Manville Withdraws Plan to Divide Site in Carson for Redevelopment

The Manville Sales Corp. has withdrawn its application to the Carson City Council for permission to divide its 65-acre former manufacturing site in Carson for redevelopment.

Council members want the firm to submit an environmental impact report, but the Denver-based company said that is not possible because there are no specific plans for developing the site.

Manville Vice President Dale Wheeler said he withdrew the company’s reparceling proposal at Tuesday’s council meeting because the council probably would have rejected it anyway and because appealing that decision, a quasi-judicial procedure, would have prevented Manville and the council from discussing the issue further.

The company recently completed a seven-month project to clean up and contain asbestos contamination at the site. About 88,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and waste was excavated and buried in two landfills at the western end of the property. The state Department of Health Services certified the cleanup as complete in June.

Trammell Crow Co., a developer of business and industrial parks, has agreed to purchase the usable portion of the site if the cleanup is a success and Manville’s reparceling plan is approved.

Trammell Crow plans to build an industrial park that company officials say would bring the city about $600,000 a year in tax revenues and create 1,200 jobs.

The developer has prepared a preliminary development plan for the site but no specific plan, Wheeler said.

He told the council that Atlantic Richfield Co., which has opposed the reparceling, is motivated “solely by their own financial interest . . . in acquiring the property themselves at a price much less than its market value.”

The U-shaped Arco oil refinery surrounds the Manville property on three sides. Arco leases four acres from Manville for a storage tank farm.

Wheeler also charged that Arco asked the city in February to condemn the property and then convey it to Arco.

Councilman Michael Mitoma, then the mayor, confirmed that he and other city officials met with Arco representatives in February, but he said they balked at Arco’s proposal.

Doug Ring, a land-use attorney representing Arco, said in an interview Wednesday that no formal proposal was made by Arco or the city regarding condemnation proceedings. He said he met with city officials to discuss tax matters, and the subject of the Manville site came up.

“We were batting various ideas around,” Ring said. “I don’t deny having said it. I may have; I truly don’t remember. But no formal proposal was made by Arco.”

Ring said Arco is interested in acquiring the property to keep it out of the hands of developers.

“We feel a real-estate development in the center of the ‘U’ is inconsistent with the safe and undisturbed operation of the refinery,” Ring said.

Manville wants to obtain city approval to divide the land so that it can develop 50 acres at the eastern end. Deed restrictions require that specific health and safety procedures be followed if the land is excavated for redevelopment.

Councilwoman Kay Calas, an outspoken critic of the plan, said she is concerned about possible health and safety problems that might arise from development.

“I think (Manville) will sell and take the money” and leave the city to deal with any environmental issues that arise, Calas said. “I just don’t trust them.”

In 1984, the city prepared an environmental impact report for the redevelopment area that includes the Manville site. However, Councilwoman Juanita McDonald said the company should prepare a new report “given the nature of their asbestos-related problems,” even though plans for developing the site are preliminary.

City approval appears to hinge on the preparation of a new environmental impact report. Wheeler contends that such a report is not necessary because Manville is only applying for reparceling, and a full report on the site was prepared in 1984. Another environmental report should be required of the developer only if the property is sold and when there are specific development plans, Manville maintains.

Calas said the 1984 report was inadequate and did not fully take into account the effects of future development.

The City Council had been scheduled to vote Tuesday on staff recommendations against the reparceling plan. The council initially rejected the proposal in June, reversing a Planning Commission recommendation in favor of the plan.

Wheeler said he now hopes to bring the issue back before the Planning Commission. If the council had rejected the proposal, Manville would have had to wait six months before it could begin proceedings again.