City Manager Pat West responds to Wetlands questions

Los Cerritos Land Trust board member Tom Marchese raised a number of questions regarding the pending Los Cerritos Wetlands land-swap deal, which will be considered by the City Council on Tuesday. City Manager Pat West responded to most of the questions in this memo, shedding more light on the proposed deal.

Here are Marchese's questions:

Dear Mr. West,
 
Thank you for the fine work that you and your Staff do for our beloved City. Thanks as well for meeting with me after the conclusion of business Tuesday night. Here is a transcript of my questions and testimony.  I omitted the introduction.  Your comments back to me after the session are in parentheses and at the end.
 
1)      Is this Wetlands exchange planned to come back for a vote on August 4th, if not, when?
(Afterwards you stated that it is up to Council, but to clarify, August 4th is when a vote to enter into Escrow is possible?)
2)      And, is agreeing to no oil well relocation or removal a stipulation?
3)      Is no road relocation, or removal a stipulation?  A concern is that if about half of lower Bixby is built out and reserved for the exclusive use of the oil operators, we cannot restore it, or use it, so why are we buying it?
4)      Is no soil remediation a stipulation?
5)      Has an estimate of partial or complete soil remediation been prepared?  Will one be forthcoming?
We cannot restore these Wetlands unless we remediate the soil where the intertidal connections are required. (Afterwards you stated that you had not seen the Moffit and Nichol Study and were unaware where these new waterways are proposed) ( I can provide a copy)
6)      Has any allocation of relative fault been discussed, or approximated as to the sources of the contamination?   This seems to be a material fact critical to these negotiations. I need to state for the record, that the California Earthcorp estimate for a partial clean up, in 2005 dollars, was 90-140 Million dollars. During our Los Cerritos Wetlands Study group rezoning effort, we learned that this cost could be much higher.
7)      Has an independent Appraisal been performed for the entire Wetlands?  How about for the subject matter or this partial exchange? May we respectfully request enough time for peer review of these opinions please?
8)      When can we review the Phase 1 and Phase 2 documents? May we be afforded ample time to consult experts as to the observations and assumptions?  (Afterwards you expressed concern that this might harm the seller. I stated that I failed to see how, and that such information has been made public during other acquisitions)
9)      What is the approximate value of the present oil rights, net of remediation, and what is the cleanup cost attributed to this price?  They are related.
10)   When will the residents and stakeholders be afforded the transparency we previously assured of?
 
I thank Mayor Foster for his direction in this matter and look forward to sharing your response with my friends and associates.
As for our conversation after I testified, at what time do you feel that describing the additional land attached to this first proposed exchange would be prudent?
As I explained, I believe that we are entitled to a much better deal and that I believe that every dollar we can save now can help acquire, restore and preserve the area sooner, and better.
As stated before, bargaining for the mineral rights could help fund the remediation and restoration, pay us a nice royalty, create local jobs and even possibly provide local Green job training and educational opportunities.
Also, moving or removing some oil wells is very important to safeguard the estuary.  As I explained, some of them loom perilously close to the habitat, Wetlands and ocean.  To reiterate, the discounted present cash value of a few of the low production wells could be as low as $ 50,000 .
Also, removing and restoring some redundant or no longer needed road beds, especially that of the 'Studebaker Extension', or, restoring several clearings is also quite feasible.   These are but some of the suggestions that could be reasonable terms of this deal.
As I said, a condition requiring that the oil operators maintain water in the Pond East of Shopkeeper Road seems fair. This used to be mandated by the City, for additional Fire safety and Habitat preservation.
This pond's rapid water loss recently is probably a function of the greatly increased oil production (from about 220 barrels a day, to around 350) since Dean/Berger took title and due to increased de-watering.  This condition alone would result in an immediate, significant ecological windfall.  The City should do this immediately exchange or not.
Finally, you stated that the City would implement a Permanent Moratorium on any new construction upon the acquired land to prevent any entitlements from the time Long Beach takes title until the time of conveyance to the State.  Of course several of us need to study this. Future oil exploration would also be a problem.
A lot more was said, I will reduce it to writing for future correspondence.
Again, thank you most sincerely for your wonderful goal in this area. I look forward to your response.
 
Very Truly Yours,
Tom Marchese