Seal Beach board backs recommendations for Hellman Ranch 1.5 MW solar project after concerns on wildlife, soils and permanence

Seal Beach — The Environmental Quality Control Board on Aug. 20 reviewed an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Hellman Ranch 1.5 megawatt ground‑mounted solar project and voted 5‑0 to forward recommendations to the Planning Commission asking for conditions that would tie the solar equipment to the life of the oil/gas operations, institute one year of post‑installation bird monitoring and clarify conservation compensation for impacted habitat.

The project proposed by Hellman Properties would install three arrays composed of 56 ground‑mounted table structures across about 2.66 acres north of the Cerritos Wetlands. Planning staff and consultants described mitigation in the ISMND including anti‑reflective coatings on panels, construction outside of bird nesting season, pre‑construction surveys for burrowing owl and southern tarplant, a soil stabilization plan and a required minimum 30‑foot setback from city water lines.

Why it matters: The site sits adjacent to sensitive wetlands and habitat that hosts special‑status species, and several conservation organizations and residents told the board they needed more time to review the ISMND and wanted stronger protections. Keith Simmons of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust said the organization ‘‘only learned of the proposal from a local citizen’’ and asked the city to extend the comment period and consider preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) rather than relying on an ISMND.

What the board heard and decided: Public commenters and board members raised three recurring concerns: (1) whether the solar panels would create a permanent industrial use on land whose permitted future under past Coastal Commission actions was restoration; (2) potential impacts to birds (including ‘‘lake‑effect’’ glare and possible bird strikes reported at some desert solar installations); and (3) soil contamination and the risk of runoff from excavation at a long‑used oil‑extraction site.

On permanence and permitting, Planning staff recommended and the project proponent agreed to a condition that would treat the solar installation as accessory to the oil and gas facility so it would be removed when oil and gas operations cease. Devin Shea, general manager of Hellman Properties, explained that CalGEM (the state oil and gas regulator) controls oil operations and SB 1137 applies to new wells, and that electrical equipment and other solar components fall under city and air‑quality authority jurisdiction.

On wildlife, consultants cited national and state studies and said the project’s glare analysis — run with a Sandia‑based Solar Glare Hazard tool at multiple receptor points — is conservative and shows limited glare effects at most residential receptors when existing vegetation remains. John Pearson, a consultant, said the noise and glare modeling was conservative and that peak operational noise was ‘‘about 54 decibels at 30 ft’’ in the worst modeled case; he also recommended mitigation measures for birds. Multiple board members suggested a one‑year monitoring program to track bird strikes or other unforeseen wildlife impacts and to require a report to the city.

On soils and runoff, public commenters asked for pre‑construction soils testing because the site has decades of oil extraction history. Staff said the ISMND includes a soil stabilization plan but did not include broad soil contaminant testing; staff agreed they could look at adding testing associated with footing excavations and any off‑site disposal.

Board action and next steps: After discussion the board voted 5‑0 to forward three recommendations to the Planning Commission: (1) make the solar an accessory use tied to oil and gas operations so solar equipment would be removed upon decommissioning of oil operations; (2) require a one‑year post‑construction bird monitoring program with a report to the city; and (3) clarify that permanent mitigation for southern tarplant and other habitat be protected in perpetuity (for example, by conservation easement where appropriate). Planning staff said they would draft precise condition language for the Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission is the decisionmaker on the minor use permit and its decision can be appealed to the City Council.

Proponent response and commitments: Devin Shea (Hellman Properties) and James Reeve (Newport Power, installer) said the panels are designed to minimize grading and that they have experience using anti‑reflective coatings and multiple smaller inverters to reduce noise and visual impacts. Reeve said typical installation crews would be small and no large trucks were anticipated. Shea and Newport Power indicated they would accept permit conditions tying solar to oil operations and would cooperate on monitoring and mitigation.

Comment period extension: Staff said the city received a letter and granted a one‑week extension so the review period would total 30 days from the meeting date; the Land Trust had requested an additional 20 days (45 total).

Votes at a glance: - Motion to forward three recommendations to the Planning Commission (tie solar to operations; one‑year bird monitoring/reporting; clarify conservation/perpetuity protections): motion moved (SEG 1657), seconded (SEG 1658), roll call passed 5‑0 (Villanueva, Depue, Perot, Su, Horning — yes).

What remains unresolved: The board noted several broader planning inconsistencies (a 1997 Hellman Ranch specific plan, later Coastal Commission permits and a 2001 city ordinance) that staff said will require further work with the Coastal Commission and a local coastal program update. Board members and public commenters also asked staff to add specific soil testing provisions and to track monitoring results and possible mitigation at the Planning Commission hearing.

Reporting note: Quotes and attributions are taken directly from the Aug. 20, 2025 transcript of the Environmental Quality Control Board meeting.