Manville’s Plan to Redevelop Land in Carson Hits a Snag

The Manville Sales Corp. has hit a snag in efforts to redevelop its 65-acre former manufacturing site in Carson, where the company recently completed a seven-month project to clean up and contain asbestos contamination.

Carson City Council members say the firm must submit another environmental impact report before dividing the site into three parcels for redevelopment. But the company contends that the report is not necessary.

About 88,000 cubic yards of asbestos-contaminated soil and waste was excavated and moved to two landfill burial areas at the western end of the property. One of the landfills was covered with asphalt and the other with clean soil and vegetation to prevent the escape of asbestos fibers into the air. The state Department of Health Services certified the cleanup as complete in June.

The company wants to obtain city approval to divide the land so that it can develop a 50-acre portion at the eastern end. Deed restrictions prohibit development on the soil-covered landfill and allow only limited commercial or industrial uses on the asphalt-covered landfill. The restrictions also require that specific health and safety procedures be followed if excavation takes place in the future for redevelopment of the remaining section of the property.

The restrictions are designed to prevent future exposure to asbestos fibers, which can cause cancer if inhaled.

Manville Vice President Dale Wheeler said last week that the company has met all state requirements for cleanup of the site and that redevelopment within the deed restrictions poses no health risk.

Manville would permanently retain responsibility for maintenance of the two asbestos-disposal areas, Wheeler said. The remaining 50 acres would be designated as a separate parcel under the company’s land division proposal.

That portion has been certified by the state Department of Health Services as safe for redevelopment, according to Health Services spokesman Allan Hirsch.

“Our feeling is that development can proceed if it meets deed restrictions,” Hirsch said.

However, the City Council rejected the Manville proposal in June, saying an environmental impact report is necessary. The Manville proposal had initially been approved by the city’s Planning Commission in February. The council action reversed that decision, 3-2, on June 5.

The council will vote on the question again Tuesday, when the city attorney is due to provide staff recommendations against the reparceling plan.

Wheeler called the reversal “frustrating” because “all the way along we had worked with the City Council.”

“These same five people sitting as the board of the Redevelopment Agency for the last several years--they’ve been doing everything necessary to promote redevelopment of this property, to do the very thing that we’re trying to do,” Wheeler said. “I’m confused, frankly, because sitting as a redevelopment board they have taken the steps necessary to keep the process moving forward and then all of a sudden, sitting as City Council, they reverse themselves.”

Although city approval appears to hinge on the preparation of a new environmental impact report, Wheeler contended it is not necessary because Manville is only applying for reparceling and a full environmental impact report was prepared in 1984. Another such report should be required of the property’s developer only if it is sold and when there are specific development plans, he said.

Trammell Crow Co., a developer of business and industrial parks, has agreed to purchase the 50-acre site provided that the cleanup is a success and Manville obtains reparceling, according to Brian Mott, division partner at Trammell Crow’s South Bay office. Mott said, in view of the 1984 report, his firm would be willing to prepare a supplemental environmental impact report.

The development firm would like to build an industrial park on the site, Mott said. Specific plans would be submitted to the city if Trammell Crow obtained the property. If such a project were approved, it would create annual tax revenues for the city of about $600,000 and an estimated 1,200 new job opportunities, according to Mott.

However, in opposing the reparceling request, Carson Mayor Vera Robles DeWitt complained that Manville has been sending mixed messages about plans for the land.

“On the one hand, they’re saying they have no particular project in mind, and on the other, they’re saying they’ve got a buyer” with development plans, DeWitt said.

She said another full environmental impact report needs to be prepared. “I think the citizens want to be assured that it’s safe,” DeWitt said.

Wheeler said he hopes that one of the three council members who opposed the land division plan--DeWitt, Kay Calas and Juanita McDonald--might reconsider. If not, then the company would be faced with trying to devise an environmental impact report with no specific development plans, he said.

“We’ll try as best we can to address their concerns,” Wheeler said.

Councilwoman Sylvia Muise, who voted in favor of the Manville plan in June, said she believes the company has met all the requirements from appropriate agencies.

“I believe the site is sufficiently secure for redevelopment,” Muise said.

The $10-million cleanup effort was overseen by the Health Services Department and performed under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and the city of Carson.

The site is across the Dominguez Flood Control Channel from the Arco Oil Refinery and borders the Ventura Transfer Co. The nearest residential area is three-fourths of a mile away.

The Manville Corp., formerly Johns-Manville, manufactured asbestos cement pipe, asbestos insulation and other products at the site at 2420 E. 223rd Street from 1937 until the plant closed in 1982.

When Manville Sales Corp., a Manville Corp. subsidiary, began dismantling the site in 1983, it informed the Department of Health Services that asbestos was present on the property and later undertook the cleanup project.

“It was obvious to us that this property, as large as it was, as well located as it was, certainly had the potential for economic reutilization,” Wheeler said.