HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - PH PORTA BELLA DEVAGMT PLAN (2)i
AGENDA REPORT
i
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
Ha
Rich Henderson
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: November 22, 1994
SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PORTA BELLA
SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS WELL AS
THE THREE APPEALS FILED CONCERNING THE DECISION ON
JUNE 21, 1994, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION; TO CERTIFY THE
FEIR AND ADDENDUM SCH 92-041041; TO ADOPT A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM; TO APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 51599 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 91-033; AND TO
RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SPECIFIC
PLAN 91-001 AND CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 93-003.
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND On November 8, 1994 the Council held a continued public hearing on this
project in which they received a matrix summary of the responses to questions Council and
the public have asked to date. Council took action on the three appeals. Community
Development staff are following Council direction to gather documentation and draft
conditions which address the appeals by Keysor-Century and the applicant. This information
will be provided to Council in a subsequent meeting.
ANALYSIS
At the last meeting the Council expressed an interest in making confidential City Attorney
letters regarding this case open to the public. The Council requested that the City Attorney
address and advise them on the appropriateness and possible risk of doing such;
Several alternative Magic/Princessa alignments have been submitted over the course of the
Council hearings. The current alignment under consideration is the one shown on the map
dated October 19, 1994.
The question has been raised by the Council as to why bridges for Magic/Princessa are
necessary over San Fernando Road and Oakdale Canyon. The EIR Traffic Study Appendix
"J" identifies four reasons why a bridge is the only reasonable option for crossing San
Fernando Road and the railroad tracks:
Continued To: =gel
Agenda Item:._..
1) Due to railroad policies, construction of an at -grade crossing of the railroad for the
Magic Mountain extension will require the closing of the Drayton crossing. The
existing at -grade crossing at Drayton provides the only access to many businesses and
properties in that area;
2) An undercrossing cannot be used because it is geometrically impossible to achieve
acceptable grades to gain the elevations existing east of San Fernando Road;
3) The extensive delay analysis in the EER Traffic Study indicates that an at -grade
crossing is unacceptable due to anticipated queue lengths. For example, at the time
of train crossings, a queue of 120 cars is anticipated. Assuming that the roadway will
have three lanes, this is a back-up of 40 cars per lane resulting in extreme traffic
conditions;
4) There are also significant safety concerns posed by a major highway crossing a
railroad which would need to be considered with an at -grade crossing.
Concerns of neighboring residents about the Oakdale Canyon Bridge have centered around
the location of the bridge in the Circle J open space, noise impacts and visual impacts. Noise
impacts were addressed in the EIR Addendum which found the noise levels proposed by the
Oakdale Bridge to be acceptable and the visual impacts to be less than significant.. There
are, however, several options available to address resident concerns with the Oakdale Canyon
bridge:
1) The canyon can be filled to accommodate the roadway. A berm could be constructed
around the roadway which would result in greater noise attenuation and screen the
roadway from view. Were the roadway to be located as presently shown on the plan,
then the fill slope to support the road would be approximately 60 feet high.
2) The roadway could be moved on to Porta Bella property. This would address the
concerns of the Circle J residents to reduce impacts upon their open space and lower
noise levels. The roadway may be at a higher elevation which may increase its
visibility to the surrounding area depending on whether a bridge or fill option is used.
Moving the roadway onto the Porta Bella site may have internal project impacts due
to the pedestrian orientation of the project, but these could be minimized if the
roadway was designated a collector, rather than a highway.
The Porta Bella project in itself does not need a highway to serve it. The project could be
internally served by a collector street. The need for highways through the project is
externally driven by the existing circulation constraints and anticipated ambient growth in
the unincorporated County as well as the City. It is the City's General Plan and CTAC
recommendation which show community serving major arterials crossing Porta Bella. The
applicant is attempting to meet the City's General Plan in providing for an extension to
Magic Mountain Parkway.
Construction of major arterials in the City will impact existing property owners. Alignments
may be designed and negotiated to minimize the need for relocation and condemnation,
however, these issues are features of any large roadway development. Conditioning large
land owners to build portions of arterials on their land as entitlements are given for that land
reduces the need for condemnation and relocation. However, this type of roadway
development policy is piecemeal and is not effective in developing arterials through already
developed areas. It is not realistic to expect to build an east/west arterial through the center
of the City, which is surrounded by developed areas, without impacting existing property and
business owners.. Condemnation and relocation will be a necessary feature for completion
of any of the City's General Plan arterials.
No new environmental information has been presented to the Council which was not
previously seen by the Planning Commission. The Commission specifically stated during
their consideration of the project that they would limit their consideration on land use
impacts, not financial ones which they felt was outside their purview. Nothing this far
presented to the Council regarding land use issues would have changed the Commission's
decision on this project.
Financial impacts are not discussed in the EIR and Addendum because the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specifically directs that economic impacts are not to be
included in an EIR. The purpose of an EIR is to address only environmental, not financial,
impacts. Therefore, the EIR and Addendum is not incomplete because it lacks a; fiscal
analysis.
A matrix of traffic improvements is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive staff report and reopen the continued public hearing;
2. Review the attached matrix of traffic; improvements and focus discussion on traffic
circulation;
3. Direct staff as to the release of confidential letters from the City Attorney;
4. Continue the public hearing to the December 13, 1994, City Council meeting and
return with appropriate documentation.
ATTACHMENTS
Matrix of Traffic Improvements
CURRENT\PR CCRO5.LH9
INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING PLAN
The land use assumptions for each phase of the development as outlined in the traffic study is
shown below. Some uses have been reduced from the values assumed in the traffic study to reflect
the reduction in the number of units proposed by the applicant.
A. PHASE 1:
Single Family Units
298
Multi Family Units
285
Commercial (Square Feet)
163,350
Office (Square Feet)
258,485
Business Park (Square Feet)
--
Neighborhood Park (Acres)
Driving Range (Acres)
Recreational (Square Feet)
School
Church (Acres)
--
Hotel (Rooms)
TE -2 A total of 24 intersections will be significantly impacted as referenced In Table 8,
page 51 of the Traffic Study. The mitigation measures Identified In Table 12, pages
58 to 62 shall be in place prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1.
TE -3 A minimum of two new traffic signals (Magic Mountain Parkway/Rio Vista, Soledad
Canyon Road/Santa Clarita Parkway) shall be In place prior to Issuance of
occupancy permits for Phase 1.
TE -4 Magic Mountain Parkway (Magic/Princessa) shall be extended with a minimum of
four traffic lanes from San Fernando Road/Bouquet Canyon Road to Rio Vista Road
prior to Issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1.
TE -5 Magic Mountain Parkway (Magic/Princessa) shall be extended with a minimum of two
traffic lanes from Rio Vista Road to Rainbow Glen Drive prior to Issuance of
occupancy permits for Phase 1. A maximum threshold of development may be
permitted within Phase 1 prior to extending this roadway subject to the satisfaction
of the City Traffic Engineer.
TE -6 Santa Clarita Parkway shall be extended with a minimum of two traffic lanes from
Soledad Canyon Road to "D" Street prior to Issuance of occupancy permits for
Phase 1.
TE -7 "D" Street shall be extended with a minimum of two traffic lanes from Santa Clarita
Parkway to Main Street prior to Issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1.
INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING PLAN
B. PHASE 2:
Single Family Units
931
Multi Family Units
510
Commercial (Square Feet)
374,939
Office (Square Feet)
398,574
Business Park (Square Feet)
561,520
Neighborhood Park (Acres)
22.0
Driving Range (Acres)
--
Recreational (Square Feet)
45,000
School
One
Church (Acres)
1.8
Hotel (Rooms)
140
TE -8 A total of 25 intersections will be significantly Impacted as referenced In Table 9,
page 52 of the Traffic Study. The mitigation measures identified in Table 12, pages
58 to 62 shall be in place prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 2.
TE -9 A minimum of two new traffic signals (Santa Clarita Parkway/D Street, Santa Clarita
parkway/Via Princessa) shall be In place prior to Issuance of occupancy permits for
Phase 2. The applicant shall be required to assess the need for signalization at
other Intersections to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer.
TE -10 Magic Mountain Parkway shall be restriped to accommodate six traffic lanes from
Valencia Boulevard to San Fernando Road/Bouquet Canyon Road place prior to
Issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 2.
TE -11 Mag lc Mountain Parkway (Magic/Princessa) shall be widened to six traffic lanes from
San Fernando Road/Bouquet Canyon Road to Rio Vista Road place prior to Issuance
of occupancy permits for Phase 2 In accordance with Traffic Engineering condition
TE -1
TE -12 Magic Mountain Parkway (Magic/Princessa) shall be widened to four traffic lanes
from Rio Vista Road to Rainbow Glen Drive prior to Issuance of occupancy permits
for Phase 2 in accordance with Traffic Engineering condition TE -1.
TE -13 Santa Clarita Parkway shall be widened and extended to have a minimum of four
traffic lanes from Soledad Canyon Road to Via Princessa prior to Issuance of
occupancy permits for Phase 2 in accordance with Traffic Engineering condition TE -
1.
C. PHASE 3:
INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING PLAN
Single Family Units
419
Multi Family Units
765
Commercial (Square Feet)
Office (Square Feet)
313,632
Business Park (Square Feet)
411,850
Neighborhood Park (Acres)
8.5
Driving Range (Acres)
3,75
Recreational (Square Feet)
25,000
School
One
Church (Acres)
Hotel (Rooms)
TE -14 A total of 31 intersections will be significantly Impacted as referenced In Table 11,
page 54 of the Traffic Study. The mitigation measures identified in Table 12, pages
58 to 62 shall be in place prior to Issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3.
TE -15 A minimum of three new traffic signals (Magic Mountain Parkway/Via Princessa,
Santa Clarita Parkway/Via Porta Bella, Main Street/Via Princessa) shall be in place
prior to Issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 3. The applicant shall be required
to assess the need for slgnallzation at other Intersections to the satisfaction of the
City Traffic Engineer.
TE -16 Magic Mountain Parkway (Magic/Princessa) shall be widened to Include six traffic
lanes from Rio Vista Road to Rainbow Glen Drive prior to issuance of occupancy
permits for Phase 3 in accordance with Traffic Engineering condition TE -1.
TE -17 Santa Clarlta Parkway shall be widened and extended to the north and south beyond
the project boundary to Include six traffic lanes from Bouquet Canyon Road to
Sierra Highway at the Placerita Canyon Road junction prior to issuance of
occupancy permits for Phase 3 in accordance with Traffic Engineering condition TE -
1.
TE -18 Via Princessa shall be extended from Magic/Princessa west to connect to existing
Wiley Canyon Road west of San Fernando Road as a six lane arterial with an
overcrossing at San Fernando Road and the railroad track prior to Issuance of
occupancy permits for Phase 3 in accordance with Traffic Engineering condition TE -
1.
PHASE 11
PHASE X PHASING FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Pk(f).'4I
RIO VISTA RD
Z ,
c�
b
4
� G
A PRINCESSA
O
PREPARED NOVEMBER 22, 1994
9�.
s
\l�G�SSP
Py¢
OC wRD
.. �q "!I?N E`
ol#LR�
4""
��yp4
2 LANES
4 LANES
6 LANES _
FREEWAY -
PHASE 3
The many layers of The Anden Group
The Anden Group and Salvatore
(Sam) Veltri are strange and
wondrous creatures. The first is
21,o
octoppus of a company, and
Mr. Veltri is its very talented
spokesperson. They want to build
what they like to call Porta Bella.
Anden is a large, nationwide
builder. Its practices of seeing,
conquering, building and leaving
are legion. It is for that reason
that it is so difficult to pin down
exactly who Is in charge.
Another reason is that there
have been some 17 filings for
Fictitious Name Statements in Los
Angeles County since 1988 in-
volving Anden. All use the ad-
dress 15260 Ventura Blvd., Sher-
man Oaks. The problem is that
The Anden Group and their co-
horts have not been In that build-
ing for years. At least, that is
what the building manager told
me yesterday when I went there.
Whittaker Corp. made a filing
under the name "Anden Santa
Clarita Partners, etc." at the
15260 Ventura Blvd. address. Al-
though the filing shows on the
microfiche as having been filed as
document number 90-0005200 on
July It, 1990, the hard copy is
missing from the Recorder's file.
Therefore, this paragraphist was
unable to find out who are the
principals in that set of partners.
Please, Mr. Veltri or someone,
please furnish us with a con-
formed copy from your file.
There is a BMC Nonholme
Corp. with a Chicago address
qualified to do business in Cal!-
fomia. However, this paragraphist
was unable to find a Fictitious
Name Statement or a Statement of
Doing Business as a Partnership
for Notthholme Partners in the
county records. Again, Mr. Veltri,
if there is such a filing, please
furnish us with a conformed copy.
DanHon
;TOA DIFFERENT BEAT'
That company uses the address
330 Washington Blvd., 4th Floor,
Marina del Rey, CA 90292. It is
an upscale building near the
ocean. Neither Mr. Veltri nor
Nonhholme Partnershas a name
on the building directory. The
manager directed me to the recep-
tionist on the fourth floor_.
She is ensconced in a nice
lobby answering � phones. I asked
for Mr. Veltri. She looked at her
book, which showed that he was
out to a meeting and would return
later in the afternoon. She assured
me that he had been a tenant in
the building for a couple of years.
He shares the floor with others,
who share the receptionist.
Please, Sam, put your name and
that of your company on the
Building Directory. It would save
a lot of problems!
Mr. Veltri makes no secret that
Northhoime Partners, whomever
they may be, intend to get the
necessary permits to build the
project. They, whoever they are,
will parcel them out to other de-
velopers to do the actual building.
Unlike Newhall Land and Farm-
ing Co. or American Beauty
Homes, the developers of Porta
Bella will not be local. They,
more than likely, will build and
leave.
Anden has a poor record in re-
cent years of paying its small
suppliers. It makes a practice of
stiffing the little guy. Westlaw re-
search shows about 30 Small
Claims Court judgments against
The Anden Group since 1989.
Small suppliers of construction
materials and office supplies got
these judgments. No one knows
that many more didn't bother to
take them to court.
Assuming that Northholme Part
ners is a part of Anden, there is
no reason to believe that their
conduct will differ from that of
their associate.
Scott Bentley pointed a lot of
this out to the City Council at a
meeting held in October. The city
attorney; said it was not the job
of the city or its council to check
the bona fides of developers. He
told them it is up to the bonding
company to do that.
His statement, at best, is naive.
At worst, disingenuous. Bonding
companies pass off big risks to
worldwide financiers such as
Lloyd's of London and others.
They are ofttimes hard to find
when payoff time comes around.
The sophisticated and sometimes
ditty tactics of many of the inter-
national bonding financiers have
left more than one bond holder
sucking air.
Visalia did not check up on
William Courtney, who contracted
with Visalia with the help of
then -City Manager Donald Duck-
worth to build the Visalia Radis-
son Hotel. It cost the city some
$20 million to get out of that
one. "
If our City Council and city
manager don't check up on North-
holme and Anden to protect us,
then why in the, hell did we form
a city in the first place?
Dan Hon is a Newhall probate
and real estate attorney. His col-
umn appears on Thursdays.
RECEIVED AND MADE A
PART 07-^rrORDAT
--41-�?�- MEMO
ITEM N0.
November 22, 1994
GEORGE PEDERSON, MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 VALENCIA BLVD.
SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355
Dear City Council,
1
REC E A
PAR, �, .. _.,JRDAT
MEETING
REM N0.
It is a privilege to join with many other groups and individuals from throughout Santa
Clarita Valley in imploring the City Council to adopt the best possible system of roads to
accommodate any development in the PortaBella area.
These proposals are being made by a consortium of interests including homeowners, small
business owners, organizations including the chambers of commerce, merchant groups and
the industrial association. We assure you the proposals we offer this evening are not
examples of nimbyism or lulus, (locally unwanted land uses), but rather recommendations
that will benefit the greatest number of residents, and allow quality, creative and beneficial
development while safeguarding the community.
Engineering analysis, history of the area, the General Plan and common sense converge on
offering the following recommendations:
FIRST THE PRIMARY ARTERIAL. We propose an East West corridor linking Interstate 5
to State Route 14 be built. This long -agreed upon corridor is best suited to move the
greatest number of vehicles, and will provide much needed additional capacity. It is the
"optimum crossing" of the valley. It should be designed to connect Newhall Ranch Road,
bridge across the Santa Clara River, enter the PortaBella property to the immediate East
of Metrolink and reach SR14, byway of Via Princessa and White's Canyon. Its proximity
to the Metrolink station will accommodate the best access for multi -modal connections at
Metrolink and a maximum interface with both trains and City buses now and into the
future. A sizeable portion of this road already has been dedicated for such usage, and it
has been analyzed for its sufficiency. Portabella can readily be redesigned to accommodate
this major arterial. Dumping PortaBella traffic onto Magic Mountain Parkway will further
exacerbate an already overburdened road especially at the I-5 interchange. Why, in spite
of requests by City Council members has staff not addressed the long Supported East West
road as the principle road accommodating thio proposal?
SECONDLY, We recommend that a bridge crossing San Fernando Road at Princessa to
Wiley Canyon Road be built, as is included in the General Plan. This proposed road/bridge
alignment will add needed capacity and facilitate traffic from PortaBella. It would not
negatively impact either the commercial businesses at Springbrook or Circle J homeowners
with intrusive construction and would safely move residents and commercial traffic in
combination with the major East/West corridor. Why has there been no definitive discussion
of thio alternative in spite of numerous inquirieo and requests?
THIRDLY, we recommend the development of a local, four lane, grade level road at Magic
Mountain Parkway as it enters PortaBella, this alignment was on the original design for the
PortaBella proposal. As a local road, or secondary roadway, it should circle behind and
avoid negatively impacting the Commercial Development at Springbrook: It would
eliminate the unsightly bridge in Circle J and would provide more road capacity in
combination with the E/W Corridor and the Princessa/Wiley connection. It is an alignment
which the vast majority of residents prefer. Why hay staff assiduously avoided Studying this
propcoal even though it hao been requested by Council membero?
FOURTH, we specifically request that an urgent study be made of other roads to comprise
the network of roads which any significant development on the Bermite property will
require. A North/South alignment can begin at the proposed Santa Clarita Parkway,
connect to Princessa and exit to the proposed Golden Valley Road which is already
designated as a major arterial from SR 14.I should not bisect AES, ARCO, MWD and other
"topographically challenging" areas. Why hao there been no search for other north/youth
alignments than the proposal to go through this problematic area?
The citizens and Civic groups before TheCity Council this evening applaud the Council's
decision to require total toxic clean up before allowing development on this property. The
safety and the future of the Santa Clarita Valley are too important to compromise. WE
REQUEST THESE ROADS BE ADOPTED AS THE PRIMARY NETWORK FOR ANY
DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY CALLED PORTABELLA.
CONNIE WORDEN,
PRESIDENT, VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL CENTER
CO-CHAIRMAN, SCV CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
REU A Al
PART .. ;D AT
`f l MEETING
11/22/94 - PLACERITA CANYON
ISSUES: RE PROPOSED SANTA CLARITA PARKWAY OFFSITE ALIGNMENT FOR PORTA BELt
1. Design/alignment not in concert with Placerita Canyon Special Standards
District (City of Santa Clarita Development Code, Section 17.16.080).
2. Visual obstruction/impact of 6 lane road due to size and light of 80
foot high slope in at least one area.
3. Excessive traffic noise in an area designated as rural.
4. Traffic and access issues with regard to connection proposed to a
rural, privately maintained road, i.e. Placerita Canyon Road.
5. Impact of filling and berming Placerita Canyon Creek which .is
within a flood plane (LACO Flood Control District; FEMA issues)
and is also a blue lined stream (State of California Department
of Fish & Game).
6. Obstructs horse trails, both existing and planned.
7. Loss of, additional oak trees, including heritage oaks.
8. Seismic and engineering concerns.
9. Economic and cost concerns re building, compensation to those impacted
whether businesses, property and/or homeowners and who will make those
payments, i.e. the City taxpayers or the Applicant who has an appeal
pending over this very issue.
10. No mitigation measures or conditions suggested with regard to the
offsite section of Santa Clarita Parkway as submitted by staff 10-4-94.
SOLUTION:
AS WAS SUBMITTED TO YOU, AND WHICH YOU REQUESTED BE MODELLED, CONSIDER THE
ALTERNATIVE OF EXTENDING SANTA CLARITA PARKWAY TO THE EAST WHEN IT GOES
OFFSITE SO AS TO CONNECT WITH GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD, WHICH SHOULD ALSO PROVE TO
BE A LESS COSTLY, ENVIRONMENTALLY COMPATIBLE AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE
ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPLICANT, ENGINEERS, AND RESIDENTS OF THE CITY INCLUDING
THOSE WITHIN THE PLACERITA CANYON COMMUNITY. (Note: The map was submitted
to, you by Connie Woyden-Roberts at. your Study Session of 9-14-94).
Chris�pher Townsley
Placerita Canyon Property Owner
, • .•, !=;,.383 0�;, '�\;
0�'1�'�.. /P
"'`� C C �„/,%1/' /// %a � \ '+-.:� !"\_ /ops � '•;n •`
VC
rcl
p' O yC �� �� ':i /� _ails. '::,.:. <'Jr .. .. � {--•.�.���0�•`/�'� i
�...-
i '
Ucr
1
� � ; a o • � , r ., r ,•. . �4 41,0 ;:�1 �l, ,-��-�•1� Ilr`I•r\���
iij
Al
49
nks
�---ice! ��• t \ � �: - �T � �� ��;l�i }13.
1 / •ice i ' X +- � -.• -•- •
.
P 0.
1360-5� '�:-= � �. :' i1 • ;�].. C .�J
w
ow I
7
LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL McENTEE
MICHAEL McENTEE
JENNY CHURCH
November 21, 1994
To: Carl Boyer
City Council of Santa Clarity
444
— �
9595 WILSHIRE BLVD. STE. 900 BEVERLY HILLS, CA.. 90212-2509
PHONE (310) 273.3342 FAX (310) 271-4062 -`
REQ -E A
PARI L. =ORDAT
-� -�7e/ MEETING
REM N0.
Re: Item 1 Porta Bella Specific Plan and Development Agreement, Statement
of Overriding Consideration, proposed E.I.R. and Addendum Sch 92-041041,
Mitigation Monitoring Program, Tentative Tract Map 51599, Specific Plan 91-
001 and Development Agreement 93-003; of Whittaker, Bermite and Porta
Bella,
City Council meeting date: November 22, 1994
Hand delivery
Dear Carl:
As you requested, I am giving you some short answers concerning the cost of
clean up, time, and related issues for the above referenced matters.
I have reviewed the nearly five hundred pages of well boring logs, expert
reports, and maps concerning the Bermite Whittaker site. I enclose Tables 3-
11 TCE Concentration in Soil Gas and Table 3-9, Previous Investigations,
taken from one of the reports I reviewed. I am an engineer and an attorney,
with 17 years experience in environmental issues and litigation,
I will take this in the order of issues raised by you:
1. Q Can we put a ballpark number on the probable overall clean un cost of
the Bermite project remediation?
A. Yes. We can safely estimate a minimum clean up cost of $96,000,000.
A typical rule of thumb is to take the entire site in acres times $100,000/ acre.
1
On the other hand, some sites such as Stringfellow acid pits have smaller
overall acreage but much deeper contaminated soils, and the cost has averaged
over $1,000,000 per acre. The costs include all the expert studies and physical
remediation of the site. Even though some of the Bermite site may be found
to be uncontaminated, other parts of it will be found extremely contaminated.
Again, $100,000 /acre times all the acreage is a good starting point to get a
ball park number. Therefore, the Bermite project with more than 960 acres in
64 groups, will certainly cost a minimum in the range of $96,000,000 for
surface remediation. Now, selecting the most probable cost means applying a
safety factor, and in these cases, a safety factor of 1.5 times $96,000,000
rounds out to $150,000,000.
2. Q Can we make a ballpark estimate as to the time for full remediation of
the site, prior to grading for the 3,000 homesites9
A. Yes. For a complex site, such as Bermite, we can look to the
Stringfellow acid pits for an indication. In Stringfellow, the time is 11 years.
Both Bermite and Stringfellow have a contamination plume into the ground
water.
On the other hand, a minimum estimated time for full remediation
would be seven years if everything goes well the first time through.
3. Q At what point can the Portabella Specific Plan EIR Development
Agreement, and related matter be approved?
A. Certainly not until the full RCRA compliance plan is approved by the
State and Federal EPA's can the EIR draft be deemed complete.
Only after the full detailed set of plans for first phase remediation and
second phase (verification of remediation) are finished can there be adequate
"project description" FOR PURPOSES OF THE draft ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT. Adequate project description is key to an Environmental
Impact Report since project description identifies the scope of the enquiries
that must be made as to environmental impact. For example, remediation or
clean up of the site prior to construction of the project is a major impact on
the environment. The amount of construction, in the form of scraping the
earth, hauling, burning of the earth either on-site or off-site, the hauling of
earth to replace contaminated earth, the drilling, boring, removal of hills, etc.
All of these must be described in detail sufficient to make adequate guantitV
estimates of what work will be done. Consider the impact of 7 years of dust
clouds, noise, hauling, and burning.
Apparently Whittaker experts have testified that the preparation of the
Phase I plans will take a year.
2
Preparation of such test plans would require a large amount of
additional drilling of test wells, and lab work. Only after that work is finished
can there be an intelligent definition of the the scope of the project.
4. Q Ugally, what requires the City Council to know about the clean un
work.
A. At a minimum, the law requires that the EIR include the details of all
the work near the surface which might affect the environment.
Here, the prospect of 7 to 11 years of intensive surface work, hauling of dirt,
a decontamination [soil burning] plant on site, dust, energy consumption, co2
release, smog increase, road obstruction, etc. all are factors to describe in
detail. Otherwise, failure to fully reveal and quantify the whole site
remediation would be failure to comply with the State requirements for an
EIR.
5. Q. Can't Whittaker Bermite just say they will clean it up and give a rough
estimate of time?
A. No, the project description must go into sufficient detail so that
concerned citizens and the city councilpersons can make their own assessment
of just how much impact. that will arise from the remediation. i.e. it makes a
big difference whether 500,000 cubic yards of soil must be burned, taking 3
years, versus a more likely 30,000,000 cubic yards of soil being dug out,
hauled, burned, hauled back and compacted, taking 11 years.
6, Q Are there legal risks to the City separate and apart from certifying the
E.I.R.?
A. Yes, the Stringfellow site is a good example of the risk, not only of
approving the site for residential use, but also the risk of owning any part of
the site. Apparently one third of the site will be dedicated to City ownership
in the next few years. This is legally very harzardous to the City solvency.
Any owner of a site at any point in time can be stuck with the full clean up
cost. The City is the only deep pocket around. I think all property attorneys
experienced with environmental problems would immediately say, no, do not
take title, or dedications, or easements to the property, in any form, until after
all Phase II monitoring work showed complete and final site remediation.
Otherwise the City easily will find itself paying for part of the $150,000,000
or more clean up bill. Whittaker apparently claims to have the money to clean
up the site provided they can develop it in stages. That is a strange statement
3
because it reveals a financial inability to presently pay for clean up.
As an additional point, as a homeowner in Santa Clarita, I suggest that the city
council owes its future city councils to objectively quantify the risk of future
lawsuits from the site against the city; Note that the costs to the government
agency approving a site which later involves toxic liability involves huge
expenses for defense and settlement of the case.
7. Q Can't Bermite/ Whittaker just post a bond to assure clean up?
A. No, for several reasons.
We cannot at this time even tell how much work is needed. Suppose it
is $200,000,000?
But the easier answer is, never trust a bond involving millions of
dollars. The hard experience of many agencies has shown failure of these
bonding companies when called on to pay, simply cannot pay. The County of
Los Angeles Parks department has experienced such problems, for example
with the Kenneth Hahn County Park.
As an alternative, I think it might do to have Whittaker put up
$150,000,000 in cash at the time of certifying the EIR. The money should go
into a trust account supervised by a major engineering outfit like Dames and
Moore, or Bechtel, as a condition to even certifying the EIR, when it is ready
to certify, about 1 year or 18 months from now.
8. Q But, the $96,000,000 to $150,000,000 exceeds the $80,000,000 value
of the property?
A. Right, and this is often the problem with these toxic sites. The duty
and expense to Whittaker to clean up the site is absolute and unavoidable.
I would challenge the suggestion that the site is worth $80,000,000 or
worth anything at all. Not until it passes all Phase II and the aquifer
remediation is an unqualified success would any lender finance construction of
any homes on the site,: And who would want to live on a site which was toxic
at one time. The only persons who would gravitate to such a site would be
those receiving subsidized government low income housing. I think that effect
has to be fully explored in detail in the proposed EIR since it affects the
alternative uses of the site as open space.
4
9. 0. Isn't the "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility
Investigation Work Plan" dated May 3 1994 sufficient?
A. To begin with, the data on which that plan is based appears to raise
serious doubts its credibility and reliablity. Look at Table 3-11, a copy of
which I attach. Notice that the readings taken from some sample wells are
very high up until the month Bermite undertook to try to sell the property,
December. 1990. All of a sudden very high readings drop to near zero This
is a sure sign that data taking is corrupted Nature just does not change that
fast. Even if the selected sampling on which the work plan is based might
have some validity, it was done at a time when Whittaker Bermite was
claiming that only 14 isolated sites on the acreage were contaminated. Only
after a search warrant was served by Cal EPA and threat of criminal
prosecution did Whittaker Bermite finally admit in mid-1994 that there were at
least 64 sites on the acreage which were contaminated, in addition to ground
water contamination of the aquifer deep under the property. Table 3-9, a copy
of which is attached, likewise shows an effort to simply narrow the scope of
the work, by treating little portions of the site as if each were completely
isolated from others. Even the May, 1994 work plan only selects a few sites
to work on, and plans on doing further studies to locate additional sites of
contamination. Thus, the work plan is simply not a complete and final site
analysis.
10. 0. Isn't the city always immune from suits?
A. Not where the City becomes landowner of the dedicated streets and open
space. The duty of the City to pay for clean up is imposed by federal law and
state law, and is separate and apart from anybody getting hurt on the property.
There is no immunity for a citv from waste site clean up costs for property
owned or Purchased by the city. In addition, there is the liability of the City
for approving a site which later causes trouble. That is the meaning of the
Stringfellow case, wherein the State, which approved the site, ended up paying
13.5 million to dispose of its proportionate liablity for approving the site.
11. Summary:
The request to certify the EIR is a year to 18 months premature
because the EIR document must include the fulldetailedplans for Phase I and
Phase II site remediation. What is included now is simply not complete.
The costs will be at a minimum, for site remediation, $96,000,000 and
very likely $150,000,000.
The time will be in the range of 7 to 11 years, just like the Stringfellow
project.
The City must not accept dedications, or in any way take a possessory
or title interest in the project until Phase II is fully completed.
5
If called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the
foregoing statements. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
November 21, 1994, at Beverly Hills, California.
Michael McEntee
0
TABLE 3-11
ICE CONCENTRATION IN SOIL GAS
PROBE P1-20 P1-40 P1-60 P1-80 PI -100 P1-120 P2-20 P2-40 P2-60
ELEVATION 1443 1423 1 1403 1383 1363 1343 1442 1422 1402
MARCH 22, 1989 200 400 5,000 200 150 0 2,700 3,900 11,900
MARCH 29, 1989 400 700 7,500 1,100 800 80 1,500 6,500 8,000
APRIL 6, 1989 500 1,000 7,000 800 800 20 1,500 4,000 4,000
APRIL 13, 1989 1,200 2,000 8,000 1,200 900 600 4,800 7,500 9,000
APRIL 20, 1989 1,200 2,600 11,000 1,200 1,000 70 3,200 8,000 8,000
MAY 3 1989
MAY 5 1989
MAY 22 1989
JUNE 14, 1989 1,800 4,000 10,000 1,600 800 150 4,000 8,000 7,000
JUNE 21 1989 2,500 7,500 10,000 3,000 1,400 250 6,000 9,000 8,500
JUNE 28, 1989 900 2,000 16,000 1,100 750 450 2,500 3,000 2,500
JULY 5, 1989 2,200 4,000 10,000 2,500 1,200 400 4,500 6,000 3,500
JULY 19, 1989 250 500 1,500 2,700 1,500 400 8,000 12,000 9,000
AUGUST 4, 1989 200 400 1,200 2,500 1,200 300 5,000 9,000 8,000
AUGUST 10, 1989 220 300 1,000 2,200 1,100 250 4,000 7,500 7,000
AUGUST 17, 1989 2,000 4,000 10,000 1,800 1,000 350 4,500 6,000 7,000
AUGUST 24,1989 2,200 4,000 9,000 1,600 900 300 4,000 6,500 7,000
AUGUST 31 1989 2,000 3,800 10,000 1,900 1,000 270 4,200 6,200 10,000
SEPTEMBER 8, 1989 1,700 4,000 9,000 1,500 900 300 9,000 11,000 12,000
SEPTEMBER 15-1989 1,500 3,500 9,000 1,400 1,000 450 9,000 10,000 9,000
SEPTEMBER , 1 9 1 1 900 350 10,000 9,000
60
FE RDECEMBER 8OCTOBER 9 9199 1,400 D3,50O0000 .1,000 700 2050 50 9,000 9,000 73 195 ,000
UARY -2t,
40 3
MARCH 8, 1991 0 0 130 0 0 20 0 200 60
MARCH 22, 1991 0 0 120 0 0 35 4 250 250
APRIL 8 1991 6 0 35 0 0 10 0 100 15
APRIL 25, 1991 0 0 7 0 0 10 0 120 30
MAY 10, 1991 0 0 10 0 0 35 0 160 30
MAY 30, 1991 4 2 6 0 0 20 10 90 55
JUNE 10, 1991 0 0 10 0 0 6 0 100 19
AUGUST 1 1991 0 0 3 0 0 9 3 90 100
AUGUST 15, 1991 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 40 3
AUGUST 29, 1991 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0
SEPTEMBER 12, 1991 0 0 110 4 6 0 0 60 12
SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 20 0
OCTOBER 24, 1991 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 30 4
MARCH 18 1992 9 12 80 25 20 45 7 80 22
AUGUST 26, 1992 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 40 2
OCTOBER 15, 1992 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 25 4
NOVEMBER 4, 1992 0 0 80 0 0 15 0 15 0
DECEMBER 3, 1992 3 1 20 0 0 18 0 15 14
MARCH 9, 1993 0 0 70 12 3 40 1 45 6
JUNE 15, 1993 1 0 8 15 4 25 0 35 15
DECEMBER 14, 1993 2 2 45 9 2 40 7 40 16
MARCH 31, 1994 2 0 25 4 1 3 0 25 6
READINGS ARE IN PPM
TABLE 3-11 (continued)
PROBE
P2-80
P2-100
P2-120
P3-20
P3-40
P3-60
P3-80
P3 -100P3-120
ELEVATION
1382
1362
1342
1442
1422
1402
1382
1362
1342
MARCH 22, 1989
3,400
55
350
300
200
600
350
50
MARCH 29, 1989
5,500
230
400
900
850
700
230
210
APRIL 6,1989
2,500
100
200
500
1,000
900
200
250
220
APRIL 13, 1989
5,000
700
250
1,000
2,000
1,500
850
240
170
APRIL 20,1989
4,000
50
190
1,000
2,500
2,000
1,000
320
200
MAY 3, 1989
MAY 5, 1989
MAY 22, 1989
JUNE 14, 1989
3,500
800
200
2,500
4,000
4,000
1,500
400
250
JUNE 21, 1989
4,500
900
400
2,600
4,000
3,500
1,700
400
250
JUNE 28, 1989
1,500
400
100
2,900
5,000
4,500
1,500
400
100
JULY 5, 1989
2,000
500
150
2,500
4,400
3,500
1,500
320
150
JULY 19, 1989
4,000
1,500
350
4,000
6,000
6,000
2,000
500
400
AUGUST 4,1989
4,000
1,100
200
3,000
4,500
5,000
1,800
300
250
AUGUST 10 1989
3,500
900
200
2,500
4,000
3,500
1,500
270
250
AUGUST 17, 1989
3,000
1,000
200
2,500
4,000
3,500
1,700
450
250
AUGUST 24 1989
2,800
900
200
2,000
4,000
4,000
1,500
1,000
220
AUGUST 31, 1989
2,500
750
170
6,000
5,000
4,500
1,500
900
200
SEPTEMBER 8, 1989
5,000
1,600
200
4,000
6,000
6,000
2,500
650
100
SEPTEMBER 15, 1989
5,000
1,500
400
5,000
6,500
6,000
2,200
800
200
SEPTEMBER 27, 1989
4,500
1,400
400
4,500
6,000
7,000
2,000
700
250
OCTOBER 9, 1989
3,500
1,000
250
4,200
5,000
6,000
2,100
500
190
DECEMBER 18, 1990
16
.35
6
0
4
600
15
17
16
FEBRUARY 20, 1991
0
3
0
0
0
45
0
2
0
MARCH 8; 1991
24
24
0
0
0
600
9
15
5
MARCH 22, 1991
110
25
15
0
3
500
35
10
15
APRIL. 8, 1991
30
0
0
0
0
80
0
6
0
APRIL 25, 1991
18
10
2
0
0
200
10
6
0
MAY 10, 1991
30
11
25
0
0
100
0
6
12
MAY 30, 1991
70
9
20
0
0
400
14
8
10
JUNE 10, 1991
18
10
0
0
0
200
7
5
0
AUGUST 1, 1991
70
12
3
0
0
110
3
3
0
AUGUST 15 1991
3
5
0
0
0
40
1
4
0
AUGUST 29, 1991
0
4
0
0
0
23
0
2
0
SEPTEMBER 12 1991
12
8
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
SEPTEMBER 26, 1991
0
2
0
0
0
30
0
2
0
OCTOBER 24, 1991
3
6
0
0
0
50
3
4
0
MARCH 18 1992
38
30
1
l
1
180
50
25
0
AUGUST 26, 1992
0
7
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
OCTOBER 15, 1992
0
7
0
0
0
15
0
4
0
NOVEMBER 4, 1992
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
DECEMBER 3 1992
9
4
24
5
3
30
6
7
9
MARCH 9, 1993
2
15
2
1
4
80
18
30
14
JUNE 15, 1993
5
0
10
4
5
60
20
0
4
DECEMBER 14, 1993
70
16
9
8
120
80
18
14
MARCH 31, 1994
3
0
0
4
3
50
20
2
0
READINGS ARE IN PPM
TABLE 3-11 (continued)
1989
1989
89
989
MAY 3, 1989
700
15
50
110
MAY 5 1989
25
160
MAY 22, 1989
50
JUNE 14, 1989
5,000
35
800
250
160
450
100
JUNE 21, 1989
4,500
150
1,000
300
200
450
140
JUNE 28, 1989
6,000
80
450
240
200
400
140
JULY 5, 1989
5,000
120
600
250
200
500
150
JULY 19, 1989
4,500
150
400
300
250
450
200
AUGUST 4, 1989
500
180
350
200
250
600
180
AUGUST 10, 1989
7,000
180
300
150
200
600
150
AUGUST 17, 1989
6,000
120
400
1,000
250
400
350
AUGUST 24, 1989
6,500
150
400
1,000
400
500
300
AUGUST 31, 1989
6,000
220
300
900
300
450
250
SEPTEMBER 8; 1989
6,000
400
500
1,000
250
430
200
SEPTEMBER 15, 1989
9,000
200
400
1,200
300
500
400
SEPTEMBER 27, 1989
9,000
350
450
900
210
400
300
OCTOBER 9, 1989
5,000
350
350
500
200
320
200
DECEMBER 18, 1990
2
2
9
0
4
0
FEBRUARY 20, 1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MARCH 8, 1991
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
MARCH 22, 1991
5
25
40
15
0
0
0
APRIL 8, 1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
APRIL 25, 1991
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
MAY 10, 1991
3
40
0
0
0
0
0
MAY 30, 1991
0
35
3
0
0
0
0
JUNE 10, 1991
2
8
2
5
0
0
0
AUGUST 1, 1991
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
AUGUST 15 1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AUGUST 29 1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SEPTEMBER 12, 1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SEPTEMBER 26, 1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OCTOBER 24 1991
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MARCH 18 1992
28
35
40
30
0
1
1
AUGUST 26, 1992
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
OCTOBER 15, 1992
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
NOVEMBER 4, 1992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DECEMBER 3, 1992
20
40
9
5
0
0
0
MARCH 9, 1993
1
10
6
5
0
0
0
JUNE 15, 1993
28
26
0
5
0
0
0
DECEMBER 14, 1993
30
35
16
16
0
0
0
MARCH 31, 1994
9
3
3
6
0
0
0
READINGS ARE IN PPM
TABLE 3-9 (continued)
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
RCRA Ground Water Quality Monitoring Report, 342 Surface Impoundment Hazardous Waste
Management Unit - March 1992, AMV, May 27, 1992.
Assessment of the Soil Vapor Monitoring and Extraction System at the Former 317 Surface
Impoundment Hazardous waste Management Unit, AMV, July 22, 1992.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Quarterly Report, April through June 1992,
AMV, July 27, 1992.
Area 317 RCRA Quarterly Ground Water Quality Monitoring Report No. 16, AMV, July
through September 1992.
Water Quality Monitoring and Response Plan for the Interim Status Area 317 Surface
Impoundment, AMV, October 1992.
Preliminary Endangerment Assessment, Whittaker Corporation, Bermite Division 10.30 -Acre
Santa Clarita Commuter Rail Station Site, AMV, October 9, 1992.
RCRA Ground Water Quality Monitoring Report, 342 Surface Impoundment Hazardous Waste
Management Unit, July September 1992, AMV, October 16, 1992.
Area 317 RCRA Quarterly Ground Water Quality Monitoring Report No. 17, AMV, October
through December 1992.
RCRA Ground Water Quality Monitoring Report, 342 Surface Impoundment Hazardous Waste
Management Unit, October - December 1992, AMV, January 14, 1993.
Area 317 Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring Report No. 18, AMV, January through March
1993.
Whittaker-Bermite, Excavation, Sampling and Disposal of Materials From the Miscellaneous
Bum Area Solid Waste Management Unit, AMV, February 16, 1993.
RCRA Ground Water Quality Monitoring Report, 342 Surface Impoundment Hazardous Waste
Management Unit, January - March 1992, AMV, April 9, 1993.
Certification of Clean Closure for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hazardous Waste
Management Unit: Former Area 342 Surface Impoundment, Whittaker Corporation, Bermite
Division, 22116 West Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, California, EPA
No. CAD064573108, AMV, April 23, 1993.
Area 317 RCRA Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring Report No. 19, AMV, April through June
1993.
TABLE 3-9 (continued)
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Proposal for Abandonment of Ground Water Monitoring Wells MW -2, MW -7, MW -8, and
MW -9 at the 342 Surface Impoundment Area, Whittaker Corporation, Bermite Division, 22116
West Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, California, AMV, June 22, 1993.
Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Bermite Property, Saugus Area, City of Santa Clarita, County
of Los Angeles, California.
Site Ground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan, Appendix IV of 40 CFR 264, WAL
Site Assessment Bermite Property, Burn Pit Area, International Technology Corporation.
Specific Plan for a Ground Water Quality Assessment Program for the 317 Surface
Impoundment Area, WAL