HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - PORTA BELLA STAKEHOLDERS MTG (2)UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
CITY OF SANTA CLAR.ITA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by:
June 26, 2001
PORTA BELLA COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS MEETING AND
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
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' 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 possible),
Continued To a, 2 Agenda Item:"
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, 2001City 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 2"d 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 theJewel" 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)
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 todav to do the
cleanup?
11. RFI: Exactly 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
Attachment C
Porta Bella Community Stakeholders Meeting
June 2, 2001 Meeting Flipcharts and Notes
The activities at the June 2 stakeholders meeting were as follows:
I. Panel Discussion (full group convened)
• One representative from each of the major stakeholders were represented on the
panel, panelists responded to questions from the meeting participants
• List of major topic areas generated and prioritized by meeting participants for
use in the breakout groups
II. Breakout Session I: Vision of Porta Bella (four smaller breakout groups)
• Breakout into four groups to discuss worst case scenarios, best case scenarios and
desired realistic scenarios using the panel issues
• Convened to the full group and reported on the small group discussions
III. Breakout Session II: The Road to Our Future (four smaller breakout groups)
• Breakout into same four groups to discuss the barriers to achieving desired
realistic scenarios and strategies to address the barriers
• Convened to the full group and reported on the small group discussions
IV. Full Session Discussion (full group convened)
• Development of statements of commonality based on the day's discussion by the
full group
I. Panel Discussion Outcomes
Based on the panel discussion, following are the prioritization /clustering of issues as
determined by the meeting participants:
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)
II. Breakout Session I: Vision of Porta Bella
Using the five general topic areas determined at the conclusion of the panel, the breakout
groups developed worst case scenarios, best case scenarios, and desired realistic scenarios:
Worst Case Scenarios:
Death and/or injury to child
Water system fouled — extended draught
City gets sued — accepted liability (example of San Diego, City steps in and
results in a loss of money for other needs)
Attachment C, Meeting Flipcharts
Page 2
School sites not cleaned and injury cased —joint liability
• Potential illness liability to transit users
• Creation of a superfund site, becomes a black- eye to Santa Clarita forever if no
cleanup
• Additional contamination /spill in the process of cleanup
• Residents impacted financially
• Over 30 years for cleanup
• Find Viking ship
• More contamination discovered as exploration continues
• Perchlorate exposure causes illness
• New technology yields new concerns for contamination and future now unknown
threats
• Delayed soil cleanup risks additional contamination to the Alluvium (major
water supply)
• Status Quo (RFI walks or becomes bankrupt, unclear who cleans so the
citizens suffer, endangerment remains, time is extended, gets worse, money is
questionable)
• Property owners become insolvent (LLC or Whittaker — unknown)
• SC Valley residents pay for cleanup
• Find more than expected — extends process and costs
• Site remains dirty — delays transportation needs, circulation and connections
• Spreads to other areas (Southfork)
• Lengthy litigation holds up the process, is costly
• Residents, roads and schools on site before cleanup — causes illness
Regarding cleanup: groundwater ignored, soil haphazardly cleaned and
development allowed, years from now city held responsible for outcomes,
explosions occur, Saugus Aquifer is 100% NOT POTABLE, plume of pollution
expands to other areas, contamination of all groundwater, taxpayers pay to
cleanup
Regarding taxpayers paying for the cleanup: city bankruptcy due to litigation
and liability, Tierra Sante, site remains fenced and security needed, continues
to serve as a source of pollution, toxicological effects below detection levels
• Regarding cleanup taking many years: some cleanup done without mitigation
and only some development can be completed so the developer walks, developed
areas turn out not to be clean, recontamination of cleaned sites
• Regarding land use: Via Princessa not built, no land use of the site
Regarding quality of life: quality of life still being discussed, property not
productive, significant increase in taxes, more expensive water
Best Case Scenarios:
• Responsible parties collectively clean the site
• RFI obtains funding exclusively — no City or community money needed
• Porta Bella becomes a destination site, resort, major film site and destination
• We are the model for all future cleanup
• Contamination addressed! Absolute!
• Project is financially successful, benefits spill offsite which leads to the increased
quality of life and benefits to offsite schools
• No litigation
Attachment C, Meeting Flipcharts
Page 3
• Clean all ordnance, discovery of way to do it
• Linking of Magic Princessa occurs
• Use less money to mitigate problem which equals more money for infrastructure
and quality facilities
• Quality parkland — more than 400 acres to create a "Central Park" like New York
City
• Zero housing — re -look at specific plan to decrease housing and central business
district; instead create a heart of the City corporate park
More tax revenue for benefit of all
Cooperation among all players to help clean it up
• Developer pays the bill for soil and water cleanup to DTSC/EPA standards, no
cost to taxpayers
• Protection of public interest
• Community goal reached
• Three years the soil is cleaned
• Groundwater characterized in place (remedy found) and 20-30 years total
time span for water
• Four wells are operational immediately — intermediate step while total
cleanup takes place
• No additional toxins found
• Restore site to productive use — open space, development, parks, roads
Regarding cleanup: fast and good, thorough and long term, previous owners
come up with money for cleanup, jewel in the center of the City, don't rely on the
Feds — those who are responsible will pay, no financial worry
• Regarding taxpayers paying for the cleanup: City not responsible for any
situation, no technical basis for ongoing liability, insurance funding is available,
perchlorate is good for you, concentrations do not get worse
• Regarding cleanup taking many years: community made whole with restoration
of water supply, cleanup occurs as expeditiously as possible, infrastructure keeps
pace with development
• Regarding land use: balanced land use that meets community needs, roads built
via developer's fair share, tax base pays for all services
• Regarding quality of life: quality of life improves, property values increase,
plenty of schools and parks and amenities
Desired Realistic Scenarios:
Worst areas for cleanup targeted and complete in 5-10 years
• Have study in place regarding what has been done elsewhere and how we can
benefit
• More responsible parties come forward to find and address the problem
Realistic to get more money from RFI, (maybe) coupled with community support
with a redevelopment agency
Review of all other options outside of approved specific plan occurs — re -look at
the amount of housing and focus on business use
We are the model for future cleanup
Clean to the standard acceptable for future uses! (residential v.
business/industrial standard)
Attachment C, Meeting Flipcharts
Page 4
• Obtain right-of-way for roads and enhance jobs/housing balance benefiting the
entire community
Successful class action teamed with other communities!
• Not parkland — non-traditional open space (road view corridors, municipal golf
course)
Residents impacted financially if not handled well!
• Realistic to assume we will find more contamination as exploration continues
Clean water is a priority
Cooperative effort hampered by legal maneuvering on both sides
• Cleanup progress authorized
• Insurance company/policy pays (historic)
• Phasing = funding LLC
• No phasing = no funding LLC
• Public/private partnership to resolve issues
• Look now for federal funding
LLC leaves, lien holder responsible to pay
Groundwater solution in place before development
• Will get cleaned up
• Will be developed
• Will take years and cost millions
• Taxpayers will share in some costs
• Cleanup will be done safely or not at all
If City assists, will have long term responsibility
III. Breakout Session II: The Road to Our Future
Building on the desired realistic scenarios identified in the first breakout session, the
groups developed barriers to achieving desired realistic scenarios and strategies to address the
barriers:
The worst areas (OU2 and OUlE) for cleanup are targeted and completed within one
to five years
• Barriers:
Money/other parties and sources ($60-70 million
Disagreement on approach
Differing strategies available (DS12 v. phase)
Specific Plan as approved
Completion of DTSC characterization
Time barriers for actual physical work to be done
Is technology for cleanup certain?
Strategy to Address the Barriers:
Look at historical investors
Reevaluate the project to explore use and feasibility of phasing and TIF to
regain interest of investors and others
Complete full characterization of site and reassess approach to operable
units
Find other alternatives for funding
Re -look at the Specific Plan
• Barriers:
Attachment C, Meeting Flipcharts
Page 5
Time to re -look at the plan — estimate of one year minimum to get to the
planning commission
Cycle effect on funding may lose current investor
Potential financial loss to RFI
May need to do studies
Strategy to Address the Barriers:
Look at non-linear approach to streamline process
Complimentary projects ties together, move non related items on a
separate track
Look at Circulation Element to reduce duplicative roads in the project
(reduces financial pressure on the project and frees funding for
environmental cleanup
Cleanup of water
• Barriers:
Money
Unknown and unproven technology
Characterization not complete (where is the plume going and unknown
sites of new wells)
• Strategy to Address the Barriers:
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
Funding
• Barriers
No local funds available (or state or county funds)
$39 million needed to clean (not including groundwater)
$35-50 million needed to clean groundwater
Insurance policy — where it fits in financing, length of process, cost to
recover
Lack of timeline for return on investments
Strategies
Seek federal funding
Pursue insurance company funding/participation
Evaluate phasing
Cleanup of site
• Barriers
Lack of trust
Funding (lack of by LLC)
Lack of schedule for investigation, no start date
Lack of timeline for return on investments
Unknown contaminants
Public opinion
• Strategies
Develop mutual trust — Porta Bella not walking away
Enforcement of agreement
Pursue insurance company funding/participation
East/West Corridor
Attachment C, Meeting Flipcharts
Page 6
• Barriers
Cleanup of the site
DS12
Specific Plan
• Barriers
Water issues - who will supply?
Additional Barriers and their Strategies
• Barrier: Money
Insurance of prior owners
Government funding
Private investment
Former property owners
Acceptable level of taxpayer funding
Barrier: Technical Issues
Developing technology for treatment and investigation
Have a competent technical team tied to the project
Implementation of technical experts' recommendations
Barrier: Communication — Relations — Trust
Public workshops
Newsletters, fact sheets, tours
An educational program
CAG
A commitment to address the groundwater issue
A community plan for the project
Barrier: Bureaucracy — Multi -Agency
A plan to keep multiple agencies focused
Clarify roles of each stakeholder
Stand strong in the face of adversity
Barrier: Uncertainty
Plan for it
Accept it
Deal with it
Barrier: Defining "Acceptable Risk"
Public health and safety/ecological
An attempt to quantify it
The alternative of doing nothing
Final Notes
We need to continue communication and continue the process to build trust and
strengthen the sense of community
Community oversight process: focus or subcommittees that are topic/issue driven,
adequate representation. Joint information prepared (releases, DTSC fact sheets,
website), involve knowledgeable people, build trust (meet, talk, exchange
information)
• Get funding to move forward
Cleanup of site in reasonable amount of time (expedient/thorough)
• Public amenities/open space
Attachment C, Meeting Flipcharts
Page 7
• Specific plan developed
IV. Full Session Discussion (full group convened)
The following chart depicts the 12 issues and statements to which a majority of the
participants agreed during the final group discussion:
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
S:\ PBS \ FOSSELMAN \ PB \Attachment C.doc