HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - GATE KING RECERTIFICATION FEIR (2)Agenda Item:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by: Jeff Hogan
DATE: July 11, 2006
SUBJECT: RE -CERTIFICATION OF GATE KING INDUSTRIAL PARK FEIR
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Re -Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report with the new water supply analysis prepared
for the Gate King Industrial Park project through the adoption of a Resolution.
PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S MEETING
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to receive a presentation from staff on the Industrial Park's
approval and litigation history, present the new water analysis for the Industrial Park per the
direction of the Court, receive public testimony, and for the City Council to adopt a resolution
re -certifying the project's Final Environmental Impact Report with the Additional Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Gate King Industrial Park Approved Entitlements
Following a four-year review process and preparation of an EIR, the City Council approved the
Industrial Park on June 24, 2003. The Industrial Park was approved with the following
entitlements:
• Tentative Tract Map 50283 — Subdivided the 508.2 acre site into 106 lots
• General Plan Amendment — Amended with designations of IC (Industrial Commercial) and
OS (Open Space)
• Zone Change — Amended with designations of IC (Industrial Commercial), ICPD (Industrial
Commercial Planned Development), and OS (Open Space)
• Conditional Use Permit - Implemented the Planned Development Overlay designation
Adopted: -91
Hillside Review Permit — Approved the Innovative Application
Oak Tree Permit - Removal of up to 1,408 of the 11,000 plus oak trees on-site and 790 oak
tree encroachments (no heritage removals approved with the project)
Development Agreement —15 -year build out of the Industrial Park
Full build out of the Industrial Park would involve the development of approximately 203.2 acres
(40% of the site) with industrial/commercial uses. This acreage would accommodate up to 4.2
million square feet of industrial/commercial development.
Gate King Industrial Park Community Benefits
In approving the project, the City Council found that the project would generate several
significant community benefits:
• $2.4 million cash contribution for, but not limited to, San Fernando Road Pedestrian Bridge
or other San Fernando Road Beautification improvements, Newhall Community Center
improvements, Newhall Community Entrance Sign, Off-site Park and Ride Facility, Pioneer
Oil Refinery improvements
• 1.5 acre Fire Station site
• Wildfire Helipad site
• Two on-site trailheads
• 3.3 miles of on-site trails
• 207.6 acres of City dedicated open space
• 2 wildlife guzzlers ($25,000.00)
• Oak tree City planting program of up to 500 trees over a five year period ($37,500.00)
(completed)
• Planting of 500 oak trees on the project's graded slopes and an additional 700 oaks trees
planted throughout the project. Approximately 200 trees have already been planted on-site.
• Industrial Association contribution of $1,000.00 a year for 10 consecutive years for a total of
$10,000.00
• Off-site San Fernando Road improvements that will consist of fill-ins of curbs, sidewalks,
street trees, and street lights
• Class I bike trail along "A" Street
• Maintain and provide a significant open space buffer for the Wildlife Corridor
• Provide approximately 7,800 new jobs with full build -out
• Provide approximately $6.7 million in new retail expenditures with full build -out
• Provide oak trees for the Veteran's Memorial (completed.)
Gate King Industrial Park Litigation
After City Council approval of the Industrial Park in June of 2003, SCOPE, the Oak
Conservancy, and the California Oak Foundation filed a lawsuit against the City of Santa Clarita
alleging, among other things, that the 2003 EIR had failed to adequate discuss water supply and
demand for the project, had failed to adequately address impacts for endangered plant species,
and was inconsistent with the City's Hillside and Oak Tree Ordinances.
In April of 2004, the City of Santa Clarita prevailed in the Superior Court. On May 20, 2004,
SCOPE and the California Oak Foundation appealed.
On November 2, 2005, the 2nd Appellate District of the State Court of Appeal reversed the
Superior Court's prior ruling and found that the water analysis prepared as part of the City of
Santa Clarita's environmental impact report (EIR) for the Gate -King project was inadequate, and
that a new water analysis is required. It found that, in all other respects, the EIR was free from
defects. It also rejected the claim that the project was approved in violation of the City's Hillside
and Oak Tree Ordinances.
Material Recovery Facility/Waste Transfer Station (MRF) Proposal
During the litigation of the Industrial Park EIR, a materials recovery facility/waste transfer
station (MRF) proposal was processed and approved on October 18, 2005, by the Planning
Commission.
Burrtec Waste Industries received a conditional use permit approval to construct a 178,200
square foot MRF on 21.74 acres within the eastern portion of the Industrial Park, adjacent to
Sierra Highway. The MRF was the first and only industrial project approved in the Industrial
Park since City Council approval in June of 2003. The MRF was approved in accordance with
the Industrial Park approval and the certified EIR. No injunction had been filed with the lawsuit,
thus allowing the Industrial Park to proceed with construction and build out of the Gate King
Industrial Park project site.
However, immediately following the Planning Commission's approval of the MRF, SCOPE
appealed the decision to the City Council and during that same time period the 2nd District of the
State Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court's prior ruling and found that the water analysis
prepared for the Industrial Park was inadequate, thus requiring a new water analysis for the
Industrial Park. As a result, the MRF's approval has been suspended as it relied on the Industrial
Park's EIR. When the Industrial Park's EIR is re -certified by the City Council, Burrtec Waste
Industries has stated that they will revive the permitting activity for Planning Commission
approval of the MRF.
CEQA Process for the Additional Analysis
To respond to the appellate court's decertification of the EIR, the City has revised and is
re -circulating the water supply portion of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ("Additional
Water Analysis.") The new water analysis section completely replaces the prior water supply
analysis presented in the City's original EIR. The analysis has been prepared by Impact
Sciences, an environmental consulting firm.
On March 31, 2006, the City re -circulated the Additional Analysis and provided notice of the
45 -day public comment period, which ended on May 8, 2006. The Draft Additional Analysis
was distributed to approximately 60 applicable agencies and approximately 100 individuals.
The City also published notice of the circulation period in The Signal newspaper on March 31,
2006.
The Final Additional Analysis includes all of the written and oral comments received on the new
water supply analysis. The Final Additional Analysis was sent on May 22, 2006 to all agencies,
organizations and individuals that commented on the Draft Additional Analysis.
Planning Commission
The review and re -certification of the Gate King Industrial Park Final Environmental Impact
Report with the new water supply analysis (Additional Analysis) was heard by the Planning
Commission on May 2, 2006 and June 6, 2006 which were both duly noticed public hearings. At
the June 6, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission closed the public hearing
after reviewing all of oral/written comments and responses and recommended that the City
Council re -certify the Gate King Industrial Park Final Environmental Impact Report with the
Additional Analysis.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS
Final Additional Analysis Summary
A hard copy of the Final EIR (includes the Additional Analysis, responses to comments, and the
previous Final EIR) was forwarded to the City Council on June 7, 2006. In addition, the City
Council may reference the entire Final EIR which includes the Additional Analysis on a CD
format that is attached as Exhibit "A" to the resolution within this report.
Below is a brief descriptive summary of the new water supply analysis, otherwise known as the
Final Additional Analysis of the Gate King Industrial Park's Final Environmental Impact Report.
The Gate King Industrial Park would generate a total water demand of approximately 386
acre-feet per year (afy), which would be met by the Newhall County Water District (NCWD)
through its access to local groundwater and water available through the Castaic Lake Water
Agency (CLWA) and the Department of Water Resources' (DWR's) State Water Project (SWP).
Currently, the project area that encompasses the Gate King Industrial Park project has limited
water supply infrastructure in place, as it is largely undeveloped. A portion of the project area is
currently served by an existing 12 -inch water main in the San Fernando Road right-of-way, north
of and adjacent to the site. Upon completion of the project, and required water infrastructure,
water would be delivered to the project through the existing water main within the San Fernando
Road right-of-way, north of and adjacent to the site. Smaller water lines would then branch off
this main line to the proposed development areas.
The proposed utility Master Plan provides for the Industrial Park to be served by two water tanks,
one located on lot 44 in the central part of the site near the Eternal Valley cemetery and a water
tank that will be located on lot 42 in the southeastern portion of the site. These tanks will have a
storage capacity of 3.75 million gallons. There is also a water tank on lot 43 which stores
non -potable water from existing wells on the property for landscape irrigation. These tanks,
combined, would be expected to provide adequate storage capacity to serve the proposed
development. As part of the Industrial Park's approval, water will be distributed within the area
from Newhall County Water District wells 12 and 13, with flows of 2,600 and 2,500 gallons per
minute (gpm), respectively, and one booster fed from the Castaic Lake Water Agency, with flows
of 2,600 gpm.
As indicated in the SB 610 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Gate King Industrial Park
project prepared by NCWD and in the Additional Analysis itself, an adequate supply of water is
available to meet the demands of the Gate King Industrial Park project in addition to existing and
planned future uses in the Santa Clarita Valley. Specifically, the analysis demonstrates that an
adequate amount of local and state water exists to serve the proposed project, that the
groundwater basin is not in a state of overdraft, that the quality of drinking water in the Santa
Clarita Valley meets all requirements for consumption, and that the agencies have formulated a
viable plan to address perchlorate contamination.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact is anticipated with the recertification of the Gate King Industrial Park Final
Environmental Impact Report.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by the Council.
ATTACHMENTS
6/6/06 SCOPE letter and response
Resolution
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE RECERTIFICATION OF THE GATE KING INDUSTRIAL PARK FEIR WITH THE NEW
WATER ANALYSIS
APPLICATION: Master Case Number 99-264, Tentative Tract Map 50283, Zone Change 99-002, Hillside
Review 99-004, Conditional Use Permit 99-013, Oak Tree Permit 99-029, General Plan Amendment 99-
003 and Development Agreement 99-002.
PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is situated west of the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR 14), and is
bounded by Sierra Highway to the east and San Fernando Road to the north. Pine Street is located along
the western boundary of the project site. Undeveloped mountainous terrain is located to the south.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On June 24, 2003, the City of Santa Clarita certified the Final Environmental
Impact Report (SCH No. 2001021121) ("FEIR" or "EIR") for the Gate -King project The City adopted final
resolutions and conditions on June 24, 2003. Subsequently, various parties challenged the City's
certification of the FEIR and project approval in an action in Los Angeles County Superior (trial) Court
entitled, California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2003). The trial court found in favor of the
City in all respects and upheld certification of the EIR. The trial court decision was appealed.
In California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita, 133 Cal. App. 4th 1219 (2005), the case challenging
the adequacy of the EIR for the project at issue in this Water Analysis, the Court of Appeal directed the
trial court to issue a writ of mandate vacating the certification of the EIR because the City's discussion of
water supplies was defective. Specifically, the Court found that the EIR did not adequately address
uncertainties relating to Castaic's entitlement to 41,000 AFY of imported water purchased under the
Monterey Agreement. Id. at 123641. The Court did not find any other defects in the EIR. This
Additional Analysis analyzes the availability of the 41,000 AFY — including any related uncertainties — and
addresses the Court's concerns with the original EIR. It completely replaces the prior water supply analysis
presented in the City's prior EIR.
Full build out of the site would involve the development of approximately 203.2 acres (40% of the site)
with industrial/commercial uses. This acreage would accommodate up to 4.2 million square feet of
industriallcommercial development.
PROJECT PROPONENTS: Gate King Properties, LLC
The Public Hearing to discuss the adequacy of the Additional Analysis to the Final EIR will be conducted
by the City of Santa Clarita City Council on:
DATE: July 11, 2006 LOCATION: City Council Chambers
TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355
An Additional Analysis to the Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project to
identify potential environmental impacts to water supplies. The Additional Analysis to the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was available for public review from March 31, 2006 to May 8,
2006.
If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the City of Santa Clarita, Department of
Community Development, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; Telephone: (661)
255-4330. Project Planner: Jeff Hogan
Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall
Published: The Newhall Signal
SCOPE
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment
TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY
AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY
POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91388
Letter No. 16
Jeff Hogan R E C E I VEQ
PLANNING DIVISION
Community Development
City of Santa Clarita JUN 0 6 2006
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarite, CA 91355 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Re: GfatesT%ing Additional Information Document Comments on FEIR Responses
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Although we are sore that the Planning Commission apreciated the oonsultaia's detailed
description of the various legal issues that may limit tbe availablity of &a 41,000 AF Monterey
transfer and which must be addressed in the new Environmental lmpact Report required by the
Court Order in PCL V. DWR, we regret that this document does not quantify the extent of the
limitations that may occur and how they will affect local water supply. Without actual numbers,
it is difficult for the Commission and the Council to understand the extear of supply reductions
that may occur. Thus they aro unable to evaluate the effect on torrent and Srure residents and
businesses of such cutbacks. We request that you provide some sample scenarios that will give
the Commission and the Council a more concrete Was. ofhow time issues would affect our local
water supply.
Further, the Response Document appears to merely re -argue the decision of the appellate gout in
the Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita that is the immediate reason for this document The
decision states:
"Gate Mug contends that there Is "simply no reason to believe that the
transfer will be reversed "and that "it mast be presumed" dw Cawak "will
eventually be able to prepare an adequate EM0According to Gate King; to
argue that Castaic should not be allowed to rely on the 41,000AFYjbr
platmingpwposes gives greater weight to a theoredeal passibility than to an
emdromnental reality, "turning on its head "We are buclined to agree
with SCOPE that it is Gate King which now CEPA on its head with its
wgumnt, which suggests that the environmental review ofdm 41, 000AFY
transfer Is "an exercise bufztility because the pre-otdalned outcome of the
process Is eondmied ince ofthe 41,000."
We note the Friends 1 trial court In refusing to enjoin Castle's use ofthe
41, 000AFY, found petitioner's contention that the water would be used to
approve new development was "speculative at this dme,"but stated that the
peddoner could renew its applieadon to prohibit Casta/c from using
O
O
Impact Sciences, Inc. Gate-IG'ng Project
112-21 Final Additional Analysis — June 2006
SCOPE Comments
waterfor development "based upon evidence ofthe adual use ofsuch
additional waterforpurposes it considers improper."
The Corot was well aware of the various legal decisions on which our concerns were based when
it made the above statement Re -interpreting those decisions to arrive at a conclusion other than
the one above seems to ignore the very issue that resulted in the desertification of the original
EUL The developer's consultant should quantify the impact to our water supply if the transfer is
reversed so that the Commisison and the Council can understand the extent of the impact on O
local water supplies.
Further, the fact that Castaic hake Water Agency completed a contract while the transfer was
being litigated is not releveant to the validity of its CEQA review. CLWA was well aware that
the Eilt might be set aside and that they proceeded at their own risk. The public objected to
proceeding with this contract at the 1999 hearing on the issue for that very reason, but their
concerns were ignored.
The Final Responses persist in stating that the fecilities to clean up the ammonium perchlorate
polluted water will be online by 2007 (pg. 4.7-2). There is no basis for this speculative
statement. No settlement agreement has been signed, no Binding is currently available and O
constrution of the clean-up facilities kava not began. Since 1997, the water agencies bout 3
consistently stated that the clesa-up facilities will be operating "hart year". it is imperitive for
the health of our community bat these facilities be online and operating BEFORE additional
development is approved.
Last, SCOPE strongly objects to the conclusionary language used by the developer's consultant
throughout ibis document Statements such as :
• "The City believes that it is appropriate to consider the 41,000AF transfer as part of
CLWA's total contact Table A amount for reasons stated in the Additional Analysis ..."
(p.4.7-2)
• "fie City believes that the ground water supplies found in the Saugus Aquifer have been
adequately addressed...VA.7-2) O
• "The City does not agree that the migration fiom the source site indicates an inadequate 4
supply of water.." (4.14-45)
• "The City disagrees with the commenter."(p.4.9-1)
• "...the City believes the documents to be adequate." (P.4.9-1)
These are in ihct some of the exact issues tbatwe are salting the Commission and the Council to
consider. How can this document persmne to know in advance the Commission's and the
Council's thoughts on the very questions that we are asking these bodies to review before they
make their decisions?
Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Dave Lutness
2°d vice President
Impact Scums, Inc. GatrKing Prq'ect
112-21 Final Addition/Analysis—June 2006
4.16 Responses to Comment Letters Received
Letter Received from the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment, dated June 6,
2006
Response 1
The Draft Additional Analysis already presents various supply and demand scenarios that may occur in
the future due to changing conditions. See the Draft Additional Analysis beginning on page 3.0-72. In the
single dry year scenarios presented, State Water Project (SWP) supplies are reduced to just four percent of
total Table A Amounts, a reduction in SWP supplies of 96 percent. As indicated in Topical Response 1:
CLWA's 41,000 AFY Water Transfer, the City believes that the 41,000 afy water transfer is final from a
contractual perspective and it is inappropriate, therefore, to consider scenarios that do not include that
transfer. Please see Topical Response 1: CLWA's 41,000 AFY Water Transfer for additional information.
Response 2
The commenter states that the Additional Analysis should "quantify the impact to our water supply if the
transfer is reversed..." based on the appellate court decision in the California Oak case. As indicated in
Topical Response 2: Litigation Concerning Water Supplies, the California Oak decision did not
invalidate the EIR for the "Gate -King" industrial/business park project in the City of Santa Clarita
"because it was based on the illegal" 41,000 afy water transfer. Instead, as discussed below, the Court of
Appeal found the Gate -King EIR inadequate because the Draft and Final EIR (including responses to
comments): (a) contained "no discussion at all of the uncertainty surrounding" the 41,000 afy water
transfer; (b) did not "mention the decertification" of the CLWA 1999 EIR for the 41,000 afy transfer; and
(c) did not "discuss the fact that [SWP] entitlements are not really entitlements but only 'paper water."'
As explained in the California Oak decision, the Gate -King EIR should have included either an analysis of
how demand for water would be met without water from the 41,000 afy transfer, or why it was
appropriate to rely on the 41,000 afy transfer in any event. The Draft Additional Analysis describes why
it is appropriate to rely on the transfer. Please see Topical Response 2: Litigation Concerning Water
Supplies for additional information.
In March 2001, before the Sacramento County trial court had acted on remand, the parties to the PCL
litigation entered into settlement negotiations. In May 2003, DWR, Central Coast Water Authority,
Planning and Conservation League, certain SWP contractors (including CLWA) and other entities entered
into a final settlement of the PCL litigation (the "Monterey Settlement Agreement").1 Under the
Monterey Settlement Agreement, the parties expressly agreed that the SWP would continue to be
1 The Monterey Settlement Agreement is presented in Appendix AF of the Final Additional Analysis.
Impact sciences, Inc. 4.16.1 Gate -King Project
112-21 Final Additional Analysis—June 2006
4.16 Responses to Comment Letters Received
administered and operated in accordance with both the Monterey Amendments and terms of the
Monterey Settlement Agreement:
"Pending the Superior Court's issuance of an order discharging the writ of mandate in the
underlying litigation, the Parties will jointly request that the Superior Court enter an order
approving this Settlement Agreement, and an order, pursuant to California Public Resources
Code Section 21168.9, authorizing on an interim basis the administration and operation of the
SWP ... in accordance with the Monterey Amendments, [and] the terms of this Settlement
Agreement...." (Final Additional Analysis, Appendix AF !Monterey Settlement Agreement, p.
91.)
The Monterey Settlement Agreement did not set aside, invalidate, or otherwise vacate the Monterey
Amendments, or any of the water transfers effectuated under the Monterey Amendments, including the
41,000 afy transfer. On June 6, 2003, the Sacramento County Superior Court issued the requested order,
pursuant to CEQA (Pub.Res.Code Section 21168.9), approving both the Monterey Settlement Agreement
and the administration and operation of the SWP pursuant to the Monterey Amendments and the terms
of the approved agreement 2 The 41,000 afy transfer was completed in 1999, more than three years prior to
the settlement. Please see Topical Response 1: CLWA's 41,000 AFY Water Transfer for additional
information.
Response 3
Again, this commenter suggests that progress toward perchlorate clean up and returning impacted wells
to service is not occurring. The commenter indicates that it is "speculative' to state that cleanup efforts
will be occurring in 2007. Both statements are incorrect. The Draft Additional Analysis provided an
extensive analysis of the efforts made to date. Please see Draft Additional Analysis, pages 3.0-12 through
3.0-32. The Draft Additional Analysis relied on several referenced documents, including:
• Analysis of Perchlorate Containment in Groundwater Near the Whittaker-Bermite Property, Santa
Clarita, California, prepared by CH2MHill, December 2004 (Appendix 3.0-12);
• Analysis of Near -Term Groundwater Capture Areas for Production Wells Located Near the
Whittaker-Bermite Property (Santa Clarita, California), prepared by CH2MHill, December 21, 2004
(Appendix 3.0-13);
• 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (2005 UWMP) (Appendix 3.0-14);
• Impact and Response to Perchlorate Contamination, Valencia Water Company Well Q2, prepared by
Luhdorff 8r Scalmanini Consulting Engineers, April 2005 (Q2 Report) (Appendix 3.0-15);
• Analysis of Groundwater Basin Yield, Upper Santa Clara River Groundwater Basin, East Subbasin,
Los Angeles County, California, August 2005 (2005 Basin Yield Report) (Appendix 3.0-16); and
2 The Sacramento County trial court's Order is presented in Appendix AR of the Final Additional Analysis.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.16-2 Gate -King Project
112-21 Final Additional Analysis — June 2006
4.16 Responses to Comment Letters Received
• Interim Remedial Action Plan, prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, December 2005 (IRAP)
(Appendix 3.0-18).
This commenter also suggests that cleanup technology is uncertain, and states specifically that clean up of
water contaminated with perchlorate has not begun in the Santa Clarita Valley. Both are incorrect.
Proven technology exists and is being used now in the Santa Clarita Valley to clean perchlorate
contaminated water. As stated in the Draft Additional Analysis,
"[a]s a result of the detection and confirmation of perchlorate in its Well Q2, VWC
[Valencia Water Company] removed the well from active service and pursued rapid
permitting and installation of wellhead treatment in order to return the well to water
supply service. In October 2005, VWC also restored the pumping capacity of Well Q2
with the start-up of wellhead treatment designed to effectively remove perchlorate." (see
Draft Additional Analysis page 3.0-67)
Well Q2 has been returned to full service.
It should also be known that clean-up efforts at the alleged source of the perchlorate contamination are
continuing including the funding of those efforts. An update regarding the progress of efforts underway
was provided by the consultant leading the effort (see, Geomatrix Letter to the Department of Toxic
Substance Control, dated May 15, 2006, presented in Appendix AX of this Final Additional Analysis). As
indicated, specific actions completed or in process include:
• Installation of expanded ion exchange water treatment system in the Northern Alluvium by the third
quarter 2006;
• Treatment of impacted soils starting in May 2006,
• Drilling of six additional investigation wells began in April 2006 and will continue though early fall
2006;
• Pumping and treatment of two Northern Alluvium "hot spot" wells began on May 4, 2006 and will
begin at four more locations later in May 2006. Planning for an aquifer test of the former facility
production well is in progress; and
• Pursuant to the Site SWPP Plan, implementation of short-term surface water runoff mitigation
measures continues. Long-term mitigation of drainages will be conducted in conjunction with the
soil remediation.
Response 4
The commenter states that "conclusionary" language is used in the responses provided in the Final
Additional Analysis. It should be understood that the Final Additional Analysis was prepared under the
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.16-3 Gate -King Project
112-21 Final Additional Analysis—June 2006
4.16 Responses to Comment Letters Received
supervision of City staff, using its independent judgment as Lead Agency. When responses read "the City
believes," or the like, it indicates the position of City staff regarding the issue. As is always the case, the
decision-making body (i.e., City Council) is free to take positions on issues that differ from staff.
Intact Sciences, Inc. 4.16-4 Cate -King Fruject
112-21 Final Additional Analysis— June 2006