff to enable responses to be presented at the public hearing. Savoy Bellavia introduced Tammy Smith and James Crisp, from Jack K. Bryant & Associates, consultants; Ed Camareno of the South Coast Air Quality Management District; and Howard Hatayama of the State Department of Health Services. Page 2 Jim Barnes reviewed the history of City actions in regard to the pro- posal, which consist of coordinating the preparation of the envir- onmental information; extensive consultation with the applicant, the consultant, and other concerned public agencies regarding the existence of potentially hazardous waste materials onsite; and the dissemination of notices of this meeting and the public hearing to be held on September 16th to residents of a wide area surrounding the dump site. James Crisp, consultant, outlined the primary objectives in the re- port, which were to determine what materials exist onsite, address the environmental impacts associated with those materials, and assess the feasibility of alternate methods of dealing with those impacts and. effecting site restoration. He presented slides to illustrate the past history gleaned from all available testing and reports from 1927 to the present, stating that the first substantial evidence of pollu- tion was found in 1947. The consultant had worked with concerned city, county, and state agencies to set up the methodology for sampling the site, using core holes and vapor wells with soil sampling done at two -foot intervals in every instance. The vapor wells were drilled directly into the contaminated material and probaply present a "worst case" picture of gas generation. A duplicate set of samples was taken and archived with the State Department of Health Services for verification of accuracy. In the assessment of environmental impacts, Mr. Crisp informed the Commission that 106 different soil compounds had been identified, 38 of which are on the EPA's "priority pollutant" list. Forty-three vapors or vapor compounds were identified from samples -taken from the vapor wells, 8 of which are "priority pollutants." He discussed at length the particular chemicals and gases identified on the site which, in sufficient concentrations, might result in severe--health- hazards in either acute or chronic stages, or which might prove to.; be either carcinogenic or explosive. He also stated that there al- ways remains the possibility that other toxic materials could be found in areas which were not sampled or analyzed; however,.he iden- tified the highest concentration levels found on the site and noted that offsite migration warrants immediate mitigation. In his discussion of effects on groundwater and possible migration of contaminants into the aquifers, Mr. Crisp said that all wells tested had been from the highest elevated producing aquifer. The tests were to determine if leachate is being generated on the site, if constituents identified onsite could also be found offsite, and to establish whether or not the materials were indeed from the project area by looking at the geohydrology and groundwater chemistry. He described the historical movement of the groundwater in the alpha aquifer -as being a movement inland; however, the groundwater table has had a tendency to rise in the past year or two and this rise in level might reverse the gradient so that the groundwater will move. toward the ocean, possibly surfacing somewhere in the Bolsa Chica, although this is not known for certain. He noted that existing groundwater level in some places is within 10 feet of the buried mat- erials," and a raised level may bring the toxic materials into direct contact with groundwater. It was the opinion of the soils engineer Page 3 that the site has the potential of generating 77,000 cubic feet of leachate per year and that the materials have leached through the perched aquifers and have made their way into the alpha aqui- fer. This could result in a long-term, adverse impact upon the groundwater quality in the area. Restoration techniques were next discussed by Mr. Crisp. Alter- natives looked at were soil flushing, detoxification, micro- biological organisms, gas barriers and migration control, grouting, conversion to inert materials, thermo processing, and excavation. He discussed the advantages and drawbacks of each alternative and described meetings held among City staff and the staff of other concerned county and state agencies, the consultants, and the developer from which the consensus had emerged that excavation would be the best alternative for final solution of the problem. He told the Commission, however, that after this consensus had been reached the South Coast Air Quality Management District has indicated that it could not endorse that alternative because of release of contaminants into the air and that the City of West Covina has gone on record as opposing the transport of the haz- ardous materials into the Class I landfill site in that community. Mr. Crisp pointed out that one of the primary concerns of both SCAQMD and the City of West Covina was the odor problem which would result from excavation, and noted that an odor impact will result under any of the alternative methods of site restoration. Mr. Crisp then described various means by which the odor impact could be lessened during excavation: The grading plan would be formulated to grade from the outside of the site towards the cen- ter, with grading done by phases so that only a small work face would be exposed at any one time and clean, fresh fill put in immediately once each location had been excavated; a monitoring program overseen by State agencies would be set up; odor mitigating agents would be used, with special attention paid to possible synergistic effects to avoid creation of chlorine gas; onsite worker safety precautions would be taken; a public information .program would in initiated so that residents would know what is taking place; contact would be implemented between workers and air quality monitors and continual contact maintained with the Police Department so that immediate remedial action could be taken in case unexpected hazards are encountered; and an evacuation plan formulated as contingency back-up if necessary. He conceded that further work on the above mitigation measures remains to be done, but added that he would hope to be able to have a complete plan assembled in about 30 days. Howard Hatayama, State Department of Health Services representa- tive, addressed the Commission in regard to the vapor wells and the potentially toxic materials which might be released. He noted that the wells placed directly into the contaminated material might represent a "worst case" situation and if that is the case relatively low concentrations of contaminants might be expected during site excavation. He recommended further testing, but added that the low contamination level and the relatively static air condition in the vapor wells compared with what may be expected at the surface in terms of air movement make his organization feel the chances of Page 4 serious acute exposure to persons in the area are very low. Mr. Hatayama, in response to questions from the Commission, discussed the Class I type facility in West Covina, describing it as licensed to handle a wide variety of toxic, corrosive, and hazardous materials. He added that in his opinion material is accepted at that site which may be more hazardous than the material generated from the site under discussion. Ed Camarano of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in- formed the Commission that Section 41700 of the State Health and Safety Code prohibits emissions of air contaminants that might pose health hazards to the community in general and also prohibits an odor nuisance. He stated that most of the regulations which his agency enforces are regulations for which there is a provision for variance under certain circumstances; however, this is one regula- tion for which there is not such a provision. That is the reason, he added, that his agency finds itself in the situation where it cannot concur with the proposal to excavate the site because it is believed that there will be an odor nuisance resulting. The Planning Commission discussed the problem and the Bryant report. Included in this discussion were consideration of what had previously occurred on an adjacent tract when materials which may have migrated from the dump were encountered; the actual depth and location of the aquifer in which presently producing water wells are located; how the already harmful offsite effects might be alleviated; wind currents in the area and how far emissions might be carried by them; nature of the gases which could be expected to be released (lighter or heavier than air); distances of schools from the site and the potential im- pacts on school children; quantity of new fill which would be required; and how ultimate disposal of the materials will be carried out and the effects of that disposal on the transit corridors, air quality, the community of West Covina, and residents of Huntington Beach and surrounding communities. Commissioner Winchell inquired of Mr. Camereno if there were any State recommendations for further study, to which he replied that the report is rather complete and he would have nothing to suggest in re- gard to further testing. His agency felt that the phasing proposed for excavation would be appropriate and that they would be concerned with more close examination of neutralizing or masking agents to avoid harmful synergistic effects. He informed the Commission that his agency had anticipated that the City might consider excavation as being the best overall approach to the problem and, if the City does choose that route, they would wish to continue working in close cooperation to make sure that the best quality mitigation measures possible are implemented. Legal. counsel Jim Georges explained the environmental regulations applicable to the project and the deadline which pertains to this environmental determination. He read pertinent sections of the CEQA guidelines, explaining the "permissive" as opposed to the "obliga- tory" wording in the determination for requiring an environmental impact report. Since the deadline for processing an EIR is September 20, 1980, a problem is posed which can only be overcome Page 5 1 through the applicant's consent for an extension of time, which is allowed for by Section 21151.5 of the Public Resources Code in the case of compelling circumstances. He set out the following alternative actions which the Commission can take at this point: 1) Denial of the project with resubmittal by the applicant to avoid automatic approval because of failure by the City to take action within the prescribed time limit; 2) Determine to require an EIR with the consent of the applicant for the necessary exten- sion of time; or 3) Decide the negative declaration is adequate with the knowledge that the odor problem cannot be mitigated no matter what is done (this action should be taken only with the knowledge that court action may be filed which potentially could compel an EIR on the project). Further review of the impacts of excavation in regard to vapor and odor problems, transit corridor impacts, and offsite effects of migrating contaminants followed. The Commission also discussed extensively the legal aspects related to the State Health and Safety Code sections and the environmental regulations. Mr. Crisp responded briefly to the Commission discussion, saying that in his opinion the conditions onsite call for immediate mitigation because the sludges and liquids exist in such quantity that the heavy overburden is forcing them to the south and east where they may come up against natural ground and be forced,to the surface. He noted that the other alternatives besides excavation offer only temporary mitigation and that any solution which is not totally effective in removing the sources of the contamination is not in his mind an acceptable solution. Chairman Porter again reminded members of the public to submit their comments or questions in written form for the Commission's consideration at its public hearing on September 16, 1980. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. James W. Palin, Secretary Marcus M. Porter, Chairman Commission approval action not required; minutes are in book for information only, per Senior Planner S. Bellavia :df