Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-22-90Planning Commission proceedings are taped recorded and on file in the office of the Planning Dept. MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, May 22, 1990 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, May 22, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, with Chairman Larry Papay presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay ABSENT: Commissioner Hedlund MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to excuse Commissioner Hedlund from tonight's meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve the Minutes of May 8, 1990 as published. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to read all resolutions by title only and waive reading the full body of the resolution. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING: Councilman Joseph Ciraulo City Attorney Michael Miller Planning Director William Woolard Senior Planner Donna Butler Associate Planner Corkran Nicholson Secretary Silva Verge! Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 1 Commissioner Szany abstained from this item, since he is the architect of the project. PUBLIC HEARING MP 90 -004 408 -418 S. Third Ave. Randy Giddings Consideration of a modification for a minimum distance of 10' -0" between buildings in lieu of 20' -0" required for a proposed 6 -unit residential condominium project. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Randy Giddings, 627 Chapman Woods, said that he is in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Tom Gerken, 312 Diamond St., said that he is not opposed to the development but wondered if similar modifications have been granted on similar projects. Staff explained that each project is reviewed with its own merits. Staff commented that if the units were attached there would be a building mass but it would then comply with Code. Even though the detached units require modifications, it is a better design since it provides more open space. There were no persons desiring to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Clark commented that similar projects have been approved. He stated that he likes detached units which have more privacy. If the units were attached, the density would increase. Commissioner Amato agreed and said that he prefers this design over one with attached units which offers a big mass of building. Chairman Papay noted that the project has not been designed to the maximum density. With the proposed design each unit is 40' long but if the units were attached the building could be 120' long. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve MP 90 -004 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Papay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hedlund ABSTAIN: Commissioner Szany Chairman Papay noted there is a five working day appeal period. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 2 Commissioner Szany abstained from this item, since he is the architect of the project. PUBLIC HEARING TM 49492 408 -418 S. Third Ave. Randy Giddings Consideration of a tentative map for a 6 -unit residential condominium. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Randy Giddings, 627 Chapman Woods, Pasadena, stated that he is in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. There were no persons desiring to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve TM 49492 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Papay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hedlund ABSTAIN: Commissioner Szany Chairman Papay noted there is a ten day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING TA 90 -004 Consideration of a text amendment to amend Sections 9253.3.1, 9251.2.1 and 9252.2.1 relating to building height to provide an exception to allow wireless radio masts, towers or antennas (not including dish antennas) to be a maximum of 35' -0" in height. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. There were no persons desiring to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Clark to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. The consensus of the Commission was favorable. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 3 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Clark to recommend approval of TA 90 -004 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Szany, Papay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hedlund PUBLIC HEARING Lower Azusa Road Review of Reclamation Plan for the Rodeffer Quarry on Lower Azusa Rd. The Plan is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of the State of California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) which requires that vested mining operations have an approved reclamation plan. The staff report was presented. Staff explained that the Commission should only consider the approval or denial of the Reclamation Plan and if it complies with the State of Caliornia Surface Ming and Reclamation Act (SMARA) requirements. If the applicant should decide to fill the pit, at a later date, they would be required to file a CUP which triggers the necessity for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The public hearing was opened. Chairman Papay noted that a letter has been submitted by Ross & Scott on behalf of the City of El Monte requesting continuance of the public hearing. Harry Schrey, 11770 E. Warner, Fountain Valley, representing Rodeffer Investments spoke against the continuance and said that it would cause problems. Ted Handel, 520 S. Grand, Los Angeles, representing Ross & Scott and the City of El Monte said that one of the reasons for the continuance is that the City of El Monte has proposed a rule to regulate the use of inerit landfills and their impact on ground water resources, to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board of the Los Angeles region. This will be considered at their June 18th meeting. The proposed new law would require that an investigation be conducted into the existence of contaminants on the site and would also mandate certain steps to be taken to protect the site as a ground water resource. He noted that neither issues have been addressed in the Reclamation Plan. He stated that another reason for the continuance is the lack of reasonable notice of the preparation of the negative declaration. He commented that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a public agency in preparing a negative declaration must provide public notice of that fact within a reasonable period of time prior to its final adoption. He said that subject notice was published on May 2nd and was not mailed until May 10th and in his opinion this was not a reasonable notice. Under CEQA the public must have at least 21 days to review the negative declaration and if the Commission is not agreeable to continuing the hearing until after June 18th, then the hearing should be continued until after June 1st to allow for adequate time to provide the Commission with well informed comments. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 4 Willie Lockman, 249 E. Pomona, Monterey Park, representing Lockman & Assoc., the consulting engineer of the project stated that the proposed Reclamation Plan only proposes to backfill with inert solids. He further stated that pursuant to the State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) the Reclamation Plan ust be approved by July 1st. If there is no action by July 1st, then any operation must cease until the Reclamation Plan is approved. The City Council will have the final action on the approval of the Reclamation Plan and the Planning Commission will only be making a recommendation to the City Council. Although it would be preferred to see the whole matter remain at a local level, if the City does not approve this matter by July 1st then Rodeffer Investments will be forced to appeal the matter to the State Mining and Geology Board. Walter Kreute, 12141 Rosegien, El Monte, spoke for the continuance and said that he was concerned with the ground water and noted that there are currently 400 wells in the area which are shut down due to contamination. He suggested building an underground parking lot there instead of filling the pit. Christina Astengo, 12113 Hemlock St., El Monte, said that she resides 200' out of the City's 300' radius and felt insulted that she was not given a notice by the City. She remarked that they would need more time to formulate intelligent responses to the Reclamation Plan. She said that there are no Arcadia residents in the area and she said she felt that is why the City of Arcadia is not willing to generate information for the residents of El Monte. She commented that the proposed Reclamation Plan directly ties into the landfill and the Reclamation Plan states the the pit will be "backfilled with suitable innert solid materials ". Mr. Handel remarked that the plan states "the Rodeffer Quarry will be backfilled with suitable innert materials" but fails to define "innert solid materials ". The continuance will give the Board time to define the requirements for a landfill which innert materials would be deposited into a potential ground water source. Mike Miller, the City Attorney, stated that in reviewing this with staff, they came to a conclusion that there is no legal basis for continuance. The final action will be taken by the City Council and the appropriate time requirement will be met. Chairman Papay said that there other people in the audience that should be allowed to address the Commission. The audience should keep in mind that the Planning Commission will only be making a recommendation to the City Council who will have make the final decision. The proposed plan does not allow a landfill but is to fulfill the SMARA requirements. Any development on the site would need a full EIR and a possible CUP. Mr. Lockman commented that the State is requiring reclamation plans because there have been considerable mining operations where once the activity has been completed the property has been abandoned. The Rodeffer Quarry cannot continue to mine unless the reclamation plan is approved. SMARA has left the jurisdiction at the local level. There are many reasons why the pit should not be left as it is; 1) the problem of the safety of the slopes which are rather steep and in some cases 160' high, 2) the problem of exposure of ground water which the San Gabriel Valley already is in the super fund area. He recommended a minimum back fill to provide a land area with a minimum of 10' above the historical high ground water level. In reviewing the general plan and the zoning of the City of Arcadia, it was concluded that the area was ultimately planned for industrial purposes. He explained that they are recommending to backfill so that it will drain by gravity onto Lower Azusa Road which would leave some slope remaining along the east side next to the river, however, the proposed reclamation plan does not concern itself as to how this is done. He commented that they use the words "suitable inert solids" pursuant to all permits. Under SMARA the mining operation cannot continue unless this Reclamation Plan is approved. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 5 Christina Astengo, resident of El Monte, spoke against the Reclamation Plan. She wondered what the hours of operation would be? She asked if it would include weekends and evenings and stated that presently they pull out of the pit early in the morning and asked when do they estimate beginning of the backfilling? At what rate will the remaining material be mined? The Reclamation Plan states that there is an estimated 1,000,000 tons left, but in reviewing the 1987 EIR the figures are identical and she wondered how this number could remain the same after 18 months of continuous usage. She went on to say that on page 3 of the plan, 6.2 the Mining Plan, states that no phasing is necessary because of the small quantity of remaining materials and wondered what is a "small" quantity? The Reclamation Plan indicates that the property will be used with "light industrial use developed compatible with surrounding residential uses" . She felt that statement is a contradiction since there are residential uses in the immediate area and residential uses and industrial uses are not compatible. She said the Dootson complex is in the area and the residents can agree on just how incompatible it is with the surrounding area. She asked if there could be a definition of "suitable inert materials" and wondered who would regulate where these materials come from. On page 4, 9.1.1 the Phasing of Reclamation Plan has the same information as the 1987 Draft EIR. She felt that it would take longer than 20 years to fill the pit. Item 9.2 Control of Contaminants states that "there are no known contaminants presently on the site ". She asked when was an inspection done, what organization conducted the study and where is the certification? She felt to fill the pit it would push the contamination further down into the water table and suggested the introduction of fresh or reclaimed water to help flush the water table that is already polluted. She asked who will monitor the air and noise pollution? Item 9.2 Control of Disposal of Mining Waste states that "there are no mining waste resulting from the quarry and processing operation" and asked what governmental organization would determine this and where the certification would be? She noted that Exhibit 3, Rodeffer Investments letter dated April 5th, states "...acknowledge the proposed uses after reclamation of light industrial with provisions for the extension of the existing bridal trail ". She commented that this would be the landfill project. She remarked that she is representing the children in the area who cross the streets and the residents who have to live in the area and was concerned that the proposed Reclamation Plan would just be the beginning of trouble for them. Ted Handel, from Ross & Scott, representing the City and the residents of El Monte said that under CEQA, the public should have at least 21 days to review the negative declaration and commented that in this case they have not had the required 21 days. In a letter from SMARA dated March 30, 1990, it is stated that the there are 3 possibilities with respect to vested surface mining operation, 1) the operation will have a lead agency approval of a reclamation plan, 2) the operation will be pending an appeal with he Board, or 3) the mining operations will have ceased with those companies without an approved reclamation plan until such time as a reclamation plan has been approved by the lead agency. He said that the Reclamation Plan can be rejected because it fails to meet not only the statutory requirement of SMARA but also regulatory requirements imposed by the Board. The Planning Department's records do not contain any evidence of the company's claim that they have a vested right to proceed with the surface mining operation. The staff report clearly states that the City did not comply with its own requirements as well as the one contained in Section 2776 of the Public Resources Code that Rodeffer had a reclamation plan in place within 2 years after January 1, 1976. If Rodeffer can establish this right, it must also demonstrate that they filed a reclamation plan or an application of one prior to March 31, 1988. Again, this requirement was not met and a reclamation plan was submitted in April, 1988 which is past the deadline. For the above mentioned reason the City should immediately order Rodeffer to cease operations until a reclamation plan is approved. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 6 Under SMARA, the State Mining and Geology Board has set the following criteria for an adequate reclamation plan. It states that "in addition to the information required by Public Resources Code 2772, the following elements shall be included in the reclamation plan, public health and safety, the design's steepness and the proposed treatment of mined land final slopes, disposition of old equipment and temporary streamer water shed diversion ". He commented that none of the above criteria have been addressed in the plan or in the staff report. He remarked that even though the Commission is not obligated to hold a public hearing, the residents of El Monte have their property rights and their constitutional rights at stake. Staff said that Section 2770 reads that "if a reclamation plan is not on file by March 31, 1988, the continuation of the surface mining operation is prohibited until a reclamation plan is submitted ", and not approved by the lead agency. Mr. Miller commented that the issue before the Commission is not the cessation of the operations but the approval of the reclamation plan. Commissioner Hedlund arrived at the meeting. In response, Mr. Handel stated that a reclamation plan was to be submitted to the lead agency by March 31, 1988, by Rodeffer and it was not submitted until an uncertain date in April and it was withdrawn in October of the same year. So, this indicates that for at least 18 months the operation has been operating in violation of the Public Resources Code. R. Brown, 2153 Aroroa, W. Covina, Director of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, an elected official by the people to represent a good portion of the people in the San Gabriel Valley regarding water matters. He commented that there are superfund areas in this valley. The leaders of the superfund are the environmental protection agency's top officials. Those officials point out that unless local planning units in the United States take much stronger steps to control the use of the land there will be a series of conditional disasters. They have asked that the water officials in the United States adopt much tighter regulations for the control of land so to avoid any future problems with the ground water. The reclamation plan submitted has no information regarding the character of the surrounding properties, a serious omission. It does not discuss soil suitability, geology, climate, stream characteristics and principal mineral commodities. Soil suitability - He asked what type of materials would be going into the pit as a result of the back fill? Will asphalt be one of the materials? Asphalt can pollute the ground water since it consists of an oil product. There should be a better definition of the type of materials that will be used to backfill the pit and ample time so proper comments can be made. Topography - Even though there are some maps included in the plan, they are prepared by BKK. Will BKK be involved with the operation of the landfill? He stated that being a neighbor within 1/2 mile of one of their operations, they have not been a good neighbor. Geology - The geology of this valley is an alluvial fan. Climate - The plan does not include any data on rain fall or air pollution. This is sufficient reason to deny the Reclamation Plan. Stream Characteristics - Section 9.4 omits the connection between surface an subsurface floats. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 7 Principal Mineral Commodities - As part of the Reclamation Plan there should be a type, discussion, nature and the characteristics of those materials to be placed. In response to a question by Chairman Papay, Mr. Brown said that character as used in Section 2773 refers to the current uses, type of homes, drainage, type of problems that could come from those homes, problems that could come from this site to those homes, the history of those homes, whether they had septic tanks on them. The above are part of the characteristics that need to be reviewed and presented before the reclamation plan is approved. Mark Sullivan, 122116 Hemlcok, El Monte, said that the proposed Reclamation Plan is incomplete, incorrect and totally inadequate. The document fails to include environmental concerns. The document states that there are no contaminants on the site which is in direct contradiction with the Draft EIR. The EIR not only identifies the material but dictates the manner of removal. He felt that the fact that the City of Arcadia has stood by and not taken any action on this permit violation is deplorable. Scott Poise, 5139 Cogswell, El Monte, wondered if any tires would be dumped at the site? Susan Smith McGlohin, 12119 Hemlock, El Monte, said that an industrial use and residential use are not compatible. She didn't think that it would be classified as light industrial since the trucks load up early in the morning and use Lower Azusa. The Commission's decision will impact many people in the City of El Monte and their life styles. Arlene Patlan, stated that she does not reside in El Monte but teaches at the Durfeey Elementary school and she was concerned about the students who attend the school and their safety and said that the school is approximately 2,000 yards from the site. She was concerned about the traffic problems which are already very congested. In rebuttal Mr. Lockman said that the Commission should consider only the Reclamation Plan. The matter of backfilling is a question that will come before the Commission via a grading permit or a CUP application. The letter from Rodeffer Investments assures the City that Rodeffer is committed themselves to fill the pit. Prior to the consideration of any grading, state law requires that the plans be in substantial compliance with Sections 2772 and 2773. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. In answer to questions from Commissioner Szany, Mr. Woolard said that there have been complaints but he is not aware of any within the last couple of years. If anybody is in violation as to the hours of operation, they should contact the Arcadia Police Department. The consideration of the proposed plan does not alter the original permit under which they were authorized to mine. The City cannot limit what a truck does on the public streets but the City has control over the operation of the pit and the hours of operation. If the Reclamation Plan is approved, they will probably continue to extract the last of the gravel. The operators will have to come to the City to seek a CUP in order to fill the pit with some material that is going to be acceptable by the City and other regulatory agencies. Many of the concerns raised by El Monte will have to be addressed in an EIR which will be required if a CUP is filed. The material that would be permitted would have Regional Water Quality Control Board approval. Mr. Woolard further stated that even though there won't be a 21 day notice period to this meeting there will be 21 days before the City Council meeting on June 19th. Staff said that the resolution which was adopted in 1957 indicates that the hours of operation are from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and did not restrict the days of operation. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 8 Mr. Miller clarified and said that there will be numerous procedures that that they will have to go through before the backfilling process and the City can address a lot of these issues through conditions. He noted that the City shares the concerns of the City of El Monte as far as the public health and safety and welfare are concerned. Mr. Rodeffer is aware of the stringent requirements that will be imposed, however, that is not the issue that is before the Commission tonight. The Commission should only vote to recommend approval or denial of the Reclamation Plan to the City Council. The City's conducting a public hearing is what staff felt is the fairest approach in this regard. This plan is required under the law and the Commission should vote on the Reclamation plan and not what will happen to the pit in the future. Commissioner Clark said that the City's controls can very effectively control what is deposited into the pit. He liked the idea of filling up the pit and did not want to leave it abandoned. He remarked that he does not want something that will adversely impact the community to the south anymore than they are already affected. Commissioner Hedlund was against filling the pit and explained that it is unknown where the material comes from that fills the pits. He felt sure that some of the pits were filled with concrete and asphalt and wondered what is in those aggregates. Although he felt something should be done with the of quarry he was not sure whether filling it would be the best idea. This is just a plan and if the Reclamation Plan is approved that does not necessarily mean that they will be obligated to do it. Staff said that the Reclamation Plan is just a plan and if and when they file for a landfill, there will be an EIR done which will look at alternatives. This is not a proposal by the City but rather by Rodeffer Investments. The Reclamation Plan is a mandatory requirement. This plan does not give them any vested right, but a requirement of the State and the Municipal Code. It does not give them the right to fill the property. Commissioner Clark felt that the Commission's concerns should be forwarded to the City Council. He thought that the conditions that will be set can be put in a very stringent fashion to protect the people who live down there. Mr. Woolard said that the pit will be subject to an EIR and at that time alternatives could be discussed. Ms. Astengo's suggestion of injecting water could very well be considered and while this is a a plan to fill it, it may not be what is actually done depending upon what is disclosed when the EIR process begins. Chairman Papay remarked that an EIR would be needed at the time that a CUP application is filed and said that that is the basis for the negative declaration. If the pit is not filled it will be hard to put a light industrial use on it. If and when an EIR is done, input from various state and federal agencies in the environmental review process will require that all issues concerning contaminants, existing and future contaminants, water table, surrounding neighborhood, be adequately addressed in the EIR. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Szany to approve the reclamation plan, finding that it does substantially meet requirements set forth in the SMARA and recommend that the staff be directed to convey the recommendations, comments and findings discussed above. This motion does not grant approval for a permit or the use of the property as a landfill or any other development. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 9 Mr. Woolard said that as a part of the process for the previous EIR a great number of post cards were received from people requesting notice of any hearings regarding any development. If an application is filed for filling this pit, notices will be mailed out to all those persons who sent in post cards. The public hearing before the City Council will be held on June 19th. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None RESOLUTION 1436 A resolution granting CUP 90 -004 for the sale of alcoholic beverages within the grocery store for off - premise consumption within 150 feet of residentially zoned property and for an eating establishment within the grocery store with seating for 12 persons at 1300 South Golden West Avenue. RESOLUTION 1437 A resolution granting CUP 90 -005 to enlarge the existing restaurant at 311 E. Live Oak Avenue. Mr. Woolard read the titles of the resolution MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Clark to adopt Resolutions 1436 and 1437 and to formally affirm the decision of May 8, 1990 and the votes thereon. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay None Chairman Papay noted there is a five working day appeal period. MATTERS FROM COUNCIL None MATTERS FROM COMMISSION In regard to questions regarding the height and setbacks in the R -O and R -1 zones, staff said that a text amendment will be forthcoming with some recommended changes derived from the meetings between representatives from the City Council, the Planning Commission, homeowners associations, developers, architects, interested parties and staff. MATTERS FROM STAFF None ADJOURNMENT 1000 p,.ji. L. t" 4.K.✓3 '7..1 fl. , �rfi'✓r►�'' Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 10