Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - PORTA BELLA STAKEHOLDER MTG (2)UNFINISHED BUSINESS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: LJiIl Fosselman DATE: July 10, 2001 SUBJECT: PORTA BELLA COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS MEETING AND COMMUNITY FEEDBACK DEPARTMENT: City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council to receive presentation on the input from the community regarding the Porta Bella site and on the outcomes of the Porta Bella Community Stakeholders Meeting on June 2, 2001. City Council to direct staff to: 1) Prepare a statement for the City Council to issue that groundwater and soil cleanup are the top community priorities regarding the site, 2) Form a community taskforce on groundwater and soil cleanup, 3) Hold another community meeting regarding the project and cleanup of the site (purpose is education, feedback, involvement), 4) Create methods to provide regular updates and accurate information to the public, 5) Aid in the discussions, where appropriate and invited by both parties, between the Porta Bella property owners and the water community in developing groundwater cleanup strategies and timelines, and 6) Send a summary of the activities and outcomes of the June 2 community meeting to the participants. BACKGROUND Meeting Preparation On April 24, 200lCity Council directed staff to hold a community stakeholders meeting and report back to the Council in 60 days on the outcomes of the meeting. Specifically, staff was directed to play a facilitative role between the stakeholders, and that staff would not discuss amendments to the development agreement with Santa Clarita, LLC. Ken Pulskamp and Jill Fosselman were selected as the meeting facilitators, and their objective was to bring all of the divergent perspectives together and identify any areas of commonality from which to build as a community. The date of June 2"d at the Santa Clarita Sports Complex was selected for the community meeting. The intended outcome of the meeting was to facilitate a dialogue among all of the stakeholders and the community on the issues, identify areas of commonality (if poss' le) APPROVED 1,314) 5 �� Agenda Item :ate Porta Bella Community Stakeholders Meeting Page 2 and determine potential next steps. In preparation, the facilitators met with the major stakeholders to review and solicit input on the draft agenda and proposed process. These "major" stakeholders included Santa Clarita LLC, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), CLWA, Newhall County Water Company, Valencia Water Company, Citizens' Advisory Group (CAG), William S. Hart School District, Newhall School District, Saugus School District, City staff and City Councilmembers. (Please see Attachment A for the preparation activities and meeting process.) Santa Clarita LLC and CLWA, on the behalf of the water community, are currently in litigation regarding the financial responsibility for groundwater cleanup. Prior to the meeting on June 2, there was significant concern that the parties involved would not be able to participate in the discussion due to the litigation. Through Council leadership, the City convened a series of meetings on Friday, June 1, to share information, break down barriers of communication, and encourage dialogue (both privately and at the stakeholders meeting the following day). These meetings led to the active participation by all parties during the breakout sessions. Areas of Commonality Identified Many issues were discussed throughout the day in small breakout sessions including best and worst case scenarios, barriers to achieving success, and strategies to address the barriers. At the close of the meeting, the participants convened to the full group to discuss and determine if there were any areas of commonality to which a majority of the participants could agree. The following chart depicts the 12 issues and statements to which a majority of the participants agreed: Porta Bella Community Stakeholders Meeting Areas of Commonality • Responsible parties should clean to DTSC standards • RFI is to develop a financing plan to clean the site subject to community review and approval • Restore the (potable) capacity of the lost wells • (Someone) is to develop a realistic and expeditious timeline • Continue the community process, build and restore trust • The community is impacted by the contamination (we're all affected by it), so the community needs to stay on top of it • Santa Clarita LLC and Whittaker should pursue the insurance policies • Water and soil should be cleaned together in concert and this cleanup is the number one priority • Consider the full spectrum of solutions • Roads are generally needed, but there is no agreement as to the specific roads or their placement • More open exchange of accurate information is needed and desired • The worst case scenario needs to be avoided Porta Bella Community Stakeholders Meeting Page 3 Meeting Outcomes and Suggested Next Steps The meeting on June 2 should not be viewed as the final step in the process given the amount of dialogue and interest expressed for more information and community involvement. Based on the discussion at the meeting and the areas of commonality identified, three significant outcomes surfaced: 1) the community process should be continued and expanded, 2) the water and soil contamination must be cleaned as soon as possible, and 3) the community's role in the site should be established as the "watch guard." Community Process. All of the breakout groups, in their discussions of barriers and strategies to address barriers, found that communication among the stakeholders and the community needs to be continued, and that we should continue the process to build trust and strengthen the sense of community. Fundamental to the issue of communication was trust in the quality and accuracy of information released regarding the project and site. Concern was expressed regarding the impact of multi -agency bureaucracy on the ability to have successful and timely communication. Public opinion regarding the project, the ability to successfully clean the site, and public perception regarding the beneficial uses of the site after it has been cleaned can be addressed through a continued community process. Further, it was expressed that the "community process" should expand beyond the scope of the CAG to include a more diverse representation of the community regarding information exchange, project input, and cooperative efforts between the property owner and DTSC. Groundwater and soil cleanup. The participants expressed a strong desire to heighten efforts to begin the cleanup of the contaminated groundwater and soil as soon as possible. Significant concern was expressed regarding the affect of the contamination on the Valley's water supply and the ability to ensure adequate supply during draught. Many concerns were expressed regarding the potential damages due to delaying the cleanup, which included further contamination of more groundwater, injury to children from exploding ordnance, and unknown health impacts due to contaminant exposure. Participants discussed and recognized the relationship between cleaning the soil and cleaning the water, and that the contamination of the groundwater would likely continue until the soil contamination was removed. Cleanup of the site was identified as critical to our future quality of life, and that the community desired the site fully clean. Community oversight. A majority of the participants expressed that the contamination of the groundwater and 1,000 acres in the heart of the city was a significant community concern that necessitates community involvement. Participants expressed a desire to serve as a "watch dog" to ensure that cleanup of the contamination is achieved through a process and timeline that is acceptable to the community. In addition, it was suggested that community oversight of the process would help to address many barriers. Suggestions for methods of community oversight included: develop focus/subcommittees that are issue driven, develop and distribute jointly -prepared information (releases, DTSC fact sheets, website), expanded involvement of knowledgeable and concerned people and groups, and work to establish trust between stakeholders and the community (through meeting, talking and exchanging information). An expanded community input and oversight process, in which an accurate exchange of information is the foundation of the process, is desired to achieve the commonly agreed to Porta Bella Community Stakeholders Meeting Page 4 value of immediate groundwater and soil cleanup. Based on the areas of commonality identified and the outcomes at the community stakeholder meeting, the following are suggested for City Council consideration and direction: ➢ Immediate clean up of the groundwater and soil contamination are the number one priorities to the community; therefore, the City should work with the community and stakeholders to develop mutually acceptable strategies to accomplish the cleanup. ➢ The City should facilitate fostering a sense of trust between the community and the stakeholders through achieving trust in the information exchanged and process. ➢ The City should play a facilitative role in fostering and expanding the community process, continuing dialogue between the community and all of the stakeholders, and helping to ensure a truthful and timely exchange of information. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Other action as determined by Council. FISCAL IMPACT Should the City Council approve the recommendation for further action, additional funding will be necessary to support these activities. Upon approval of next step actions, staff will return in a subsequent meeting with fiscal estimates for Council review and approval. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: June 2, 2001 Meeting Preparation and Activities Attachment B: June 2, 2001 Panel Discussion Community Questions -- Asked and Not Asked Questions Attachment C: June 2, 2001 Meeting Flipcharts and Notes — City Clerk reading file S: \PBS \ FOSSELMAN \Porta Bella \CC AR update.doc Attachment A Porta Bella Community Stakeholders Meeting June 2, 2001 Meeting Preparation and Activities Meeting Preparation On April 24, 200lCity Council directed staff to hold a community stakeholders meeting and report back to the Council in 60 days on the outcomes of the meeting. Specifically, staff was directed to play a facilitative role between the stakeholders, and that staff would not discuss amendments to the development agreement with Santa Clarita, LLC. Ken Pulskamp and Jill Fosselman were selected as the meeting facilitators, and did not represent any position or interest. Instead, they sought to bring all of the divergent perspectives together and identify any areas of commonality from which to build as a community. The date of June 2nd at the Santa Clarita Sports Complex was selected for the community meeting. Upon drafting a preliminary agenda and process for the stakeholder meeting, the facilitators met with representatives from the "major" stakeholders to review the draft process and seek input. The "major" stakeholder with which the facilitators met included the following: Santa Clarita LLC, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), CLWA, Newhall County Water Company, Valencia Water Company, Citizens' Advisory Group (CAG), William S. Hart School District, Newhall School District, Saugus School District, City staff and City Councilmembers. Upon the conclusion of these meetings, the agenda for the meeting was finalized. The purpose of the meeting was to facilitate a dialogue of the community's views on the opportunities and concerns regarding the Porta Bella project. The facilitators sought to create this dialogue through a panel discussion with the major stakeholders, examination of best and worst case scenarios for the property, development of desired realistic scenarios, development of definitions of success for the property/area, identification of the barriers to achieving success and development of strategies to address the barriers. The intended outcome was to facilitate a dialogue between all of the stakeholders and the community on the issues, identify areas of commonality (if possible), and determine potential next steps. The event was publicized through newspaper advertisements and postings on the City's web page, as well as mailing invitations to over 1,500 interested persons and Valley leaders. An educational packet (composed of materials submitted by the majority of the major stakeholders) was sent to everyone that reserved their attendance in advance. Over 30 of these packets were mailed out prior to the meeting, and additional copies were made available as handouts at the meeting that was held on June 2, 2001. Approximately 80 concerned citizens attended the meeting at the Santa Clarita Sports Complex, including major stakeholders, residents, and local businesses. Santa Clarita LLC and CLWA on the behalf of the water community (including Valencia Water Company, Santa Clarita Water Company, and Newhall County Water District) are currently in litigation regarding the financial responsibility for groundwater cleanup. Prior to the meeting on June 2, there was significant concern that the parties involved would not be able to participate in the discussion due to the litigation. Because of Council leadership, the City Attachment A, Meeting Preparation and Activities Page 2 convened a series of meetings on Friday, June 1, to share information, break down barriers of communication, and encourage dialogue (both privately and at the stakeholders meeting the following day). These meetings led to the active participation by all parties during the breakout sessions. June 2, 2001 Stakeholder Meeting Activities and Discussion The stakeholders meeting began with a facilitated panel discussion in the morning, in which one representative form each of the major stakeholders provided opening remarks, responded to questions from the meeting participants, and offered brief closing remarks. Meeting participants were asked to write their comments/questions on note cards that were then given to the facilitators who posed the questions to the panel. More questions were asked than time permitted for them to be answered during the panel discussion. (Attachment C includes all of the questions that were raised, which are organized according to whether they were or not they were posed to the panel.) During the discussion, a number of critical issues were raised in the opening remarks made by the panelists and through the question and answer session. At the close of the panel, the facilitators reviewed all of the major points that were raised during the discussion and asked the group to prioritize and cluster (where appropriate) the issues that would be used to structure the discussion in the breakout sessions. Following are the prioritization/clustering of issues by the group: • Cleanup up of contamination (groundwater, soil, who pays for the cleanup, moving or stationary contamination) • Legal options and financial viability (public safety concerns, what happens if the contamination is not cleaned, insurance) • Phasing (order of the Operable Units, wisdom of DS -12, as relates to expeditious cleanup, timing) • Land use (roads, open space) • Quality of Life (schools, economic viability, safety, perception of safety) The group found that although there were many critical issues surrounding the site, all of them seemed to fit within these five central categories. As the participants moved into their four breakout groups, these issues became the foundation of the discussion regarding best and worst case scenarios and desired realistic scenarios. At the conclusion of the first breakout session, representatives from each group reported their activities to the entire group. Highlights of the scenario breakout reports on scenarios include: 1. Worst Case Scenarios: Groundwater and soil contamination is ignored, explosions occur, the plume expands in the groundwater contaminating all of the Saugus aquifer, and the taxpayers will be forced to pay for the cleanup; death and/or injury to children; City bankruptcy (City sued and accepts responsibility) due to cleanup costs and liability for toxicological effects from the contamination; cleanup takes many years (over 30) and extends the Valley's "draught" conditions due to diminished supply 2. Best Case Scenarios: Responsible parties (not taxpayers) collectively clean the contamination, and cleanup is quick and thorough; the site becomes the "jewel" of the City and a "destination" for resort -style living; concentrations of the contaminates don't increase or expand; infrastructure keeps with pace of development; community made whole with restoration of groundwater supply; balanced land use that meets the community's needs; Attachment A, Meeting Preparation and Activities Page 3 quality of life and property values increased with lots of parks, adequate schools and open space; linking of Magic-Princessa occurs; reexamination of specific plan to decrease the number of housing units in favor of creating a central business district in the heart of the City; the developer cleans the water and soil to DTSC standards; the four contaminated Saugus wells are restored to operational status immediately (intermediate step while total cleanup takes place) 3. Desired Realistic Scenarios: The groundwater and soil will be cleaned (done safely or not at all) and developed, over a long period of time, with some taxpayer assistance; the worst areas of contamination (OU 2 and OU 1E) targeted for immediate cleanup with completion targeted within one to five years; additional funding from RFI should be sought for cleanup, coupled with community support through redevelopment; the development agreement between the City and RFI/Santa Clarita LLC is enforced; phased development is allowed; a public/private partnership is needed to resolve issues During the second breakout session, participants were asked to identify the barriers to success for the desired realistic scenarios, as well as develop potential strategies to address these barriers. At the close of this session, the full group was convened again and reports were made to the full group from each of the breakout groups regarding their activity and findings. Highlights of the barriers identified and the strategies to address the barriers included: Lack of Available Necessary Funding for Cleanup ➢ Seek federal funding ➢ Pursue insurance company funding/participation ➢ Evaluate phasing ➢ Insurance of prior owners ➢ Government funding ➢ Private investment ➢ Former property owners ➢ Acceptable level of taxpayer funding Groundwater and Soil Cleanup — Completion of DTSC Characterization, Unknowns and Unproven Technology ➢ Develop mutual trust — Porta Bella not walking away ➢ Enforcement of agreement ➢ Pursue insurance company funding/participation ➢ Develop technology for treatment and investigation ➢ Have a competent technical team tied to the project ➢ Implementation of technical experts' recommendations ➢ Look for water from other sources ➢ Set ultimate timeframe to complete characterization ➢ Host international seminar in search of new technologies ➢ Conduct overall study of what has been done elsewhere Time (Time restraints on the ability to develop from the time needed to characterize, secure funding and clean, and time needed for the process of community review and City re -review) ➢ Look at historical investors for opportunity Attachment A, Meeting Preparation and Activities Page 4 ➢ Reevaluate the project to explore use and feasibility of phasing and tax increment financing to regain interest of investors and others ➢ Complete full characterization of site and reassess approach to operable units ➢ Find other alternatives for funding to mitigate time as a barrier • Technical Issues (geology, chemicals) ➢ Developing technology for treatment and investigation ➢ Have a competent technical team tied to the project ➢ Implementation of technical experts' recommendations Communication (relationships and trust) ➢ Public workshops ➢ Newsletters, fact sheets, tours ➢ An educational program ➢ Expand CAG for broader representation ➢ A commitment to address the groundwater issue ➢ A community plan for the project Many issues were discussed throughout the day in small breakout sessions including best and worst case scenarios, barriers to achieving success, and strategies to address the barriers. At the close of the meeting, the participants convened to the full group to discuss and determine if there were any areas of commonality to which a majority of the participants could agree. To determine agreement, the facilitators offered a statement on which they believed they had heard commonality throughout the day, and then the full group discussed, reworded, and/or rejected the statement as one to which the majority of the group commonly agreed. The areas of agreement suggest potential next steps and desired outcomes. • Responsible parties should clean to DTSC standards • RFI is to develop a financing plan to clean the site subject to community review and approval • Restore the (potable) capacity of the lost wells • (Someone) is to develop a realistic and expeditious timeline • Continue the community process, build and restore trust • The community is impacted by the contamination (we're all affected by it), so the community needs to stay on top of it • Santa Clarita LLC and Whittaker should pursue the insurance policies • Water and soil should be cleaned together in concert and this cleanup is the number one priority • Consider the full spectrum of solutions • Roads are generally needed, but there is no agreement as to the specific roads or their placement • More open exchange of accurate information is needed and desired • The worst case scenario needs to be avoided S:\PBS\FOSSELMAN\PB\Attachment A.doc Attachment B Porta Bella Community Stakeholders Meeting June 2, 2001 Panel Discussion Community Questions Questions Asked 1. Whoever: The 4 capped wells are off -property. What proof exists contamination came from Whitaker Bermite? If there is no proof, who will clean off site wells? 2. National Technical Systems is next to Porta Bella. Marguardt Aircraft Corporation operated an engine or fuel -testing lab on this property. Will this property be treated for ground water contamination? 3. Why did SC, LLC buy Porta Bella knowing about DS -12? Did anyone from the City tell SC, LLC, before it bought Porta Bella that the City would change DS - 12? If so, who? 4. Has RFI done these kinds of projects before? 5. We recently learned that the Metrolink site is contaminated by perchlorates and VOC's. Why would the City want to own a contaminated site? 6. To the City Manager: Has the City staff arrived at a recommendation on phase development? If so, what is it and why do you recommend it? 7. To Alan Berg: If Santa Clarita LLC has sufficient assets and insurance resources to clean up the site under condition DS -12 of the existing development agreement, why should the City risk the health and safety of families and children there by permitting phased development? 8. Why isn't SC LLC negotiating with Whitaker Bermite to clean up the environmental mess they were responsible for creating? Bermite should be responsible for some phase of clean-up. 9. How did Whitaker get out of the responsibility for the cleanup? My understanding of the law is that the company that was responsible for the environmental damage would be held accountable for the cleanup. 10. Does SC, LLC have the $44 million today to do the clean up? If not, where will SC, LLC get the money? When? How much does SC, LLC have today to do the cleanup? 11. RFI: Exactl what steps do you need to take to resolve financial stability of RFI? 12. When will LLC share budget with community? When will LLC share its work schedule with community? Attachment B, Panel Questions Page 2 13. RFI: What does investor need to provide additional money? 14. Mr. Berg indicated that the project needed to be "phased" in order to "cleaned." Why is this true and how can community independently, verify this assumption. 15. Dr. Miller:What is the logical sequence re: phased clean up and groundwater? 16. How safe is insurance, a policy can be dropped at any time? 17. Water needs to be cleaned up but doesn't every square foot of the property? 18. Bermite Property: Why isn't Federal Government involved in clean up of Bermite? They were the receiver of munitions made there. 19. What processes are available to clean water of perchlorate? How does the Puente process work — How does the Sacramento process work. Extraction and cleaning? 20. Is there a consensus that the site can be cleaned to an acceptable level? What is the proof or guarantee that this can be done? 21. Since this project is full approved, how can any aspect of it be changed at this junction? Therefore, why are we here? 22. Liability and insurance are key issues. How can we have a full exchange of information if the people who have the important info are not here or will not speak? 23. RFI: Exactly when will all of the insurance papers be provided? 24. What in the opinion of each panelist would get the toxics on the site cleaned up most rapidly? Would it be phased development and cleanup, or the present "all or nothing" restriction? 25. For Alan Berg: What does insurance policy cover, what is deductible, who guarantees deductible money availability, what is term of policy? 26. RFI: You said RFI has $74,000,000 of insurance A. What is the deductible B. Who covers the deductible C. What is the financial integrity of the answer to "b" Questions Not Asked 1. How fast is perchlorate growing? 2. Since Golden Valley Road, and the Metrolink Station have been authorized or built, hasn't it the "no building in places" condition already been rendered most and without affect? Attachment B, Panel Questions Page 3 3. Question for RFI/SC LLC: You have stated that the cost of the perchlorate cleanup will be more expensive than buying water from MWD. If you are out of money for cleanup, how do you hope to accomplish this water cleanup? 4. What is the opinion of each panelist as to what would be the fastest approach, administratively, to get the toxics cleaned up? Is it better to wait, or go forward now? 5. Question for RFI/SC LLC At your May 23, 2001 luncheon at the Hyatt, we were informed that you have used up all money available for cleanup costs. You have identified investors waiting for City council to approve phasing and either mello-roos or a redevelopment district for any cleanup to continue. Since a redevelopment district is illegal (per our City Attorney) and mello-roos has no upper limit restrictions, why should phasing even be discussed until more money is identified? 6. Why is RFI responsible for cleaning up what is essentially a new contaminate? And required to clean up with unproven technology? 7. Would the environmental clean up process and schedule be the same if DTSC worked with Whittaker instead of SC LLC? 8. Dr. Miller: You explained the investigation process — going down 10' and maybe more. When the site is graded for development and the new levels that were more than 10' deep are exposed — are they tested? 9. Bill Cooper: Please briefly explain "drought protection" versus the amount of water needed to serve the Santa Clarita Valley. 10. How much of the $60 million has been spent in SCV to SCV businesses? 11. At the last City study session it was indicated that the possible source(s) of the perchlorate were near discovery. Have those sources been verified yet. 12. To Alan Berg: You said "the schedule submitted to DTSC in 1999 changed because conditions changed. What conditions have changed and when did they change? 13. Is Steadfast Insurance suing RFI? Or SC LLC? 14. For Mr. Cooper: What was your final comments re: CLWA's position. S:\PBS\FOSSELMAN\PB\Attachment B.doc