This post was originally published on this site
Last week, the Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board heard a presentation on the Long Beach Haynes Generating Station Recycled Water Pipeline Project.
The board took no action on the issue during the Wednesday, July 24, meeting.
As previously reported, the sewer line project is currently expected to go through Seal Beach’s Edison Park in College Park West, and would be near Leisure World. (See “Sewer project could impact Edison Park” at sunnews.org.)
Time and space make it impossible to transcribe every word of the 1 hour, 11 minute meeting, so the following are just some of the highlights.
Public comment
A member of the public joined the Environmental Quality Control Board meeting after the public comment session had opened and closed. District Four Board Member/Chair Catherine Showalter allowed him to speak.
Ken Scythe, of College Park West, raised concerns about the Haynes Pipeline Project. He spoke before a Long Beach spokesperson gave her presentation on the project.
“I think this is a very righteous and worthwhile project,” he said.
“I’ve been through these CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] things many times,” he said.
“Just because a project is a good one and it should be done doesn’t mean it has to be done or that it should be done,” he said.
“I don’t think this project needs to go through Seal Beach at all. I think it can stay in Long Beach and LA County,” he said.
He argued there was a lack of justification in the Haynes project paperwork. He said he did not see any build alternatives in the Long Beach documents. Later, he said he found a one-sentence reference to the Highway 22 bridge being an alternative.
“I think that the trenching could be done south of the freeway,” he said.
“It’s mostly dirt; there isn’t much development there. It doesn’t have to come over to our side then,” he said.
“If they can get the pipeline across the bridge they can trench under to the west and they don’t have to come through Seal Beach or College Park West,” he said.
Turning to the volume that the pipeline would carry, he said he didn’t see an updated structural analysis of the College Park bridge.
He said the bridge was the only way in and out of College Park West.
(The board allowed him to speak beyond his 5-minute limit.)
He said he wasn’t sure where the trenching would start.
He said he didn’t know if Caltrans had been asked about the Haynes project.
Presentation
Program Manager Amy Czajkowski, the program management business unit leader for the Ardorra Group, represented the Long Beach Utilities Department, which is overseeing the Haynes project.
“This is actually a regional project,” she said.
“We were given a memorandum of understanding to be the lead agency for both the CEQA and for managing both the design construction and the CEQA,” she said.
She said there was a feasibility study that was done in 2019.
She said there was an extensive conversation with Caltrans. They did not want to touch the 22 bridge, according to Czajkowski.
“This is really regulatory-driven,” she said.
“The end result is to have an improved quality to the San Gabriel River,” she said.
Czajkowski said now everything goes to the ocean and comes back out from industrial cooling at the Haynes station.
“What this also is supposed to do is extend the backbone of Long Beach’s recycled water um pipeline so that way we can also have a connection to the city of Seal Beach, which LADWP is doing kind of free of charge for this project so that you will uh reduce your dependency on potable water,” she said.
(Potable means “a liquid that is suitable for drinking,” according to Merriam-Webster.)
District Two Board Member Nick Massetti asked what volume of water would be needed to cool the 7 million gallons going into the plants.
“It goes kind of back and forth,” Czajkowski said.
“That’s what it’s designed for,” she said
“All the structural calculations have been reviewed by the city of Long Beach because it’s their bridge,” she said.
“You said that hooking up to the Seal Beach water system would be a possibility,” Massetti said.
“We’re giving a recycled water connection,” Czajkowski said. She said Seal Beach could use it for the park, or apparently something else, Seal Beach would be able to use it.
Czajkowski said Long Beach has not decided exactly where the connection would be.
Public Works Director Iris Lee said the intent of the recycled water line is primarily for Edison Park irrigation.
Massetti said Lee knew where he was going. However, District Four Board Member/Chair Catherine Showalter asked Massetti to explain where he was going.
“I don’t think I want to put this on camera, but Leisure World uses three-quarters of a million gallons a day and a lot of it is for landscaping,” Massetti said. (The meetings are broadcast live on the internet.)
“We’re faced with having brown landscaping in 2029 because we can’t water it with portable water,” Massetti said.
“But recycled water would save us from having to tear out all of our landscaping if we had it available,” Massetti said.
Lee said that on July 3, the state water board adopted regulations for making water conservation a California way of life.
“It is really going to restrict and reduce or promote water efficiency and water conservation,” Lee said.
“So for Seal Beach itself, we are going to be reducing close to 18% and that’s going to be our target reduction,” Lee said.
Lee said relieving demand on potable water is going to be part of that mandate.
Czajkowski said this (apparently meaning the project) was one of the emergency actions to address future droughts.
District Three Board Member Susan Perrell said the LA Department of Water and Power asked the Long Beach Utilities Commission to both some of the engineer and some of the design of the project.
Czajkowski said yes.
She said there was a memorandum of understanding that basically said everything would be a reimbursement.
Czajkowski said the force main will be owned by the LADWP when they connect an annex into the LA County Sanitation District. She said Long Beach doesn’t have the capacity to handle that.
Czajkowski said they did not have the manpower to manage the project design and construction.
Perrell asked if that wasn’t a conflict of interest for Long Beach to be the lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act.
Czajkowski asked why it would be.
“Well because you’re going to manage this project. You’re going to get paid for it; you’re basically a contractor for the project proponent, the project owner. How can you be unbiased in your decision making?” Perrell asked.
“Well most lead agencies, they do their own CEAQ documentation for their own agency,” Czajkowski said.
She said they went through the city planning group for Long Beach, met with all the agencies. “I’m sorry, I don’t see what the conflict of interest would be,” Czajkowski said.
Perrell thanked her for responding.
Czajkowski said one of the other mandates is to have all waste water reused or repurposed by 2035.
Project
Czajkowski said the feasibility portion of the project went on from 2019 to 2021.
According to her, because Caltrans was reconfiguring the area near the 22 Freeway, that alternative wasn’t feasible.
She said the open trench component would be about 450 feet in Seal Beach.
District Five Board Member Donald Horning asked if any of the construction alter or impact the bike path.
Czajkowski said not to her knowledge.
“But when we get the final Caltrans permit, then we’re going to talk to Seal Beach about the engineered traffic control plans and what those constraints will be,” she said.
Perrell said the Haynes plant was going to change a lot of its operations in response to regulatory requirements. She said there were actually three projects that would now change that facility.
“I haven’t really seen any cumulative analysis for all the projects,” Perrell said.
She said it seemed to her that the projects are so related in purpose, it was possible that the projects are being piecemealed.
“We’re compartmentalizing all the goals of each project,” Perrell said.
“It really should be considered as a whole,” Perrell said.
Czajkowski said from the California Environmental Quality Act they went to the city of Long Beach. Aztec was the recycled water consultant. HDR was the environmental consultant. “Each one can operate separately,” Czajkowski said.
She said she could speak to what was going on in the Haynes plant itself.
“I don’t mean to be dodging the question, but we’re just bringing it to the point of connection,” Czajkowski said.
Czajkowski what they do now is take water from the ocean and put it back into the ocean. She said now they were going to take the recycled water.
Massetti said he was flummoxed by two projects going over relatively the same landscapes, but when the board looked at the two projects the maps appeared to be showing different places.
“It seems like if the right hand and the left hand were working together, they might go down the same route and save tearing up streets,” Massetti said.
According to Czajkowski, they were trying to sequence the project so the impact would be minimized.
She said nothing was going to touch the park.
According to Showalter, the project would start in June 2025 and end in December 2026.
Czajkowski said it might have to go longer because the CEQA process was delayed because of the Assembly Bill 52 process.
Showalter said there is one way to enter that area.
“Even though you’re trying hard to avoid Edison Park, Edison Park is right there. It is not far,” Showalter said.
“It’s located 32 feet north of the project,” Showalter said.
“Access to the park is going to be maintained throughout construction,” Showalter said.
“I’m not understanding why that is, why it wouldn’t be closed during construction because there’s only one entrance and exit,” Showalter said.
“There’s going to be a lot of pollution coming from those trucks. “There’s going to be dust. “There’ll be noise and there’s going to be activities at Edison Park during the week,” Showalter said.
She said there would be children breathing the pollution even if the practices are held in the evening.
“My concern is for the children and why is it that the park won’t be closed during the project construction time frame,” Showalter said.
She said the kids would breath soot, exhaust, and other particulates d in the air.
Showalter quoted a project report saying there would not be any substantial adverse effects on the environment.
“I would have an issue with that, because I really think we’re setting ourselves up to hurt our children,” Showalter said.
She also raised concern that if programs were not held at Edison Park for two years because of the project, Seal Beach would lose revenue. Showalter asked if Long Beach would compensate Seal Beach. She also asked if there would be other options for children’s programs to take place in other parks.
“I know when they did the environmental air quality they looked at what the ambient air quality is coming surrounding Hayes,” Czajkowski said.
“A lot of the new vehicles um the construction vehicles have to follow all the new CARB [California Air Resources Board] rules for their emissions for the vehicles,” Czajkowski said.
According to Czajkowski, the micro-tunneling will take three weeks. She said the open trench would only take a couple of weeks.
“I don’t have the time periods on the bridge because we’re still working on that,” she said.
“But isn’t it true that paving and repaving and removing roadways and everything that’s going to be taking place throughout the project time frame?” Showalter asked.
“Yes but we can also sequence it as you’d want it,” Czajkowski said.
Perrell asked if the park usage was specifically included in the model for impacts.
“I will certainly go back and ask that question,” Czajkowski said.
She also said if there is a better time period, Long Beach could mandate that construction be done during that period.
Showalter said there was a lot of documentation of cultural resources, of the owls, the monarch butterflies and now the children. She asked will there be monitoring done throughout the project.
Czajkowski said she did not speak to the air quality. She said noise would definitely be monitored. She later said the noise would be mitigated.
Perrell said she was not certain the park was even considered as a potential receptor.
Community Development Director Alexa Smittle said one of the comments that Seal Beach staff provided to Long Beach was asking Long Beach to make sure that Edison Park remained accessible to the community because Seal Beach staff did not want Edison Park blocked off from the families that live in College Park West and from the gardeners that use the park.
According to Smittle, Seal Beach staff looks at project schedules and children’s activities.
Showalter said she knew that there would be trucks coming and going on the one road that accesses the park.
“So why would we not say that the park would not be accessible?” Showalter asked.
“Why was that comment given? I saw it, I read it, and I didn’t understand it,” Showalter said.
“It would be staff’s preference to allow access to that park,” Smittle said.
She said the permitting process would go through Seal Beach Public Works. “There’s a lot of coordination that still needs to take place in the future,” Smittle said.
“If the cars that are trying to deliver the children for their activities to the different fields are not able to move forward in a very fast way because of the trucks and the construction, then there’s something for the city to consider and perhaps that would be an issue and change the plans,” Showalter said.
She asked if there was enough flexibility in the scheduling.
Public Works Director Lee said Seal Beach did not have a full detour and traffic control plan at this time.
“There are a lot of moving parts at this time to really hone in on,” Lee said.
Lee said that from a global stand point, Seal Beach staff wanted to make sure that the park remains accessible to the public to the extent possible.
Perrell said they needed to make sure there was not a potential for a significant impact to air quality for sensitive receptors.
“It’s like a school; you should be considered a sensitive receptor,” Perrell said.
Perrell also had some questions about biological impacts. She said she had concerns with the monarch butterfly and the eucalyptus grove.
Perrell said they did no habitat study there.
Perrell said none of the vegetation removal was mitigated.
Czajkowski said they would be required to restore the vegetation. She said it was part of the engineer permit under the construction permit.
“That’s great but we need to address CEQA first,” Perrell said.
She said there was no mitigation currently in the document for replacing vegetation around the monarch butterfly grove.
“I’d really like to see a little bit more of habitat assessment,” Perrell said.
She also said the California Department of Fish and Wildlife specifically asked for a butterfly mitigation plan. Perrell asked if that had been done.
Later Perrell said that CDFW requested a monarch butterfly habitat survey to be completed.
Czajkowski said she would have to go back and look at that.
Showalter thanked her for answering the board’s questions.
Showalter then turned to staff concerns and commissioner concerns.
There were no concerns from either the staff or the board.
