Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of ALJ Brown in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(d) and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed by SoCalGas, Paragon and Grassroots. Reply comments were received from SoCalGas, Paragon and Grassroots. After reviewing the comments, some changes were incorporated into the final decision.

Specifically, at the request of SoCalGas, the section on gain-on-sale (GOS) should only apply prospectively to the 36 lots that are the subject of this application, and not the 48 lots previously sold. SoCalGas advises the Commission that the GOS from the previously-sold lots has already been allocated entirely to ratepayers through a permanent reduction to SoCalGas' rate base and any redistribution would only benefit shareholders, not ratepayers. We amended the final decision to reflect this situation and only the GOS from the 36 lots will be dispersed in accordance with the final decision in R.04-09-003.

Paragon commented on the fact that the decision should be amended to reflect the fact that the HHRA and Final EIR indicate that the health and safety of the community will not be compromised by the sale and development of the lots. We incorporated those suggested changes in the final decision.

Grassroots reiterates¹¹ its position that the Final EIR should not be approved because it is erroneous, misleading and fails to include certain data. Since the approval of the sale of the 36 lots is dependent on the Commission's certification of the Final EIR, Grassroots again challenges the integrity of the EIR and asks that it not be approved, and that the lot sale not be approved. As noted, many of these comments were previously submitted during the course of the progress of the EIR, as well as in comments to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR included responses to all of the comments presented by Grassroots, as well as other parties.

In addition to comments on the Draft EIR, Grassroots also brought a motion to disqualify an engineering expert who was part of the team conducting the CEQA review. Grassroots motion was reviewed, considered and denied.

Grassroots is still challenging the integrity of the EIR on the basis of a perceived conflict of interest by that engineer. In addition, Grassroots finds fault with the EIR, conducted by an outside contractor, ESA, who replaced an earlier contractor, MHA, because ESA did not include some of the studies conducted by MHA and instead relied on compilations of MHA work.

In addition, Grassroots impinges the credibility of some of the data collection and sampling. Finally, Grassroots objects to certification of the Final EIR because of new information available in regards to the City of Los Angeles' Building Code in regards to additional gas safety mitigation measures. In particular, Grassroots wants the EIR to incorporate directives from the new Los Angeles Citywide Methane Code, that calls for dewatering to keep gas safety systems in operation.

We can incorporate this request by Grassroots and do direct SoCalGas to follow any new Citywide Methane Codes that would be applicable to SoCalGas' operation of its gas storage facility in Playa del Rey. In addition, although we do not have the authority to impose and/or enforce any of the recommended mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, we do urge agencies that have such authority to follow all the updated Citywide Methane Codes as applicable to the development of any of the lots subject to this decision.

Although we previously considered all of Grassroots protestations, we again reviewed them carefully, fully examined them, and once again determine that the complaints raised by Grassroots do not impinge on the integrity of the Final EIR.

¹¹ Grassroots presented most of these same arguments in comments it filed in response to the EIR issued February 11, 2005.