HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - COMMUTER RAIL STATION (4)AGENDA REPO
ity Manage pproval
Item to be presented by:
Jeff Kolin Denutv Citv Manager
UNFINISHED..BUSINESS
DATE: February 25, 1992
SUBJECT: COMMUTER RAIL STATION/BERMITE SITE
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
In February of 1991, the City Council and the Planning Commission approved the selection
of the Bermite property as the site for the City's first Commuter Rail Station site. (The City
Council then directed staff to work with the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
and proceed with the property acquisition, the site plan review process and rail station
design.) Attachment I is a history of City Council and Planning.Commission actions.
In April 1991, the City Council approved a lease agreement summary with the Whittaker
Corporation for the Bermite site. Staff was directed to work toward a final agreement with
the Whittaker Corporation.) If the Negative Declaration is certified by the City Council at
tonight's meeting, the Mayor may then execute the agreement.
�On February 18, 1992, City staff presented the proposed Rail Station Plot Plan, Oak Tree
Permit and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bermite site to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission took action "not to approve the plot plan" and
raised several concerns regarding environmental issues, lease agreement issues and the value
of a rail Station to the community.)
City staff has responded to these concerns on Attachment H. In general, staff is in the
process of conducting independent environmental toxins and geological studies for the site.
The City Attorney concurs with staff't_hat the environmental testing and
researcn must De compietea oefore the lease agreement with the Uhittaker
Corporation can be executed by the City.
Continued To; Agenda
Commuter Rail Station/Bermite Site
February 25, 1992
Page 2
The financial impact for the development of a Commuter Rail site is estimated to be $3.9
million. Over $1.3 million in rail revenues will have been secured by City staff when the
LACTC receives final approval from the California Transportation Commission; the
remaining $2.6 million will be funded by a City Council approved loan from the LACTC
which is to be repaid with Proposition C funds: Because of litigation over the Prop C
Transportation Sales Tax, the loan from the LACTC must be secured with TDA Article (8)
funds. When the loan is executed, the LACTC will require that it be secured with the City's
TDA Article (8) funds. If Prop C is successfully litigated by its opponents, TDA Article (8)
funds would be used to repay the loan. This requires a five-year commitment of 27% of the
City's estimated $2.3 million annual TDA allocation.
To remain in accordance with the timetable established by the LACTC, the rail site
completion date is scheduled for October 30, 1992. If adhered to, this timeline will keep the
City on schedule for a completion date of October at the Bermite site. If an alternative site
is chosen, the City will not meet the October completion date. Depending on the alternative
site chosen, the completion date may be as long as one year to complete the acquisition and
development on that site. The Glazer site has been investigated by staff and it would require
a road realignment and grade separation for the railroad tracks. The LACTC and Southern
Pacific Railroad oppose this site. Not having a secured site at this time may possibly
jeopardize $1 million in California Transportation Commission TCI funding which is nearing
final approval.
In conclusion, staff believes that the Bermite site is a viable one, and that the City should
continue on its course to have commuter rail within the City to assist in alleviating current
and future environmental and traffic concerns.
19;W-0lklu ►moi tZ17NOTOXK
1. Approve the Rail Station Plot Plan and Oak Tree Permit.
2. Direct staff to proceed with procuring the construction plans in order to meet the
LACTC's schedule.
3. Direct the City Manager to sign for the City the Letter of Acceptance of Drainage
Cut/Fill Slopes.
Commuter Rail Station/Bermite Site
February 25; 1992
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. History of Council/Commission Action
2. City staff's responses to Planning Commission's concerns
3. Planning Chairman's Comments to Mayor
4. February 18, 1992 Bermite Site Planning Commission Report on Plot Plan
5. Comments from Caltrans
6. Letter of Acceptance of Drainage-Cut/Fill Slopes
7K:del:gmm
comrail.agn
a
d
I�+
I1yy�
CaQ:
fl
IrtaJ�
Bi•
II
an
r
�
'
tttrrr���
no'
/O
0
rA
rI
,o
yS
I ..
1
,a�—r'�'. �::hx!aTa!+`�•:: lir �, 1
� I V
p
4 ifa!I � �� y,l •
I 9� :i
4}'. 101 1�3 ,i} Ig►(i�q � 4!li�lll':!(wes'
Up
161 ;uu1$6 rEl ;�► 19P � I��, �' ii 'tl` �'
,�:Q, 'tll - i6i +dl 6Y Irl t1
i
z�a rcr � r• ign :!, 7
- 4r iGi ,p lar 0 '• �� �'
I
�;•aa IAI ijY AFI �' �
/
Chronology of Events
February 11, 1991 Staff conducts a Commuter Rail Station
site forum
February 12, 1991 Request a recommendation from the
Planning Commission for a Rail Station
Site
February 19, 1991 At this meeting, staff informed the .
Planning Commission that Bermite was not
feasible as a short-term site because the
additional right-of-way was not purchased.
In ranking short-term rail site, the
Planning Commission split; 2 preferred
Gates; 2 preferred Glazer; and one
preferred Drayton. Three of the
Commissioners preferred Bermite as the
long-term site, and two preferred Schmidt.
Since that time, the LACTC has purchased
right-of-way to the Bermite site.
February 26, 1991 Council adopts Resolution No 91-21
establishing the City's intention to
construct a Commuter Rail Station by
applying for funding
April 23, 1991 Council presented an outlined summary of
agreement for the Bermite Site. Staff
directed to negotiate toward final
agreement
June 11, 1991 Council receives the latest outline
agreement; staff directed to work out final
agreement.
September 24, 1991 Council conceptually approves the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Bermite (Glazer) sites, approves
the lease/purchase agreement.
Chronology of Events
Page 2
February 18, 1992
Planning Commission agrees not to
approve: .
- the proposed Commuter Rail Site
located on the Bermite property
- Negative Declaration
- Oak Tree Permit
RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS
1. Concern: There continues to be.a lack of public confidence that the site is free from the
hazardous materials that have accumulated there over the years. This concern could be
mitigated by state or federal certification that the site no longer poses a threat to public
health and safety.
Answer: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by a consultant for the
Whittaker Corporation. This site assessment was submitted to the City for review.
Based on the information contained in the report and discussions with Mr. Lee Lisecki
(City's Environmental Consultant), the site exhibits no significant evidence of toxic
contamination.
In addition, the City has contracted with a consultant to prepare an independent Phase
I -Plus -Environmental Site Assessment. To date, the testing will be completed and a
report shall be submitted to the City by March 6, 1992 to either validate the findings of
the original site assessment or be made aware of potential contamination of the site.
Concern: The Commission was not convinced that adequate measures have been taken
to demonstrate that seismic hazards do not constitute a substantial risk to public safety.
Answer: Testing for seismic hazards on the Bermite site has not commenced. Prior to
geotechnical testing (geological, and/or soil stability), all testing for hazardous materials
and contamination must be completed. Since the site lies within the designated "Special
Studies Zone" required by the Alquist-Priolo Act, a geological report is required. It
should be noted that the rail station is not considered a habitable structure and such a
structure would be permitted on the site. The structure would have to be designed to
meet the seismic requirements of the building codes plus any additional requirements
prescribed by the consulting geologist.
Concern: Because the lease negotiations .were not part of the Commission's information
packet, the Commission had no assurance that the City would be protected against
litigation resulting from either toxic or seismic hazards on the site.
Answer: The concerns regarding litigation resulting from toxic hazards have been
addressed in the lease agreement by the City -requesting warranties from Whittaker
Corporation. Briefly, the lessor (Whittaker Corporation) warrants compliance with all
federal, state, or local laws pertaining to hazardous materials; no unauthorized dumping
or migration of hazardous materials have occurred on the site. The lessor is responsible
for all costs incurred for cleanup resulting from damages caused by the lessor. The City
is responsible for all costs incurred for clean up resulting from damages caused by the
City. (Note: The Hazardous Waste Section of the lease agreement is on file in the City
Clerk's Office.)
4. Concern: The Commission was concerned that the lease (represented to the Commission
as a three year tern with a single two year extension) was too short for amortization of
the expense of improvements. If, for any reason, the site were abandoned in five years,
the City would essentially make a gift of the improvements to the property owner.
Answer: The terms of the agreement are those approved by the Council as council
modified. It provides the City with the opportunity to immediately serve the community
with a rail station while gaining time to fund such a major capital investment. The need
to expend funds for actual acquisition is deferred to be purchased with future funds.
5. Concern: Adequate assurance that the quality of the railroad track does not constitute
a threat to public safety was not given to the Commission.
Answer: The redesign of the railroad track at the platform will now be linear instead
of curvilinear as it currently exists. The new track should be as safe if not safer than the
existing track.
6. Concern: There was unanimous concern that the proposed site would generate additional
traffic during peak hours through the Bouquet Junction intersection and through the
Soledad Canyon/Sierra Highway intersection.
Answer: A traffic impact study was prepared for the proposed commuter rail station
project. The study indicates that both Soledad Canyon/Sierra Highway and Bouquet
Junction intersections will have an increase in traffic volume but will maintain the current
deteriorated level -of -service during the evening peak hours.
The morning peak hours for both intersections will also experience traffic volume
increases and change in levels -of -service, resulting in greater congestion. However, the
anticipated deterioration in level -of -service at the above intersections would be mainly
due to other growth and development in the vicinity. Basically the volume of traffic
ah*eady exists and will increase related to commuter traffic. The Rail Station will
potentially provide the opportunity to redirect traffic from the heavy current flow.
Vehicles from the Valencia and Newhall area to the Rail Station will be opposite of the
major flow of traffic. In addition, the Rail Station will also serve as the transit station
for the local bus system providing more convenient service for commuters rather than
their personal cars.
7. Concern: The expense of land acquisition and improvement (estimated to be well over
$5,000,000) to benefit an estimated 500 commuters appears to be unwarranted.
Answer: The cost of land acquisition and improvements over a 5 -year period amount
to a cost effective rate per commuter trip as follows:
255 days x 500 passengers = 127,500 round trips per year
127,500 round trips per years x 5 years = 637,500 round trips
$5,000,000 _ 637,500 = $7.84 per round trip per commuter
MG:rd
mg -rept
Chronology of Events
February 11, 1991 Staff conducts a Commuter Rail Station
site forum
February 12, 1991 Request a recommendation from the
Planning Commission for a Rail Station
Site
February 19, 1991 At this meeting, staff informed the
Planning Commission that Bermite was not
feasible as a short-term site because the
additional right-of-way was not purchased.
In ranking short-term rail site, the
Planning Commission split; 2 preferred
Gates; 2 preferred Glazer; and one
preferred Drayton. Three of the
Commissioners preferred Bermite as the
long-term site, and two preferred Schmidt.
Since that time, the LACTC has purchased
right-of-way to the Bermite site.
February 26, 1991 Council adopts Resolution No 91-21
establishing the City's intention to
construct a Commuter Rail Station by
applying for funding
April 23, 1991 Council presented an outlined summary of
agreement for the Bermite Site. Staff
directed to negotiate toward final
agreement
June 11, 1991 Council receives the latest outline
agreement; staff directed to work out final
agreement.
September 24, 1991 Conceptually approves the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Bermite (Glazer) sites, approves the
lease/purchase agreement.
Chronology of Events
Page 2
February 18, 1992
Planning Commission agrees not to
approve:
- the proposed Commuter Rail Site
located on the Bermite property
- Negative Declaration
- Oak Tree Permit
RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Concern: There continues to be a lack of public confidence that the site is free from the
hazardous materials that have accumulated there over the years. This concern could be
mitigated by state or federal certification that the site no longer poses a threat to public
health and safety.
Answer: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by a consultant for the
Whittaker Corporation. This site assessment was submitted to the City for review.
Based on the information contained in the report and discussions with Mr. Lee Lisecki
(City's Environmental Consultant), the site exhibits no significant evidence of toxic
contamination.
In addition, the City has contracted with a consultant to prepare an independent Phase
I -Plus -Environmental Site Assessment. To date, the testing will be completed and a
report shall be submitted to the City by March 6, 1992 to either validate the findings of
the original site assessment or be made aware of potential contamination of the site.
2. Concern: The Commission was not convinced that adequate measures have been taken
to demonstrate that seismic hazards do not constitute a substantial risk to public safety.
Answer: Testing for seismic hazards on the Bermite site has not commenced. Prior to
geotechnical testing (geological, and/or soil stability), all testing for hazardous materials
and contamination must be completed. Since the site lies within the designated "Special
Studies Zone" required by the Alquist-Priolo Act, a geological report is required. It
should be noted that the rail station is not considered a habitable structure and such a
structure would be permitted on the site. The structure would have to be designed to
meet the.seismis requirements of the building codes plus any additional requirements
prescribed by the consulting geologist.
Concern: Because the lease negotiations were not part of the Commission's information
packet, the Commission had no assurance that . the City would be protected against
litigation resulting from either toxic or seismic hazards on the site..
Answer: The concerns regarding litigation resulting from toxic hazards have been
addressed in the lease agreement by the City requesting warranties from Whittaker
Corporation. Briefly, the lessor (Whittaker Corporation) warrants compliance with all
federal, state, or local laws pertaining to hazardous materials; no unauthorized dumping
or migration of hazardous materials have occurred on the site. The lessor is responsible
for all costs incurred for cleanup resulting from damages caused by the lessor. The City
is responsible for all costs incurred for clean up resulting from damages caused by the
City. (Note: The Hazardous Waste Section of the lease agreement is on file in the City
Clerk's Office.)
4. Concern: The Commission was concerned that the lease (represented to the Commission
as a three year term with a single two year extension) was too short for amortization of
the expense of improvements. If, for any reason, the site were abandoned in five years,
the City would essentially make a gift of the improvements to the property owner.
Answer: The terms of the agreement are those approved -by the Council as council
modified. It provides the City with the opportunity to protract the total cost area a
number of years rather than a major capital investment immediately. The need to expend
funds for actual acquisition is deferred to be purchased with future funds.
5. Concern: Adequate assurance that the quality of the railroad track does not constitute
a threat to public safety was not given to the Commission.
Answer: The redesign of the railroad track at the platform will now be linear instead
of curvilinear as it currently exists. The new track should be as safe if not safer than the
existing track.
6. Concern: There was unanimous concern that the proposed site would generate additional
traffic during peak hours through the Bouquet Junction intersection and through the
Soledad Canyon/Sierra .Highway intersection.
Answer: A traffic impact study was prepared for the proposed commuter rail station
project. The study indicates that both Soledad Canyon/Sierra Highway and Bouquet
Junction intersections will have an increase in traffic volume but will maintain the current
deteriorated level -of -service during the evening peak hours.
The morning peak hours for both intersections .will also experience traffic volume
increases and change in levels -of -service, resulting in greater congestion. However, the
anticipated deterioration in level -of -service at the above intersections would be mainly
due to other growth and development in the vicinity. Basically the volume of traffic
already exists and will increase related to commuter traffic. The Rail Station will
potentially provide the opportunity to redirect traffic from the heavy current flow.
Vehicles from the Valencia and Newhall area to the Rail Station will be opposite of the
major flow of traffic. In addition, the Rail Station will also serve as the transit station
for the local bus system providing more convenient service for commuters rather than
their personal cars.
7. Concern: The expense of land acquisition and improvement (estimated to be well over
$5,000,000) to benefit an estimated 500 commuters appears to be unwarranted.
Answer: The cost of land acquisition and improvements over a 5 -year period amount
to a cost effective rate per commuter trip as follows:
255 days x 500 passengers = 127,500 round trips per year
127,500 round trips per years x 5 years = 637,500 round trips
$5,000,000 _ 637,500 = $7.84 perround trip per commuter
Chronology of Events
February 11, 1991 Staff conducts a. Commuter Rail Station
site forum
February 12, 1991 Request a recommendation from the
Planning Commission for a Rail Station
Site
February 19, 1991
At this meeting, staff informed the
Planning Commission that Bermite was not
feasible as a short-term site because the
additional right-of-way was not purchased.
In ranking short-term rail site, the
Planning Commission split; 2 preferred
Gates; 2 preferred Glazer; and one
preferred Drayton. Three of the
Commissioners preferred Bermite as the
long-term site, and two preferred Schmidt.
Since that time, the LACTC has purchased
right-of-way to the Bermite site.
February 26, 1991
Council adopts Resolution No 91-21
establishing the City's intention to
construct a Commuter Rail Station by
applying for funding
April 23, 1991
Council presented an outlined summary of
agreement for the Bermite Site. Staff
directed to negotiate toward final
agreement
June 11, 1991
Council receives the latest outline
agreement; staff directed to work out final
agreement.
September 24, 1991
Council conceptually approves the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Bermite (Glazer) sites, approves
the lease/purchase agreement.
Chronology of Events
Page 2
February 18, 1992
Planning Commission agrees not to
approve:
- the proposed Commuter Rail Site
located on the Bermite property
- Negative Declaration
- Oak Tree Permit
TO PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS
1. Concern: There continues to be a lack of public confidence that the site is free from the
hazardous materials that have accumulated there over the years. This concern could be
mitigated by state or federal certification that the site no longer poses a threat to public
health and safety.
Answer: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by a consultant for the
Whittaker Corporation. This site assessment was submitted ' to the City for review.
Based on the information contained in the report and discussions with Mr. Lee Lisecki
(City's Environmental Consultant), the site exhibits no significant evidence of toxic
contamination.
In addition, the City has contracted with a consultant to prepare an independent Phase
I -Plus -Environmental Site Assessment. To date, the testing will be completed and a
report shall be submitted to the City by March 5, 1992 to either validate the findings of
the original site assessment or be made aware of potential contamination of the site.
2. Concern: The Commission was not convinced that adequate measures have been taken
to demonstrate that seismic hazards do not constitute a substantial risk to public safety.
Answer: Testing for seismic hazards on the Bermite site has not commenced. Prior to
geotechnical testing (geological, and/or soil stability), all testing for hazardous materials
and contamination must be completed. Since the site lies within the designated "Special
Studies Zone" required by the Alquist-Priolo Act, a geological report is required. It
should be noted that the rail station is not considered a habitable structure and such a
structure would be permitted on the site. The structure would have to be designed to
meet the seismic requirements of the building codes plus any additional requirements
prescribed by the consulting geologist.
3. Concern: Because the lease negotiations were not part of the Commission's information
packet, the Commission had no assurance that the City would be protected against
litigation resulting from either toxic or seismic hazards on the site.
Answer: The concerns regarding litigation resulting from toxic hazards have been
addressed in the lease agreement by the City requesting warranties from Whittaker
Corporation.. Briefly, the lessor (Whittaker Corporation) warrants compliance with all
federal, state, or local laws pertaining to hazardous materials; no unauthorized dumping
or migration of hazardous materials have occurred on the site. The lessor is responsible.
for all costs incurred for cleanup resulting from damages caused by the lessor. The City
is responsible for all costs incurred for clean up resulting from damages caused by the
City. (Note: The Hazardous Waste Section of the lease agreement is on file in the City
Clerk's Office.)
4. Concern: The Commission was concerned that the lease (represented to the Commission
as a three year term with a single two year extension) was too short for amortization of
the expense of improvements. If, for any reason, the site were abandoned in five years,
the City would essentially make a gift of the improvements to the property owner.
Answer: The terms of the agreement are those approved by the Council as council
modified. It provides the City with the opportunity to immediately serve the community
with a rail station while gaining time to fund such a major capital investment. The need
to expend funds for actual acquisition is deferred to be purchased with future funds.
5. Concern: Adequate assurance that the quality of the railroad track does not constitute
a threat to public safety was not given to the Commission.
Answer: The redesign of the railroad track at the platform will now be linear instead
of curvilinear as it currently exists. The new track should be as safe if not safer than the
existing track.
6. Concern: There was unanimous concern that the proposed site would generate additional
traffic during peak hours through the Bouquet Junction intersection and through the
Soledad Canyon/Sierra Highway intersection.
Answer: A traffic impact study was prepared for the proposed commuter rail station
project. The study indicates that both Soledad Canyon/Sierra Highway and Bouquet
Junction intersections will have an increase in traffic volume but will maintain the current
deteriorated level -of -service during the evening peak hours.
The morning peak hours for both intersections will also experience traffic volume
increases and change in levels -of -service, resulting in greater congestion. However, the
anticipated deterioration in level -of -service at the above intersections would be mainly
due to other growth and development in the vicinity. Basically the volume of traffic
already exists and will increase related to commuter traffic. The Rail Station will
potentially provide the opportunity to redirect traffic from the heavy current flow.
Vehicles from the Valencia and Newhall area to the Rail Station will be opposite of the
major flow of traffic. In addition, the Rail Station will also serve as the transit station
for the local bus system providing more convenient service for commuters rather than
their personal cars.
7. Concern: The expense of land acquisition and improvement (estimated to be well over
$x,000,000) to benefit an estimated 500 commuters appears to be unwarranted.
Answer: The cost of land acquisition and improvements over a 5 -year period amount
to a cost effective rate per commuter trip as follows:
255 days x 500 passengers = 127,500 round trips per year
127,500 round trips per years x 5 years = 637,500 round trips
$5,000,000 _ 637,500 = $7.84 per round trip per commuter
MG:rd
mg -rept
Chronology of Events
February 11, 1991 Staff conducts a Commuter Rail Station
site forum
February 12, 1991 Request a recommendation from the
Planning Commission for a Rail Station
Site
February 19, 1991 At this meeting, staff informed the
Planning Commission that Bermite was not
feasible as a short-term site because the
additional right-of-way was not purchased.
In ranking short-term rail site, the
Planning Commission split; 2 preferred
Gates; 2 preferred Glazer; and one
preferred Drayton. Three of the
Commissioners preferred Bermite as the
long-term site, and two preferred Schmidt.
Since that time, the LACTC has purchased
right-of-way to the Bermite site.
February 26, 1991 Council adopts Resolution No 91-21
establishing the City's intention to
construct a Commuter Rail Station by
applying for funding
April 23, 1991- Council presented an outlined summary of
agreement for the Bermite Site. Staff
directed to negotiate toward final
agreement
June 11, 1991 Council receives the latest outline
agreement; staff directed to work out final
agreement.
September 24, 1991 Conceptually approves the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Bermite (Glazer) sites, approves the
lease/purchase agreement.
Chronology of Events
Page 2
February 18, 1992
Planning Commission agrees not to
approve:
- the proposed Commuter Rail Site
located on the Bermite property
- Negative Declaration
- Oak Tree Permit
RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS
Concern: There continues to be a lack of public confidence that the site is free from the
hazardous materials that have accumulated there over the years. This concern could be
mitigated by state or federal certification that the site no longer poses a threat to public
health and safety.
Answer: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by a consultant for the
Whittaker Corporation. This site assessment was submitted to the City for review.
Based on the information contained in the report and discussions with Mr. Lee Lisecki
(City's Environmental Consultant), the site exhibits no significant evidence of toxic
contamination,
In addition, the City has contracted with a consultant to prepare an independent Phase
I -Plus -Environmental Site Assessment. To date, the testing will be completed and a
report shall be submitted to the City by March 6, 1992 to either validate the findings of
the original site assessment. or be made aware of potential contamination of the site.
2. Concern: The Commission was not convinced that adequate measures have been taken
to demonstrate that seismic hazards do not constitute a substantial risk to public safety.
Answer: Testing for seismic hazards on the Bermite site has not commenced. Prior to
geotechnical testing (geological, and/or soil stability), all testing for hazardous materials
and contamination must be completed. Since the site lies within the designated "Special
Studies Zone" required by the Alquist-Priolo Act, a geological report is required. It
should be noted that the rail station is not considered a habitable structure and such a
structure would be permitted on the site. The structure would have to be designed to
meet the seismis requirements of the building codes plus any additional requirements
prescribed by the consulting geologist.
Concern: Because the lease negotiations were not part of the Commission's information
packet, the Commission had no assurance that the City would be protected 'against
litigation resulting from either toxic or seismic hazards on the site.
Answer: The concerns regarding litigation resulting from toxic hazards have been
addressed in the lease agreement by the City requesting warranties from Whittaker
Corporation. Briefly, the lessor (Whittaker Corporation) warrants compliance with all
federal, state, or local laws pertaining to hazardous materials; no unauthorized dumping
or migration of hazardous materials have occurred on the site. The lessor is responsible
for all costs incurred for cleanup resulting from damages caused by the lessor. The City
is responsible for all costs incurred for clean up resulting from damages caused by the
City. (Note: The Hazardous Waste Section of the lease agreement is on file in the City
Clerk's Office.)
4. Concern: The Commission was concerned that the lease (represented to the Commission
as a three year term with a single two year extension) was too short for amortization of
the expense of improvements. If, for any reason, the site were abandoned in five years,
the City would essentially make a gift of the improvements to the property owner.
Answer: The terms of the agreement are those. approved by the Council as council
modified. It provides the City with the opportunity to protract the total cost area a
number of years rather than a major capital investment immediately. The need to expend
funds for actual acquisition is deferred to be purchased with future funds.
5. Concern: Adequate assurance that the quality of the railroad track does not constitute
a threat to public safety was not given to the Commission.
Answer: The redesign of the railroad track at the platform will now be linear instead
of curvilinear as it currently exists. The new track should be as safe if not safer than the
existing track.
6. Concern: There was unanimous concern that the proposed site would generate additional
traffic during peak hours through the Bouquet Junction intersection and through the
Soledad Canyon/Sierra Highway intersection.
Answer: A traffic impact study was prepared for the proposed commuter rail station
project. The study indicates that both Soledad Canyon/Sierra Highway and Bouquet
Junction intersections will have an increase in traffic volume but will maintain the current
deteriorated level -of -service during the evening peak hours.
The morning peak hours for both intersections will also experience traffic volume
increases and change in levels -of -service, resulting in greater congestion: However, the
mai
anticipated deterioration in level -of -service at the above intersections would be nly
due to other growth and development in the vicinity. Basically the volume of traffic
already exists and will increase related to commuter traffic. The Rail Station will
potentially provide the opportunity to redirect traffic from the heavy current flow.
Vehicles from the Valencia and Newhall area to the Rail Station will be opposite of the
major flow of traffic. In addition, the Rail Station will also serve as the transit station
for the local bus system providing more convenient service for commuters rather than
their personal cars.
7. Concern: The expense of land acquisition and improvement (estimated to be well over
$5,000,000) to benefit an estimated 500 commuters appears to.be unwarranted.
Answer: The cost of land acquisition and improvements over a 5 -year period amount
to a cost effective rate per commuter trip as follows:
255 days x 500 passengers = 127,500 round trips per year
127,500 round trips per years x 5 years = 637;500 round trips
$5,000,000 _ 637,500 = $7.84 per round trip per commuter
City of
Santa Clarita
Jill Klalic
Mayor
Howard "Buck" McKeon
Mayor Pro -Tem.
Carl Boyer, 3rd
Councdmember
Jo Anne Darcy
Councilmember
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita
Cal ifornia 91355
February 20, 1992
Phone
(805) 259-2489
Fax
(805) 259.8125
Mayor Jill Rlajic and City Councilmembers
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Commuter Rail Station
Dear Mayor &lajic and Councilmembers: •
At the February 18, 1992 meeting of the Planning Commission,
the Commission voted 4-0 (with -one abstention) not to approve
the Negative Declaration and Plot Plan for the commuter rail
station proposed to be located on the Whitaker property. The
members of the Planning Commission asked me to communicate our
concerns to you..
Jan Heidt 1. There continues to be a lack of public confidence thatthe
Councilmember site is free from the hazardous materials that have
accumulated there over the years. This concern could be
mitigated by. state or federal certification that the site
no longer poses a threat to public health and.safety.
2. The Commission was not convinced that adequate measures
have been taken to demonstrate that seismic hazards do not
constitute a substantial risk to public safety.
3. Because the lease negotiations= were not part of the
Commission's information packet, the Commission had no
assurance that the City ,would be protected against
litigation resulting from either toxic or seismic hazards
on the site.
4. The Commission was concerned that the lease (represented
to the Commission as a three year term with a single two
year extension) was too short for amortization of the
expense of improvements. If, for any reason, the site
were abandoned in five years, the City would essentially
make a gift of the improvements to the property owner.
5. Adequate assurance that the quality of the railroad track
does not constitute a threat to public safety was not
given to the Commission.
Mayor Klajic and City Councilmembers
February 20, 1992
Page 2
6. There was unanimous concern that the proposed site would
generate additional traffic during peak hours through the
Bouquet Junction intersection and through the Soledad
Canyon/Sierra Highway intersection.
Speaking only for myself, I chose to abstain from voting
because I did not wish 'to be misinterpreted as believing that
resolution of the six concerns the Commission shared would
remedy my personal concerns with the project. In my judgment,
the need for commuter rail service between Santa .Clarita and
Los Angeles has not been demonstrated to the Commission. The
expense of land acquisition and improvement (estimated to be
well over $5M) to benefit an estimated 500 commuters appears to
be unwarranted. The idea that commuter rail will provide a
long term solution to the commuter problems of City residents
is. ill-conceived, in my judgment. The money could be better
spent in the development of local industry which would preclude
commutation into the San Fernando Valley or beyond. The money
could be better spent in subsidization of .telecommuting which
would assist those who live in Santa Clarita to work in Santa
Clarita.
If it could be shown that there is substantial public benefit
in having commuter rail service, there are a number of
alternative sites which would not encourage rail commuters from
the Saugus, Valencia, Newhall and Placerita Canyon areas of our
City, as well.as residents to the West and North of our City to
pass through the Bouquet Junction intersection during peak
hours. I do not believe that the project as currently
described is in the best interests of all the citizens of Santa
Clarita.
r
Sincerely, f
Jerry D. Cherrington
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Santa Clarita
scw:1189
cc: Members, Planning Commission
George A. Caravalho, City Manager
Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
City of
Santa Clarita
Jill Klajic
Mayor
Howard"Buck" McKeon
Mayor Pro -Tem
Carl Boyer, 3rd
Councilmember
Jo Anne Darcy
Councilmember
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita
California 91355
February.20, 1992
Phone
(805) 259.2489
Fax
(805) 259.8125
Mayor Jill %lajic and City Councilmembers
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Commuter Rail Station
Dear Mayor Rlajic and Councilmembers:
At the February 18, 1992 meeting of the Planning Commission,
the Commission voted 4-0 (with one abstention) not to approve
the Negative .Declaration and Plot Plan for the commuter rail
station proposed to be located on the Whitaker property. The
members of the Planning Commission asked me to communicate our
concerns to you.
Jan Heidt 1. There continues to be a lack of public confidence that the
Councilmember site is free from the hazardous materials that have
accumulated there over the years.' This concern could be
mitigated by state or federal certification that the site
no longer poses a threat to public health and safety.
2. The Commission was not convinced that adequate measures
have been taken to demonstrate that seismic hazards do not
constitute a substantial risk to public safety.
3. Because the lease negotiations were not part of the
Commission's information packet, the Commission had no
assurance that the City would be protected against
litigation resulting from either toxic or seismic hazards
on the site.
4. The Commission was concerned that the lease (represented
to the Commission as a three year term with a single two
year extension) was too short for amortization of the
expense of improvements. If, for any .reason, the 'site
were abandoned in five years, the City would essentially
make a gift of the improvements to the property owner.
5. Adequate assurance that the quality of the railroad track
does not constitute a threat to public safety was not
given to the Commission.
Mayor Klajic and City Councilmembers
February 20, 1992
Page 2
6. There was unanimous concern that the proposed site would
generate additional traffic during peak hours through the
Bouquet Junction intersection and through the Soledad
Canyon/Sierra Highway intersection.
Speaking only for myself, I chose to abstain from voting
because I did not wish to be misinterpreted as believing that
resolution of the six concerns the Commission shared would
remedy my personal concerns with the project. In my judgment,
the need for commuter rail service between Santa Clarita and
Los Angeles has. not been demonstrated to the Commission. The
expense of land acquisition and improvement (estimated to be
well over $5M) to benefit an estimated 500 commuters appears to
be unwarranted. The idea that commuter rail will provide a
long term solution to .the commuter problems of City residents
is ill-conceived, -in my judgment. The money could be better
spent in the development of local -industry which would preclude
commutation into the San Fernando Valley or beyond. The money
could be better spent in subsidization of telecommuting which
would assist those who live in Santa Clarita to work in Santa
Clarita.
If it could be shown that there is substantial public benefit
in having commuter rail service, there .are a number of
alternative sites which would not encourage rail commuters from
the Saugus, Valencia, Newhall and Placerita Canyon areas of our
City, as well as residents to the West and North of our City to
pass through the Bouquet Junction intersection during peak
hours. I do not believe that the project as currently
described is in the best interests of all the citizens of Santa
Clarita.
Sincerely,
Jerry D. Cherrington
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Santa Clarita
scw:1189
cc: Members, Planning Commission
George A. Caravalho, City Manager
Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Master Case No. 92-009
Plot Plan 92-002, Oak Tree Permit 92-004
DATE: February 18, 1992
T0: Chairman Cherrington andelMMembers of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. H r i of Commm�
ss.D�iity Development
PROJECT PLANNERS: Kristi Kimbrough, Assistant Planner
Kevin Michel, Senior Planner
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION: The Bermite property, generally located along the south
side of Soledad Canyon Road, east of the Saugus Speedway,
and north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way
(Assessor Parcel Nos. 2836-011-012; -012-010, 011; and
-010-909)
REQUEST: A plot plan review for a commuter rail station to include a
passenger platform and a parking ,area. that: would initially
accommodate approximately 540 cars. Re -alignment of the
railroad tracks to accommodate the station may require the
removal of up to four oak trees. The project site is zoned
M-1.5 (Limited Heavy Manufacturing).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Santa Clarita and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
propose to.construct a commuter rail station for the purpose of establishing a
public transportation rail link between the City of Santa Clarita and.the City
of Los Angeles. The passenger platform will be approximately 500 feet long by
30 feet wide and will include a canopy structure. The project will also
include a parking area with approximately 540 parking spaces to be used by
commuter rail passengers.
SURROUNDING LAND USE/ZONING/GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The proposed commuter rail station is an allowable use in the existing M-1.5
zone.' The City's General Plan designation for this area is Residential
Suburban with a Valley Center overlay which identifies the Bermite site as a
possible location for a commuter rail station. . The existing zoning, General
Plan designations and existing land uses of the project site and adjacent
properties are as follows:
Agenda Item:Z
-2 -
lot size
East RS with Valley
Existing
warehousing
Draft
General Plan
Zone
Land Use
UDC Zone
Project RS (Residential
M-1.5
Parking lot
RS
Site Suburban) with a
Manufacturing,
leased by the
OS (PD)
Valley Center overlay
Dev. Program)
Saugus Speedway
North CO (Commercial
A-2-5 (Heavy
Santa Clara
CO (PD)
Office) and
Agriculture,
River
(Planned
SEA
five acre min
Dev.)
lot size
East RS with Valley
M-1.5
warehousing
RS
Center overlay
facilities
South OS (Open Space)
M -2 -DP (Heavy
Vacant
OS and
Manufacturing,
OS (PD)
Dev. Program)
West CC (Community
M-1 (Light
Saugus
CC
Commercial)
Manufacturing)
Speedway
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
As part of the lease agreement for the rail site, an environmental assessment
was made to evaluate the impacts of the project. The institution of commuter
rail service on rail rights-of-vay already in use is statutorily exempt from
CEQA. Local jurisdictions are responsible for constructing the individual
commuter rail stations and preparing any environmental documentation' required
per CEQA guidelines. The environmental areas of concern for the project were
traffic and the, station's location within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study
Zone. It was determined that this proposal shall have no adverse
environmental impacts which could not be avoided through project design and
mitigation measures. Subsequently, aMitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act. This Mitigated Negative Declaration was given conceptual approval ,by the
City Council on September 24, 1991. It will be presented to the Councilforfinal approval on February 25, 1992.
INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW:
The Community Development Department has distributed the project to the
affected City departments and agencies for their comments. These comments and
concerns have been addressed in the attached recommended Conditions of
Approval for this project.
ANALYSIS:
The City of Santa Clarita and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
propose to construct a commuter rail station for -the purpose of establishing -a
public transportation rail link between the City of Santa Clarita and the Los
Angeles Union Passenger Station (LAUPS) in downtown Los Angeles. A lease
agreement (with an option to purchase) for the approximately ten acre site is
currently being processed by the Public Works Department. The project site is
;ill
-3 -
currently zoned M-1.5 (Limited Heavy Manufacturing) in which a commuter rail
station is a permitted use. The project site is designated Residential
Suburban (3.4 to 6.6 DU/acre) with a Valley Center overlay on the City's
General Plan. The Valley Center component of the General Plan identifies the
Bermite property as a possible location for a commuter -rail station.
The commuter rail station would consist of a parking lot initially
accommodating approximately 540 cars and a station platform and canopy
structure approximately 30 feet wide and 500 feet long. The City's parking
ordinance does not address parking requirements for a commuter rail station.
LACTC is requiring that the City provide a minimum of 500 parking spaces.
Approximately 6I of the site is proposed to be landscaped.
Approximately 3.5 acres of the site will be left vacant. These areas may be
used for possible future commercial uses or parking. However, approval of
these uses is not sought as part of this plat plan approval.
The station will require the re -alignment and straightening of approximately
1,400 feet of the existing railroad track. This will require 11,000 cubic
yards of cut work and 66,000 cubic yards of fill, 55,000 cubic yards of which
will be imported from a location off-site not yet determined. The haul route
for this earth shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development. The re -alignment may also require the removal of up to four oak
trees (none of which are heritage oaks). Three of these oak trees are located
on property currently owned by the City.
Two entrances to the commuter rail station parking lot are proposed from
Soledad Canyon Road. The primary access would be a new signalized entrance
from Soledad Canyon Road to be constructed at the western end of the project
site. The existing entrance to the Bermite property at the eastern end of the
project site would serve as a second entrance for vehicles traveling in either
direction. However, vehicles leaving the parking lot at this -intersection
would be restricted to right turns only onto Soledad Canyon Road.
The initial operating schedule would consist of a total of three trains
traveling from Santa Clarita to Los Angeles on weekday mornings and three
trains returning to Santa Clarita from Los Angeles on weekday afternoons. The
first train would leave Santa Clarita at approximately 6 AM with subsequent
trains departing at 1 -hour intervals. In the afternoon, the first train would
arrive in Santa Clarita at approximately 4 PM with subsequent trains arriving
at one hour intervals. The trains would consist of a diesel locomotive and
four double -deck passenger cars each of which would be approximately 85 feet
in length. As no weekend service is anticipated, the City will be able to
generate revenues by sub -leasing the parking lot to the Saugus Speedway ,for
weekend events.
According to the traffic study prepared for the project, the rail station
would generate approximately 135 cars on the local street system during the
peak AM and PM traffic hours. Commuter buses will serve the site for
destinations not served by the commuter rail. However, overall, the project
is anticipated to have a' beneficial impact on region -wide congestion by
providing commuters with access to an alternative mode of transportation other
than the automobile. It is anticipated that, initially, only 300 of the 525
parking spaces would be utilized by commuter rail passengers. , The Public
Works Department plans to utilize these additional parking spaces for
park-and-ride.
A
-4-
A multi -use trail is proposed to run adjacent to and north of Soledad Canyon
Road along the Santa Clara River. Access between the trail and the site will
be provided, as well as bike -lockers.
The proposed project could be found to be consistent with the following goals
and policies of the City's General Plans
1. Goal 2, policy 2.3 of the Circulation Element of the 'General Plan
promotes coordination of local transit planning with regional
transportation planning agencies and transit agencies in adjacent
communities.
2. Goal 2, policy 2.4 -of the Circulation Element of the General Plan
which encourages the development of a multi -modal transit facility
that is strategically located in the City, adjacent to a potential
public transit rail line.
3. Goal 3, policy 3.3. of the Circulation Element of the General Plan
encourages the promotion of bicycle accessiblility to all public
facilities.
4. Goal 3, policy 3.5 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan
encourages the development, with the support of other agencies, of
alternative transportation systems.
5. Goal 4, policy 4.2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan
encourages the provision of public parking resources (including
park-and-ride facilities).
6. Goal 4, policy 4.5 of the Circulation Element encourages the provision
of enclosed bicycle lockers at major facilities.
7. Goal 5, policies 5.1 thru 5.3 encourage pursuing an egressive posture
in the region in advocating a regional transportation system.
8. Goal 2, policy 2.4 of the Air Quality Element promotes programs which
reduce vehicle emissions .including public transit enhancement and
park-and-ride facilities.
9. Goal 12, policies 12.1 thru 12.3 encourage the reduction of mobile
source emissions by promoting a shift from single occupancy to higher
occupancy vehicles.
10. Goal 2, policy -2.6 of the Noise Element: encourages working with local
transit agencies to improve and expand current public transit services
and routes to reduce trip -generated noise.
-5 -
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the proposed
project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. Approve Plot Plan 92-002 (Exhibit A) with the recommended findings, and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B)..
3. Adopt the attached Resolution No. P92-08.
KMK:422
0
RESOLUTION NO. P92-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING PLOT PLAN 92-002 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 92-004
TO ALLOY FOR A COMMUTER RAIL STATION
TO BE LOCATED ON THE BERMITE PROPERTY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA. CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does :hereby make the following
findings:
a. An application for a plot plan review and oak tree permit were filed
on January 16, 1992, by the City of Santa Clarita (the
'applicant•). The property for which this entitlement has, been
filed is located south of and adjacent to Soledad Canyon Road, east
of the Saugus. Speedway and north of the Southern Pacific Railroad
right-of-way. (Assessor Parcel Nos. 2836-011-012; -012-010, 011; and
-010-909) (the 'site,).
b. The .existing zoning for the project is M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy
Manufacturing). The General Plan designation for the site is RS
(Residential Suburban, 3.4 to 6.6. DU/acre) with a Valley Center
overlay. The General Plan identifies the site as a possible
location for a commuter rail station.
C. The plot plan (Exhibit A) proposes a commuter rail station to
include a passenger platform and a parking area that would initially
accommodate approximately 540 cars.
d. Re -alignment of the railroad tracks to accommodate the station may
require the removal of up to four oak trees.
e. The approximately ten acre site is a portion of the 996 acre Bermite
property and is currently owned by the Whittaker Corporation. The
City is currently processing a lease agreement (with an option to
purchase) for the site.
f. The site is relatively flat and is currently leased by the Saugus
Speedway for use as a parking lot. The majority of the site is
paved with asphalt.
g. An initial study was conducted on this project. It was determined
that the project would not have any significant environmental impact
because mitigation measures have been included in the project design
and conditions of approval (Exhibit B). Staff prepared a Negative
Declaration for this project puisuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act provisions.
/iv
h. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
February 18. 1992 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard. Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at
the public hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the Planning
Commission.and on its behalf, the Commission further finds.as follows:
a. The City's General Plan designation for the project site is
Residential Suburban with a Valley Center overlay. The project is
consistent with the intent of the designation regarding land use.
b. The following goals .and policies of the General Plan support the
approval of the project:
1) Goal 2, policy 2.3 of the Circulation Element of the General
Plan promotes coordination of local transit planning with
regional transportation planning agencies and transit agencies
in adjacent communities.
2) Goal 2, policy .2.4 of the Circulation Element of the General
Plan which encourages the development of a multi -modal transit
facility that is strategically located in the City, adjacent to
a potential public transit rail line.
3) Goal 3, policy 3.3 of the Circulation Element of the General
Plan encourages the promotion of bicycle accessibility to all
public facilities.
4) Goal 3, policy 3.5 of the Circulation Element of the General
Plan :encourages the development, with the support of other
agencies, of alternative transportation systems.
5) Goal 4, policy 4.2 of the Circulation Element of the General
Plan encourages the provision of public parking. resources
(including park-and-ride facilities).
6) Goal 4, policy 4.5 of .the Circulation Element encourages the
Provision of enclosed bicycle lockers at major facilities.
7) Goal 5, policies 5.1 through 5.3 encourage pursuing an
aggressive posture in the region in advocating a regional
transportation.system.
8) Goal 2, policy 2.4 of the Air Quality Element promotes programs
which reduce vehicle emissions including public transit
enhancement and park-and-ride facilities.
9) Goal 12, policies 12.1 through.12.3 encourage the reduction of
mobile source emissions by promoting a shift from single
occupancy to higher occupancy vehicles.
10) Goal 2, policy 2.6 of the Noise Element encourages working with
local transit agencies to improve and expand current public
RESO P92-08 transit services and routes to reduce trip -generated noise.
Page 2
c. The identified environmental impacts can be mitigated through the
conditioning of the project.
d. The Commission finds that approving the project, as proposed with the
addition of. conditions (Exhibit B), does satisfy the following
principles and standards for consideration of a plot plan:
That the use, development of land and/or application of
development standards, when considered on the basis of the
suitability .of the site for the particular use or development
intended, is so arranged as to avoid traffic congestion, insure
the protection of public health, safety and general welfare,
prevent adverse effects on neighboring property and.is conformity
with good zoning practice.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning
Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. The proposed project is compatible with existing development in the
area and is consistent with the City's General Plan.
b. The proposed project will not have a significant effect upon the
environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Conditions of approval -(Exhibit B) have been added to the project to
mitigate all identified impacts caused by the project.
SECTION 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
a. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the negative declaration
prepared for the project with the finding that the project will not
have a significant effect upon the environment.
b. The Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan 92-002 and Oak Tree
Permit 92-004.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1991.
Jerry Cherrington, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Lynn M. Harris
Director of Community Development
RESO P92-08
Page 3
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Donna M. Grindey, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 1992 b the
following vote of the Planning Commission: y
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
YMK:431
PESO P92-08
Page 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLOT PLAN NO. 92-002
(EXHIBIT "B")
GENERAL
1) This approval shall not supercede any other affected agencies requirements.
2) This approval must be utilized within one:year of the date of issuance.
3) The applicant shall comply with all inspection requirements as deemed
necessary by the City of. Santa Clarita.
4) The project is approved as shown on the submitted plot plan. Any changes
shall be subject to -further review by the Community Development Department.
5) The applicant must sign the attached notorized affidavit to confirm
acceptance of the above conditions. The nororized affidavit then must be
returned to the Community Development Department before approval is
granted.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
6) This grant allows the construction of a commuter rail platform with canopy
and a parking lot to accommodate a maximum of 700 cars. Future commercial
uses shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community
Development.
7) No signage is approved under this permit. The applicant shall submit a
sign program to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development
prior to the construction of any signage.
8) The applicant shall submit colored exterior elevations for the platform
structure as well as i sample materials board for review and. to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
9) Prior -to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a
lighting plan subject to the approval of the Director of Community
Development. All exterior lighting shall be unobtrusive and constructed
or located so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site
glare is fully controlled.
10) Tree Nos. 25, 31, and 35 may require removal or ,encroachment due to
realignment of the railraod tracks. All removals or encroachments shall'
be verified with the Community Development Department prior to
construction.
11) Tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 may be subject to encroachment and will require
corrective pruning prior to initiationof construction in- order to
accommodate the. rail station. All pruning shall be performed by a
qualified arborist and shall be coordinated with the Community Development
Department.
/10
Reso No. P92-08
Page 1
12) All oak trees within the vicinity of construction shall be fenced at the
protected zone prior to construction, per the Oak Tree Preservation and
Protection Guidelines. The fencing plan shall be subject to the approval
of the Community Development Department.
13) All seedling oak trees within the vicinity of the rail station shallbe
transplanted on the site. All relocations shall be coordinated with the
Community Development Department.
14) The City Oak Tree Consultant shall be present during any grading operation
within the protected zone of any oak tree.
15) No irrigation shall be placed within fifteen feet of the trunk of any oak
tree.
16) The applicant shall provide bike lockers to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development.
17) The applicant shall provide portable restrooms (to include sink
facilities) to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
The maintenance schedule for these restrooms shall be to the satisfaction
of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
18) All building; drainage and grading requirements will be established at the
time of plan check and permit issuance.
19) The applicant shall widen the sidewalk to 8'-0- to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
20) Driveways shall be constructed using the City of Santa Clarita alley
intersection design 144-01. The applicant shall obtain approval from the
City Engineer for the location of all driveways.
21) All building, drainage and grading requirements will be established at the
time of plan check and permit issuance.
22) The applicant shall comply with all state requirements for construction
within a special studies zone. Buildings. and structures must be setback
from fault lines as recommended by a geologist and as approved by the City
Engineer. A geology report must be submitted and approved. Copies of the
report must be sent to the state geologist.
23) The applicant shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication for
reciprocal access rights for the driveways along both sides of the
property.
TRAFFIC DIVISION
24) The applicant shall install a traffic signal system at the intersection of
Soledad Canyon Road and the west entrance to the site. This system shall
be installed at the direction of, and to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Reso No. P92-08
Page 2
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
25) The applicant shall provide recycling containers to be located within the
trash enclosure to 'the satisfaction of the Director of the Public Works
Department.
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
26) Street trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of the
Parks and Recreation Department. Use trees from the City's approved
Master Street Tree List, which can be obtained from the City Arborist.
Existing street trees shall be relocated to the ten foot landscaped
setback.
27) The applicant shall provide landscape and irrigation plans for review and.
to the satisfaction of the Director of the Parks and Recreation
Department. All landscaping materials and sprinkler systems. shall be
clearly indicated on the required plan. Drought resistant plant material
and water efficient irrigation systems shall be utilized in the design.
28) When funds become available, median landscaping improvements shall be made
to the medians adjacent to the commuter rail site frontage and Saugus
Speedway frontage to the satisfaction of the Director of the Parks and
Recreation Department.
29) The applicant shall provide access between the project site and the
adjacent trail to the satisfaction of the Director of the Parks and
Recreation Department. On site bike lanes shall be installed per City
standards.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
30) All fire requirements will be established at the time of plan check.
KMK:426
�a
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGAT IVE DECLARATION
[XJ Proposed [ J Final
.............................................................................
PERMIT/PROJECT: Commuter Rail Station, City of Santa Clarita (Lease/Site Plan)
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita MASTER CASE N0: 92-009
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The approximately ten -acre site is a small portion
of the "Bermite" property, located .75 miles east of Bouquet Canyon Road on
the south side of Soledad Canyon Road immediately east and adjacent to the
Saugus Speedway site, and generally north of the SPRR right-of-way. (APN's
2836-011-012; -012-010,011; and -010-909 are affected.)
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The City of Santa Clarita and the Los Angeles
County Transportation Commission propose to construct a commuter rail station
for the purpose of establishing a public transporation rail link between the
City of Santa Clarita and the City of Los Angeles. 'The passenger platform
will be approximately 500 feet long by 30 feet wide and will include a canopy
structure for protection. The project will also include a parking area with
approximately 525 spaces for use by commuting rail passengers.
...............................................................................
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X]City Council [ ]Planning Commission [ )Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect
upon the environment; and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted
pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
( ) are not required. ( ] are attached. [x] are not attached.
.............................................................................
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared
Reviewed
Myra Frank 6 Associates
(Name/Title)
Don Williams, Senior Planner
(Name/Title)
Approved byDon Williams, Senior Planner
Signat e) (Name/Title)
......................r.........1/18/9.............................................
Public Review Period From 02 To 02/17/92 -
Public Notice Given On 01/18/92 By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [ ] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice.
............................................................................
CERTIFICATION DATES
OP
AND
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT T, 120 SG. SPRING ST.
LOS ANGELES, G 90012
(213) 297.76" February 13, 1992
TGR/CEQA
City of Santa Clarita
INITIAL ENVIR STUDY
DRAFT MITIGATED NEC DEC'
Bermite or Glazer. Rail
Station
Vic. LA -5/14/126 -VAR
PETE WILSON, Gowen ,
Ms. Kristi Kimbrough/Mr. Don Williams
City of Santa Clarita R E C El V E D
Department of Community Development FEB '� 1992.
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355 COMMUIn7, U%VhV�MEN7
CIrV 6i x:NTA rLAAITA
Dear Ms. Kimbrough/Mr. Williams
Thank you for including the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process
for the above -referenced document. Based on the information
received, We suggest that any impacts to State Facilities
(Freeways, Highways) be discussed and submitted to this
office. This can be done by means of a brief summary report
and/or traffic study, either of which addresses the following
information:
a) Level of service before and after development.
b) Traffic impacts on State Transportation Facilities
(Freeways, Highways) and -all significantly affected
ramps, streets, crossroads and controlling intersec-
tions
c) Traffic generation (AM and PH peak hour);
distributiont and assignments.
d) Future conditions which includes both project and
project + cumulative traffic generated.
e) Traffic mitigation, if any, to be proposed.
Also, at the proposed Bermite Site the applicant shall
comply with all applicable hazardous waste safety measures
when transporting materials from the site. We also recommend
that truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods.
If you have any questions regarding this response,
Please call me at (213) 897-1338.
��sincerely,
WI MELTON
IGR/CE A Coordinator
Advance Planning Branch
nh\1067\1068
INDE%: ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE - CUT/PILL SLOPES
(Whichever is applicable)
City of Santa Clarita
(OWNER'.S NAME)
(OWNER'S NAME)
0
After recording return to:
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
•
BUILDING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attention: Mr. Richard Bopecky
City Engineer
INDE%: ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE - CUT/PILL SLOPES
(Whichever is applicable)
City of Santa Clarita
(OWNER'.S NAME)
(OWNER'S NAME)
0
Gentlemen: _
I/We, The City of Santa Clarita , am/are the owners(s) of the
following described property:
Exhibit "A" (Attached)
As owners(s), we have examined all plans for the development of the realigned
Southern Pacific Rail Line in conjunction with the Santa Clarita Commuter Rail
Station known as Assessor's Parcel No. 2836-010-907 give permission to the Los
•
Angeles County Transportation Commission to perform grading on City property. The
undersigned states) that the City of Santa Clarita will be free and clear of any
and all liability for damages due to this work. The cost and maintenance of the
cut slopes, fills and oak tree protection as specified in the oak tree report shall
be the responsibility of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.
(OWNER'S SIGNATURE) (OWNER'S SIGNATURE)
• ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE WITNESSED BY A NOTARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY
On this _ day of , in :the year
19 before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for said State, personally
appeared
personally known to me to be the person whose
WITNESS my hand and name is subscribed to the instrument, and
official seal acknowledged to me that he
executed it.
SNOTARY
PUBLIC IN AND FOR STATE
(SIGNATURE)
I�JO
aI, t. I
I•_-- I 4. 1
1 i.i 11 ,1,, ,�• 11 • ,
x I
I;l�
-
,.
, �
j xl✓l•. �. z
r_:lll J5 III \. ., 0\ 1 :I_ �✓ 1 -
III
l' �' I Iif I .
I
T IIII }
�� I � �� � +a I� li ` ,i/� I � � �••.�I � �: "2 Zoo I I r.
Na
F ui I W
CM
I W
I
fill
R I J' � l � � - si �• I G
1 f �-�-
it4j
< .� x
O
ZZW g
QZ� O
�Wa
W-
Q
Ox
ad
VENTURA COUNTY
1
8
i
vi ® 71 G.i0 \\
N N IId O IU \\\\\\
J Q
0
Si /Ii
I
LLI
J` 1\\\` Z \\\\\\ 1
.0i- WID
4 O -j
Z j .". W
Q�� �A O
'ftff _ OJ= \ Z
tff i:Y
Q r
�w \ o
IIIA
00,
Z
�� X11111111111
J r� W
0 = 1-� J O
0 .r �U z
�� U W=)
o m �� ��
Ill �wyl�l Q HU
ZZ
<O
7
` 3
� s
V
0 w_
Nl o p
U
U
LLQ Q
2
Y
J4 � U h
p
w
U
p w �;
f
Y
2-
z
!3-
^
Q
zo
�
m
In
W
W
p'Z
Z
0 Z
p
O
W
z
z aw
Z
N
�
W
Z
W
z
Z
W
z
¢ W
z
J
O
w
J
Z_ ¢ z
..1
W
N
...1
W
J
W
z
w
K
¢ p
w
a
x
LL
m
¢ 30
O
J
0
K
K �y1
K
U
O
=
I
=
p
o
O
ZZW g
QZ� O
�Wa
W-
Q
Ox
ad
VENTURA COUNTY
1
8
i
vi ® 71 G.i0 \\
N N IId O IU \\\\\\
J Q
0
Si /Ii
I
LLI
J` 1\\\` Z \\\\\\ 1
.0i- WID
4 O -j
Z j .". W
Q�� �A O
'ftff _ OJ= \ Z
tff i:Y
Q r
�w \ o
IIIA
00,
Z
�� X11111111111
J r� W
0 = 1-� J O
0 .r �U z
�� U W=)
o m �� ��
Ill �wyl�l Q HU
ZZ
<O
7
` 3
� s
V
0 w_
Nl o p
U
U
LLQ Q
2
Y
J4 � U h
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
(REGION 3)
1405 N. SAN FERNANDO BOULEVARD, SURE 300 CITY OF SANTA CLARJTA
BURBANI , CA 91504
(818) 567-3000 0
FEB Z5 q go Pif '9Z
February 25, 1992
CITY REcr�IVFD
Fno UFICE
City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Councilmembers:
STATUS REPORT ON WHITTAKER CORPORATION, BERMITE DIVISION PROPERTY
As requested by a member of your staff on February 10, 1992,
this report is intended to summarize the status of the
above -referenced property with regard to the formal closure of
the hazardous waste management units.
As a facility which generated and managed hazardous waste
during the course of business, the Bermite facility is subject to
the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the
analogous California law, the Hazardous Waste Control Act (HWCA).
These laws and the implementing regulations require, among other
things, that a facility which closes must follow an approved
closure plan which describes how hazardous waste will be removed
and how the hazardous waste management units will be
decontaminated during the closure procedures. Unless adequate
decontamination is achieved, restrictions would be placed on the
use of some portions of the property.
The enclosed reports prepared by this office for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency should provide you with the
necessary background and detail regarding the closures. Please
read the July 1989 report and then the January 1992 report.
We would like to emphasize the following points:
The closure plan addresses the 14 "RCRA-regulated" units
which Whittaker listed with the EPA in the early 1980s. So
far, we have accepted closure for 9 units: 6 portable
storage shacks, 2 storage buildings and 1 wastewater
treatment unit.
Whittaker has performed additional closure work at three
open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) areas and has
re -submitted closure certifications for them. We have
tentatively decided to accept the certification for two of
the units, but feel that additional soil sampling must be
done at the remaining OB/OD unit.
City Council of Santa Clarita
February 25, 1992
Page 2
Whittaker continues to perform additional closure work
including the extraction of groundwater and solvent vapors
from the soil near the location of one former surface
impoundment (pond) and groundwater monitoring at both of the
surface impoundment areas.
Based on the January 16, 1992 Initial Study, it appears that
none of the above-mentioned RCRA-regulated hazardous waste
management units were located within the site of the
proposed commuter rail station.
Three of the closed portable storage units were
approximately 1/4 -mile from the station area. These have
since been removed. other hazardous waste management units
are even further south and have been closed and/or removed
except for the two impoundment areas and the "Burn Area."
Also, an area used for paint storage and an old lead azide
sump and drainage area were sampled and.do not appear to
pose a threat. These are approximately 500 and 800 feet
southeast of the railroad tracks.
This facility is the subject of enforcement activity and we
are continuing negotiations with Whittaker to settle the
matter administratively. At this time, we cannot disclose
the details of the negotiations. So far, however, the
facility has complied with or is.in the process of complying
with the technical field work we have required.
Finally, the Department is in possession of a 1979 map of
the facility, submitted by Whittaker as part of their closure
plan, which shows numerous small production facilities on the
property. At this time, we have no information if these areas do
or do not present any environmental or public health threat. We
believe they were removed/demolished in early 1987 by the company
without agency oversight. We believe that they may be subject to
the real estate laws covering disclosure and therefore an
environmental assessment of them may be required. These should
also.be considered in the up -coming EIR for the development
project. Our Site Mitigation Branch has in place a mechanism,
the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment, (PEA), for dealing with
these sort of issues. Usually, a city or county would require
this of an applicant, or the applicant can perform the PEA
voluntarily.
City Council
February 25,
Page 3
of Santa Clarita
1992
If you have any questions, please contact Alan Sorsher at
818-567-3119 or Allan Plaza at 818-567-3101.
enclosures
cc: Mr. Ed Muller
Vice President
Whittaker Corporation
10880 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, .CA 90024-4163
Mr. Steve Koyasako
Department of Toxic
P.O. Box 806
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Dickerson
Regional Administrator
Substances Control
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
Mr. Mukul Agarwal
Site Mitigation Branch
Region 3, Burbank
STATUS REPORT #8
CLOSURE OVERSIGHT
for
WHITTAKER CORPORATION, BERMITE DIVISION
22116 West Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, California
EPA ID NUMBER CAD 064573108
October 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991
Prepared by:
California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Region 3 - Burbank
JANUARY 1992
Page 1
CLOSURE OVERSIGHT STATUS REPORT #8
WHITTAKER CORPORATION, BERMITE DIVISION, SAUGUS, CALIFORNIA
EPA ID NUMBER CAD 064 573 108
JANUARY 24, 1992
A. Introduction
This status report for the closure of the Whittaker-Bermite
facility identifies the closure activities conducted, submittals by
the facility and decisions made between October 1, 1991 and
December 31, 1991. Facility background information was furnished
in the initial closure Oversight Report dated July 1989.
In late 1989 and early 1990, U.S.EPA and DTSC (at that time DHS)
acknowledged certifications of clean closure for 6 portable storage
units, 2 stationary storage units, and the lead azide wash -water
treatment unit. Two surface impoundments and three open
burning/open detonation (OB/OD) units are still in the closure
process. Enforcement action has been taken to accelerate the
closures of these units.
B. General Developments
As reported in Closure Oversight Report #7, the Anden Group, in
partnership with Whittaker are planning for residential and
commercial development of the property. Since Anden is in the
process of preparing specific plans and scheduling, DTSC has been
asked to complete our review of the clean closure certification for
the OB/OD units as soon as possible.
Another newspaper article (copy attached) describing a proposed
development and the groundwater situation was published on 10/7/91.
C. Submittals Received from the Facility
1. NPDES Quarterly Report for July -September, 1991, dated 10/8/91.
2. Report and Clean Closure Certification for the three OB/OD units,
dated 10/10/91
3. Modified Ground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan (per new State
regulations), dated 12/23/91.
4. RCRA Groundwater Sampling Report 12 for July - Sept, 1991, dated
10/17/91.
Page 2
5. Monthly Status Report for August and September, 1991, dated
11/8/91.
6. Monthly Status Report for November, 1991, dated 12/10/91.
D. Groundwater Cleanup/Monitoring at Surface Impoundment Areas
1. Pursuant to the revised workplan to further evaluate groundwater
quality at the 342 area, Whittaker has installed two additional
down -gradient wells during November and an up -gradient well
during December. Lithology and well construction reports have
not yet been submitted.
2. Bermite has continued to pump and treat VOC-contaminated
groundwater at the site of the former 317 impoundment. Treated
groundwater is discharged under an NPDES permit.
Analysis of a water sample taken on 10/9/91 at well #4 showed an
increase in TCE from 1.0 pg/L to 6.4 µg/L. On 12/4/91, a
confirmation sample analyzed by Whittaker's lab contained 1.2
µg/L. Two duplicate samples analyzed by DTSC's lab contained
2.8-2.9 gg/L.
Pursuant to the revised workplan to further evaluate groundwater
quality at the 317 impoundment area, Whittaker began installing a
confirmation well near well #4.
Whittaker continues to test soil vapor probes and operate vapor
extraction wells to characterize and remediate soil contamination
at this unit and to examine the mechanism of well #41s
contamination.
E. OPEN BURNING/OPEN DETONATION UNITS
As predicted in the last oversight report, a submittal of the soil
sampling results, statistical evaluations,, and clean closure
certification for these 3 units was received on 10/15/91.
STATUS REPORT
of
CLOSURE OVERSIGHT
for
WHITTAKER CORPORATION, BERMITE DIVISION
22116 West Soledad.Canyon Road, Saugus, California
EPA ID NUMBER CAD 064573108
Prepared by:
California Department of.Health Services
Toxic Substances Control Division
Region 3 - Burbank
JULY 1989
WHITTAKER CORPORATION, BERNITE DIVISION
CAD 064573108
A. Introduction
Page 1
This status report for the closure of the Whittaker-Bermite facility
identifies the activities conducted, submittals by the facility and
decisions made between October 1, 1988 and June 30, 1989. Facility
background information is provided to place current activities in
proper perspective, and the rationale for projected activities are
also explained in detail.
B. Facility Background and History
The Bermite Division of the Whittaker Corporation (Bermite) is
located at 22116 West Soledad Canyon Road in Saugus, California. The
EPA ID number for this facility is CAD 064573108.
DHS/EPA reviewed and modified the deficient interim status closure
plans submitted by the facility. The modified closure plan was
approved by EPA and DHS on 9/30/87 and modified again on 12/27/87.
(A copy of the closure chronology is attached.) The parent
corporation hopes to either sell the property for residential/ -
commercial development or develop the property themselves. Because
of the future development, the company has been very anxious to
complete implementation of the closure plan (despite the technical
difficulties described below) and is attempting to achieve clean
closure by remediation of residual contamination.
The facility occupies approximately 1100 acres (see attached maps)
and has been used for ordnance, flares and explosives manufacturing
since the early 1900s. Production ceased entirely in early 1987.
The terrain consists of hills and valleys, mostly unimproved areas.
Near the surface impoundments, the uppermost aquifer appears to. be
confined beneath a clay or shale aquiclude located beneath
approximately 600 feet of very permeable alluvial formations. The
thickness of this alluvial formation and the large cobbles and
boulders within it have made drilling and installation of groundwater
monitoring wells, vapor probes and groundwater sampling extremely
difficult and technically challenging for the facility.
RCRA units included 8 storage units (6 portable, 2 stationary) for �!
dry waste (contaminated paper towels, gloves, and waste explosives
and flares); treatment tanks for lead azide wash solution; 5 thermal
treatment units (burn pitsburn cage, pans, rails, and detonation
range); and two synthetic lined surface impoundments (one for organic
solvents and one for aqueous waste water). A RCRA Facility
Assessment (RFA) report was: prepared by Science Applications
International Corporation in the fall of 1987, but the need for a
RCRA Facility Investigation has not been determined. A groundwater
monitoring system had not been installed until late 1988.
During the summer of 1987, solvent, vapors were found in the soil
underlying the site of the former solvent surface impoundment (317).
This unit had been removed in 1983 without an approved closure plan.
WHITTAKER CORPORATION, BERMITE DIVISION
CAD 064573108
Page 2
The DHS/EPA approved closure plan called for characterization and
remediation of the soil contamination, installation of a groundwater
monitoring system and a monitoring program capable of verifying the
absence of groundwater contamination from both impoundments.
C Submittals and acti ities sc eduled for fiscal Year 89 Oct 1
1988 through Sept 3_ 0 1989)
Submitted on:
1. 12/22/88; Quarterly report for 10/88 groundwater mon-
itoring. This report details the methods and protocol of
groundwater sample collection and analysis and the
resulting concentrations of all compounds analyzed.
2. 2/9/89; "Subsurface Vapor Probes at the 317 Area." This is
a proposal for installing- three nests containing 6 probes
UP to 120 feet deep.
3: 3/31/89; Quarterly report dated for 1/89 groundwater
monitoring. This report details the methods and protocol
of groundwater sample collection and analysis and- the
resulting concentrations of all compounds analyzed.
4. 5/9/89; "Vapor Probe Construction and Measurements at the
317 Area." This is a report of the "as -built" construction
during April 1988 of the vapor. probes and vapor concen-
trations taken over the subsequent four week period.
5. Letter dated May 19, 1989 reporting that the ground water
samples obtained on April 17 - 19, 1989 showed organic
solvent contamination in well 4.
6. 6/7/89; "Interim Response Action Plan, 317 Area Soil and
Groundwater Remediation." This proposal for interim
remedial responses was prepared after ground water
monitoring well 4 detected organic solvent contamination.
The proposal describes a pilot vapor extraction and carbon
absorption system, as anticipated in the approved closure
plan, and a groundwater extraction well (gradient control
well) to extract contaminated groundwater in the immediate
vicinity of the former surface impoundment. The proposal
also includes a carbon ground water treatment system using
granular activated to remove organic contamination from the
water.
7. 6/7/89; "Specific Plan, Groundwater Quality Assessment
Program." This plan has been developed using information
gained from the site activities and RCRA closure plan
implementation and addresses the requirements of 40CFR
265.93(d)(3). The plan proposes two wells to be installed
WHITTAKER CORPORATION, BERMITE DIVISION Page 3
CAD 064573108
about 100 feet downgradient from the area of greatest known
soil vapor contamination. The facility understands that
additional wells will likely be required to completely
assess the contamination.
8. 6/21/89; "Application for Permit to Construct, and operate,
Vapor Extraction System with Activated Carbon Treatment
Control." This application to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District includes a narrative of the proposed
extraction system's location, construction, and operation.
It includes manufacturer's literature on the mechanical
equipment required.
9. 6/27/89; revised RCRA Part A application which covers the
organic vapor and groundwater cleanup equipment. This must
be re -submitted to correct errors on the Part A.
10. 6/28/89; Updated closure cost estimate.
D. Submittals due
1. Closure cost estimate update.
2. Corrected Part A application.
3a. Quarterly groundwater monitoring reports.
3b. First groundwater quality assessment.
3c. Subsequent groundwater quality assessments.
4. Part B Post -Closure Permit application for long-term soil
and groundwater cleanup.
5. Progress reports on the soil and groundwater assessments
and cleanup.
E. Due dates for identified items
1. The closure cost estimate. must be updated annually for
inflation and 'reported to DIIS each March. The cost
estimate must also be updated whenever changes in the.
closure activities change the cost estimate.
2. The corrected Part A application will be submitted by July
15, 1989.
3a. The quarterly groundwater monitoring reports are expected
on July 15 and September 22 for the April and July sampling
events, respectively.
3b. The first determination under the groundwater quality
assessment plan is -due "as soon as technically feasible and
within 15 days after that determination, submit to the
Regional Administrator a written report containing an
assessment of the ground -water quality." The facility's
assessment plan will have to be revised to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 265.93(a)(1)-(3). It is anticipated
WHITTAKER CORPORATION, BERMITE DIVISION
CAD 064573108
Page 4
that first formal determination will be made by October 15,
1989. However,, interim groundwater analysis reports will
be furnished by the facility as each well is completed and
analyzed.
3c.. Under 40 CFR 265.93(d)(7)(i), the determination of
groundwater quality must be made on a quarterly basis and
reported to EPA annually by March 1, -per 40 CFR 265.94(b).
4. The post -closure permit application will be due 60 days
after it is called in. It is anticipated that the call-in
letter will be transmitted by August 30.
5. The facility will submit weekly reports on the soil and
groundwater assessment and -cleanup progress.
F Actions needed;
1. Facility needs to revise the Part A application and obtain
permits for air and water discharges from pilot soil vapor
and groundwater treatment units.
2. Facility needs to complete implementation of groundwater
assessment plan and soil vapor characterization.
3. DHS/EPA need to send Part B post -closure permit call-in
letter to facility by August 30, 1989.
4. DHS/EPA need to review RFA report and determine if an RFI
is needed. In addition, the regulatory mechanism (permit
or 3008(h) order) for requesting an RFI must be decided
upon.
5. DHS needs to review sampling and analysis results submitted
during 1988 and closure certifications for other HWM units
(burn areas, lead azide treatment tanks, dry storage
units).
G. Status report on submittals/activities and actions needed
Except for the surface impoundments, Bermite has performed removal
and/or verification sampling and submitted sampling results and
closure certifications for all of the RCRA-regulated units. Sampling
results were submitted in March 1988 and closure certifications were
submitted during March -'June of 1988 for these units, but these
documents have not yet been reviewed.
All of. the recent work done by the facility were focused on soil
contamination at the 317 unit and the groundwater monitoring program.
SOIL CONTAMINATION AROUND 317 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
WHITTAKER CORPORATION, BERMITE DIVISION
CAD 064573108
Page 5
The extent of lateral and vertical solvent vapor contamination in the
subsoils has not been fully determined. Initially,
as deep as 50# and field soil vapor analysis were used lintanrenching attempt
to define the vertical and ,lateral extent of vapor contamination.
This has been only partly successful. The approved closure plan also
calls for the installation of vapor probes to characterize the extent
Of contamination. Seven vapor probe nests, as deep as 120 feet below
the 50, level, were installed between March 8 and mid-May 1989.
Testing of these probes showed vapor concentrations of approximately
200 - 500 ppmv at these depths, with higher levels at shallower
depths. An attempt to. install probes down to 240' using the
air -rotary drilling method was not successful.
The facility has been working to limit the spread of soil and
groundwater contamination. 120 -foot dee
vapor vents Will be
installed.during July 1989 using the cable tool drilling method. DHS
staff plans to observe this drilling technique. If this method is
workable,.
characterization deeper v nts,e if necessary to install deepr probes tocforlthe
removal of solvent vapors.
As indicated in item C.8 above, on June 21, 19891 the facility
applied to the South Coast Air Quality Management District for a
permit to proceed with the soil vapor extraction and removal system.
The first phase proposes two 120 -foot deep vapor vents. Soil gases
Will be drawn from the vents through pipes and through a two-stage
activated carbon filter. . The filtered air will be drawn through a
vacuum blower and then discharged. This equipment will be ready to
start up within three weeks
Additional . after completion of the first vent.
first two. vents may be installed depending on the results of the
GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
Three rounds of quarterly groundwater sampling have occurred during
October 1988, January 1989, and April 1989. DHS collected and
analyzed samples from well 1 and well 4 and QA/QC samples during the
January sampling event. 37 samples were analyzed by DHS for the most
important contaminants at this site. The. analyses were performed at
the state DHS lab in Los Angeles and no contamination was detected. '
On May 23, 1989, the facility reported to DHS that the April sampling
Of well 4 detected contamination by organic solvents. The: initial
sample found 4.8 mg/l of TCE, 14.3 ug/l of dichloroethylene, and 11.7
ug/l of tetrachloroethylene (Perc). The well was re -sampled, and the
ground water was analyzed by a second lab which reported 7.2 mg/l
TCE.
The facilitywas instructed to notify the Regional Water Quality
Control Board of these findings, as. well as the EPA Regional
Administrator in accordance with 40 CFR 265.93. The facility was
instructed to submit a specific plan. for ground water quality
WHITTAKER CORPORATION, BERMITE DIVISION
CAD 064573108
Page 6
assessment. The facility was also instructed to notify the water
supply companies in the area of the findings. Copies of the
facility's letters to two water companies were sent to EPA and the
DHS Public Water Supply Branch.
A follow-up meeting was held on 6/13/89 to discuss the facility,s
assessment plan and proposed pilot studies for a soil vapor
extraction system and a ground water treatment system.
The facility is anxious to prevent the spread of groundwater
contamination and has taken steps in that direction. The facility
has installed an extraction well between the location of the former
surface impoundment and well 4. They have pumped approximately
21,000 gallons of groundwater from this well in an attempt to halt or
impede the spread of the plume. This water is being held in a
portable tank until' it can be treated in the proposed activated
carbon filtration system, which is a separate system from that to be
used for vapors from the soil. In addition to revising their Part A
application to include the vapor and groundwater treatment units, the
facility is pursuing discharge permits from the local sewerage agency
and from the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the groundwater
treated in this system.
In addition, the facility began drilling the first well called for in
the assessment plan in late June.and this well will be completed.and
developed by July 7, 1989.
In late June 1989, articles were published in three local newspapers
on the groundwater contamination. Copies of the articles are
attached.
(kw
i�
CLOSURE CHRONOLOGY
WHITTAKER CORPORATION BERMITE DIVISION
CAD 064 573 108
DATE
ITEM
March, 1983
Bermite removes two surface impoundments
(units 317 & 342) without approved closure
plan.
August 15, 1983 -
November 30, 1983
Three letters from Bermite to DHS describing
removal of impoundments and analysis of
limited subsoil sampling.
October 28, 1985
DHS sends NOD on surface impoundment
closures.
November 20, 1985
Letter from Bermite 'to DHS. in response to
above NOD.
April 28, 1986
Letter from DHS to EPA Enforcement re:
inadequate closure of 317 impoundment
June - July, 1986
Bermite's consultant takes soil samples from
site of former 317 impoundment. sampling
plan was not approved by EPA or DHS.
August 1, 1986
Consultant submits amended closure plan in
anticipation of consent agreement with EPA.
August 19, 1986
Bermite submits sampling plan and results of
June/July sampling at former 317 impoundment
site.
August 26, 1986
EPA consent agreement signed requiring:
submittal of closure plan; additional
closure sampling at site of former #317
surface impoundment demonstrating compliance
with 40 CFR 265.228; engineer's
certification of closure for 317 & 342
impoundments and lead azide tank system.
October 22, 1986
Bermite's consultant takes soil samples from
open burning areas despite the fact that the
sampling plan was not approved by EPA. or
DHS.
February 4, 1987
DHS letter to EPA enforcement with comments
on Bermite's closure confirmation sampling
deficiencies at 317 impoundment submitted
8/19/86.
R
CLOSURE CHRONOLOGY WHITTAKER CORP., BERMITE DIV.
page 2
February 10, 1987 DHS sends NOD on 8/1/86 closure plan
(other
regulated units besides impoundments) to
Bermite's consultant .
March 3, 1987 Letter from EPA to Bermite noting above
deficiencies and requiring_ revised closure
plan including soil characterization and
hydrogeologic assessment of former surface
impoundment sites and ground water
monitoring.
May 6, 1987 DHS receives revised closure plan including
workplan for characterization and
hydrogeologic assessment at 317 and 342
sites.
June/July, 1987 Bermite begins executing above. workplan at
their risk, without workplan approval by DHS
or EPA.
August 4, 1987 CEQA notice of exemption drafted.
August 7, 1987 Public notice of closure
plan and public
hearing published in Newhall Signal. Public
notice period begins.
September 10,1987 Public hearing on closure plan held at local
college. Public comment period closes.
INDIVIDUAL LETTERS TO COUNCIL
COPIES TO: CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK
FEB 2 4 1992 GOLD, MARKS, 1MG & PEPPER
C,Tf CbUNC�L 1800 AVENUE OF THE STARS
SUITE 300
LAS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
TELEPHONE (310) 277-1000
FACSIMILE 13101 553-4847
BARNA & SZABO
February 21, 1992
Mayor Jill Klajic
Mayor Pro Tem Howard McKeon
Councilmember Carl Boyer
Councilmember Jo Anne Darcy
Councilmember Jan Heidt
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, California 91355
Re: Commuter Rail Station Site
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Direct IJne
(310) 2847211
We note with interest that the City of Santa Clarita is
still considering using part of the so-called "Glazer site" as a
possible commuter rail station. Our response to this interest
was communicated to your staff in correspondence dated February
22, 1991, and February 10, 1992 (please see attached).
In light of the City Council's recent deliberations
concerning a station site, you may wish to keep in mind our
willingness to negotiate with the City the availability of the
Glazer site for such a future station. We believe the Glazer
site has considerable advantages which were initially pointed out
by the City's staff review approximately one year ago. For
example, a station located at the Glazer site would not need
extensive track work to begin rail commuter operations; it would
be adjacent to an existing business center; and there would be no
environmental complications, such as oak trees or other sensitive
environmental issues.
If the City of
interested in the Glazer
with your representatives
BSS:srj
Enclosures
Santa Clarita, indeed, is still
location, we would be pleased to meet
to further discuss this matter.
Sincerely yours,
i'
Barna S. Szabo'
Governmental Specialist
4 1
GOLD, MARKS, RING & PEPPER
1600 AVENUE OF THE STARS
SUM 300
LOS ANGELES, CALUMNIA 90067 -
TELEPHONE 13101277-1000 _
FACS"RE (31016651847
Lint LYW
JEROLDA NELMAN 010264.7R7
February 10,.1992
Kristi Kimbrough
Department of Community Development
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Ms. Kimbrough:
on January 171 1992, we received from your office the
Initial Environmental Study (dated January 16, 1992) for a
commuter rail station in the City of Santa Clarita. The report
reviews the potential environmental impacts that may be caused by
the use of the Bermite site for a proposed commuter rail station.
Also, in the report, it is noted that the "Glazer Site" is a
potential location for the commuter rail station.
Pursuant to our review, we have note that the following
information has been incorrectly stated:
1. The General Plan
"Glazer Site" is Business Park
as indicated in the report.
Land -Use designation for the
(BP) not Residential Suburban (RS)
2. The,area indicated within the report for the
location of a potential commuter rail station on the "Glazer
Site" encompasses the entire frontage of the property toward San
Fernando -Road. This is more area than the area at 16th Street
which was previously suggested by the City of Santa Clarita.
Beyond the foregoing, the owners of. the "Glazer Site"
have instructed us to communicate their willingness to negotiate
with the City for the potential use of part of their property for
a commuter rail station in the event either: 1) the Bermite Site
rail station fails to become a reality; or 2) the City looks for
an additional location for a second rail station.
1
GOLD, &URKS. RING, & PEPPER
Ms. Kristi Kimbrough
February 10, 1992
Page 2
This position is consistent with our clients' previous
statements on the subject which were submitted to the City during
the work shops and hearings on the City's newly adopted General
Plan, as well at hearings on the rail station proposals.
In case you have any questions or need additional
information regarding our position, please do not hesitate to
contact me at the above -referenced address and phone number.
Finally, we would like to request that the City of Santa Clarita
keep -our office advised of any possible developments which may
directly or indirectly impact potential future utilization of our
clients' property in the City of Santa Clarita.
JN:skj
very truly yours,
JERRY NEUMAN
GOLD, MARKS, RING & PEPPER
1800 AVENUE OF THE STARS
SURE 300
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
TELEPHONE 12131277-1000
FACSIMILE (213) 6634647
February 22, 1991
Mayor Carl Boyer, 3rd
Mayor Pro -Tem Jill Klajic
Councilmember Jo Anne Darcy
Councilmember-Jan Heidt
Councilmember Howard McKeon
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita, California 91355
RE: THE SELECTION OF A COMMUTER RAIL STATION SITE
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Dirnt Liu*
013)29&75W
We represent Mr. Guilford Glazer,.the owner of the
property on the east side of the Southern Pacific Railroad Line
north of 13th Street in the City of Santa Clarita.
My client was recently informed that the'City Manager
and Director of Public Works.of the City have recommended his
site for the location of a commuter rail station and adjacent
parking. We understand that the City has worked in close
cooperation with LACTC to meet LACTC's criteria in selecting a
site for a commuter rail station at the most appropriate and
needed location. Further; we understand that LACTC is scheduled
to implement a commuter rail operation within the short time-
frame of two years in order to meet the ever-growing
transportation needs of Santa Clarita, as well as assist the
communities in the Santa Clarita Valley in addressing their air-
quality concerns.
My -client is supportive of commuter rail as a first
step towards addressing the mass transportation and air-quality
concerns of this community. We concur with the initial staff
recommendation that the "Glazer site" meets more of the necessary
criteria required by the.LACTC for a station than the other sites
that are being considered. Consequently, we .were somewhat
surprised when the City Council decided to postpone action on the
GOLD, MARKS. RING. & PEPPER
Mayor Carl Boyer, 3rd
Mayor Pro -Tem Jill Klajic
Councilmember Jo Anne Darcy
Councilmember Jan Heidt
Councilmember Howard McKeon
February 22, 1991
Page 2
staff's recommendation and are concerned that some of the
arguments against selecting my client's site were misplaced -or in
error.
For example, the Glazer site was depicted -as being too
close to residential units when, in fact, the nearest residential
development is over 2.200 feet away. This is substantially
further than other sites considered. Secondly, noise was
mentioned as a factor. This is truly surprising since, several
times a day, the railroad uses that line to run many lengthy
freight trains, some of which have four to six heavy diesel
engines. These freight trains make"considerably greater noise
than a commuter rail, which would only run once in the morning
and once in the evening. Additionally, the site is large enough
to provide for a proper master planned development and landscaped
buffers ameliorating any potential impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood.
Furthermore, if the City is to receive a functioning
station with ample parking, a location near a dynamic commercial
area, such as downtown, is precisely where a station should be
situated so it can be linked to those commercial activities. In
fact, the proposed City General Plan focuses on the area around
the Glazer site as an important commercial center for the City.
The location of this station can also be an integral part of the
proposed improvements along this stretch of San Fernando Road.
As for the site's.being in a flood plain, it should be
noted that there are numerous structures, including private
homes, already located in this flood -plain area. Furthermore, it
is not at all unusual for railroad activities and adjacent
parking to be located in flood plains. Staff, in fact, indicated
that the.flood-plain location is a positive aspect of the site.
Finally, we understand that the City needs to make a
quick determination as to the'location of the commuter rail
station so as to allow LACTC to continue with its plan of
implementing a commuter rail operation within the short time-'
frame of two years. Santa Clarita is projected to be the last
stop of the commuter rail lines; and as such, if Santa Clarita
fails to meet the LACTC's deadlines for action, the City runs the
GOLD, MARTS, RING. & PEPPER
Mayor Carl Boyer, 3rd
Mayor Pro -Tem Jill Klajic
Councilmember Jo Anne Darcy
Councilmember Jan Heidt
Councilmember Howard McKeon
February 22, 1991
Page 3
risk of having the line stop before it reaches Santa Clarita,
thereby excluding itself from LACTC's program to provide commuter.
rail service in the foreseeable future. To this end, my client
supports this endeavor and looks forward to being a constructive
participant in the City's drive to establish a useful and
beneficial commuter rail service for the Santa Clarita Valley.
In summary, the Glazer site offers. the City the most
accessible and immediately available alternative for the location
of the station, with the most amount of vacant land for buffer
zones in order to minimize the impact on neighboring communities,
as well as a cooperative single landowner to work with. Further,
selection of the Glazer site does not create the environmental
concerns that the Gates location raises, nor does it have the
space constraints of the Drayton site. For the above reasons, we
urge you to recommend and designate this site as the location for
the proposed commuter rail station at your meeting of February
26, 1991.
cc: George Caravallo
Lynn M. Harris
urs,
I
After recording return to:
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
BUILDING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300_
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attention: Mr. Richard Eopecky
City Engineer
INDEX: ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE - CUT/FILL SLOPES
(Whichever is applicable)
City of Santa Clarita
(OWNER'S NAME)
(OWNER'S NAME)
Gentlemen:
0
I/We, The City of Santa Clarita , am/are the owners(s) of the
following described property:
Exhibit "A" (Attached)
As owners(s), we have examined. all plans for the development of the realigned
Southern Pacific Rail Line in conjunction with the Santa Clarita Commuter Rail
Station- known as Assessor's Parcel No. 2836-010-907 give permission to the Los
Angeles County Transportation Commission to perform grading on City property. The
undersigned state(s) that the City of Santa Clarita will be free and clear of any
and all liability for damages due to this work. The cost and maintenance of the
cut slopes, fills and oak tree protection as specified in the oak tree report -shall
be the responsibility of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.
(OWNER'S SIGNATURE)
* ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE WITNESSED BY A NOTARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY
(OWNER'S SIGNATURE)
On this _ day of in the year
19_ before me, the undersigned,. a Notary
Public in and' for said State, personally
appeared
personally known to me to be the person whose
WITNESS my hand and name is subscribed to the instrument, and
official seal acknowledged to me that he
executed it.
NOTARY PUBLIC -IN AND FOR STATE
(SIGNATURE)