Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-14-93Planning Commission proceedings are tape recorded and on file in the office of the Planning Dept. MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, September 14, 1993 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, September 14, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, with Chairman Tom Clark presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Huang, Clark ABSENT: None MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Daggett to approve the Minutes of August 24,1993 as published. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING: Mayor Pro Tem Dennis Lojeski City Attorney Michael Miller Acting Planning Director Donna Butler Assistant Planner Bill Stokes Secretary Silva Vergel PUBLIC HEARING CUP 93-006 23 W. Las Tunas Dr. Kenny Chang Consideration of a conditional use permit and parking modification to allow a family entertainment video and game machine arcade with approximately 38 game machines in a 1,135 sq. ft. retail space. Chairman Clark informed the audience that the applicant withdrew his request for this application. No further action is necessary. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 93-007 556 W. Las Tunas Dr. Yvonne Lu The staff report was presented. Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate a tutorial school. In response to a question by Commissioner Hedlund, Ms. Butler said the school could change into a full time school, if they operated in accordance with the conditions set forth in the CUP and would have to have State's approval. Staff remarked that originally this was proposed for a unit on the second floor but due to Building Code requirements that they were unable to comply with, they have proposed the same use on a unit on the first floor which is approximately 800 sq. ft. smaller. It was noted that parking is not a problem. The public hearing was opened. Yvonne Lu, 1010 Holiday, W. Covina, said they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Huang to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. . MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Daggett, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve CUP 93-007 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett Hedlund, Huang, Clark NOES: None Chairman Clark noted there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 92-003 Review and comment on a proposed inert landfill for an 85 12321 Lower Azusa Rd. acre parcel on the north side of Lower Azusa Rd. which Rodeffer Investments includes: A. Draft EIR B . Reclamation Plan C. Conditional Use Permit 92-003 Ms. Butler explained the procedure for the public hearing. The staff report was presented. Mr. Miller asked who had provided the court reporter present at the meeting and Ms. Fox, the attorney for Rodeffer Investments, indicated Mr. Rodeffer, the applicant had. Mr. Miller informed the audience that the Planning Commission is not the final body reviewing the EIR. The Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council who will have the final decision. The City has received a request for continuance, but he did not think a continuance would be necessary, because further review will be conducted by the Council. Following the above announcement, Chairman Clark asked for comments regarding the continuance from the party requesting the continuance and /or anyone in favor of continuing the hearing. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 2 William Ross, 520 S. Grand, Los Angeles, special counsel for City of El Monte, explained the reasons for continuance. He said they did not receive a copy of the staff report until two business day prior to the hearing,. Obviously this does not give them enough time to adequately comment on the project and since the review and comment period for any written comments is September 24th, he asked that the hearing be continued after the above date. Mr. Miller responded by saying that it is up to the Commission whether to continue the hearing or not but reiterated that there would be another hearing before the Council who has the final decision and they will have plenty of time to respond. Mr. Ross went on to say that both the staff report and the recommendation of the Commission are entitled to legal weight in terms of resolution of land use and environmental issues should it proceed to a matter of a judicial challenge. David James, Chairman of the Forest Preservation of S. Calif., 719 W. Woodbury Rd., Altadena, concurred with Mr. Ross and felt the hearing should be continued until after September 24th. He felt they are being compelled to make their comments in advance of the deadline for the EIR comments and he objected to that. Marlene Fox, Attorney for Rodeffer Investments, 2031 Orchard Dr., Santa Ana Heights, explained the history of the project in detail and the reasons why the hearing should not be continued because there has been more than enough time to comment on the proposed project. She said the CUP was filed in December of 1991 with the City of Arcadia. The City suggested strongly that the applicant handle this in a very thorough and in -depth manner. It was suggested that the applicant do some preliminary investigation regarding some environmental matters. Even prior to filing of the application, letters were sent to U.S. Corp of Engineers, CalTrans and the Fish and Game Department to ask for their comments. They have been working on this project for a long time and have tried to address all issues of concern by both cities and the residents. Meetings were held with the residents and the City of El Monte to address their concerns prior to further development. Since then, there have been numerous meetings that the City of El Monte, Arcadia and the applicant have held to inform the public. The applicant held a meeting prior to the scoping meeting in El Monte and invited the residents. Approximately 100 people attended this meeting and the purpose was to give the public the greatest opportunity to come forward and voice their concerns. Subsequent to this meeting, the City of Arcadia held a scoping meeting in March of 1992 to discuss the project and the residents were allowed to say what they wanted addressed in the EIR. Following the above meetings, there were a number of meetings held by the City of El Monte. The applicant was not invited to any of the meetings held by the City of El Monte, but they found out about them and attended. She further stated that the City of El Monte made several appearances before the Regional Water Quality Board asking the board to address the issue of inert landfills and to adopt a special rule to apply to inert landfills. She agreed with Mr. Ross's comment that the Reclamation and Operations Plans are very complex but what Mr. Ross failed to mention, is that they have been in possession of these documents for a long time. The City of El Monte has had the expertise of both legal and engineers for a long time. The Draft EIR was available on August 10th and she remarked that the City of El Monte and others who want the continuance have had more than ample time to respond and review the project. Further delay is unnecessary, especially since the Council will have final decision on the EIR. The applicant has waited Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 3 over two years and the continuance is unfair to the applicant. The continuance of the hearing is unwarranted and entirely unnecessary. She felt continuance would be patently unfair to the applicant. Alberta Crigler, 12043 Cherry lee Dr., El Monte, representing the homeowners, felt the hearing should be continued to give the residents more time to consider the project. She said they just received a copy of the notice yesterday and they have not had time to prepare themselves. She thought they should have until September 24th to respond and the hearing should be continued until then. Mr. Miller suggested that the Commission decide on the continuance after this speaker. Marvin Cicci, board member for the Upper San Gabirel Valley Municipal Water District (USGVMWD), also Deputy City Attorney for the City of El Monte. He said his presence is representing the USGVMWD and not there to represent the City of El Monte. He said USGVMWD did not receive a copy of the notice and he felt they should have been notified. He thought the hearing should be continued to allow USGVMWD to review the project. He went on to say that presently, they have a $25 million reclamation project that is due to start next summer which might impact this project and is not covered in the report. The USGVMWD represents a million people in this valley which covers all the cities surrounding the project. Ms. Butler remarked that the USGVMWD is on the mailing list for this project, even though Mr. Cicci may have not been the one who received a copy of the notice. Mr. Miller questioned Mr. Cicci's participation on the issue that he has been a Deputy City attorney for El Monte for a number of years. He felt that there is a conflict of interest by Mr. Cicci by representing two entities. Ms. Fox concurred. In response to a question by Commissioner Huang, Ms. Butler remarked the EIR was delivered to the Community Development Director of the City of El Monte on August 10th and also to the Norwood Library. The Notice of Completion was circulated on August 11th and the public hearing notice was published in the paper on August 19th and mailed on August 20th. The staff report was delivered on Monday, September 13th because they were closed on Friday, September 10th. In answer to a question by Commissioner Hedlund, Ms. Butler stated the concept of utilizing the site as a recharge basin has been considered as one of the options in the EIR. The reclamation plan that Mr. Cicci talked about was not addressed in the EIR. All comments received tonight will be included as part of the 'Response to Comments ", which are incorporated into the final EIR which will be presented to the City Council. Ms. Butler explained that post cards were received from people who were interested in being notified of the hearing and those people as well as property owners within 300 feet of the subject site, were notified of the hearing. Interested agencies also received copies of the Notices of the EIR which were mailed on August 20th. Discussion ensued among the Commissioners regarding the continuance and the Commission felt the hearing should not be held up and it should proceed as planned, especially since the Commission is a recommending body and Council will have further review and will make the final decision on the project. In Favor Ms. Fox spoke on behalf of the applicant and said the staff report prepared by Ms. Butler is very thorough. She said the State has a policy against open pits and they do not want them. This area has been rich in terms of the resource for sand and gravel. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 4 One of their concerns is safety with having these open pits. She said even though the property is secured and there are notices posted at appropriate intervals, children will be children and they will climb fences to get into these areas to play. At one of these instances, one child fell partly into the 165' deep pit and it took the efforts of several rescue crews to free him. With last year's rains the water level has increased and they do not want to have a hazardous situation. City staff brought to their attention that with last year's rains, a great deal of soil erosion has occurred. Because of that concern, geologists were brought in and during one of Engineering Science visits to the site, while they were video taping the property one part of the slope started to slide. This was due to soil erosion from last year's rains. Safety is one of the compelling reasons for wanting to expeditiously and without undue delay move forward with the project. In spring of 1992, the USGVMWD held a meeting that the applicant was not invited to. They found out about it by reading it in the paper. She had a court reporter present at this meeting and a copy of the report has been submitted to the City of Arcadia. What is most unfortunate for the people of El Monte, is that they don't understand the project that is before the Commission because in some instances they were intentionally and deliberately misled by their public officials. The above statement can be corroborated by looking at that transcript. The above meeting began with horror stories of BKK landfill which for a number of years accepted hazardous waste. The public was led to believe that the proposal would be similar to the BKK project, which is now considered a Class III sanitary solid waste landfill. There was a long discussion of the above landfill and how the this project would be similar which is really a grading project that will accept clean fill and is going to be compacted. It is not a sanitary Class III landfill that's accepting municipal solid waste, refrigerators, auto parts, carcasses of dead bodies and other such Class III sanitary matters. But the people that were in attendance at the USGVMWD meeting could not tell that and were led to believe that this project is the same as the BKK project. She submitted a book consisting of transcripts and staff reports from different bodies, including one from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City of El Monte contacted the Regional Water Quality Board and tried to have them make a ruling requiring the construction or placement of clay liners in all inert landfills. In talking with Assemblywoman Hilda Solis' office, they indicated that their biggest concern is that they want a clay liner. The first letter in the book is a memorandum from Thomas M. Stetson of Stetson Engineers, who serves as the staff engineer for the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster and also the district engineer for the USGVMWD, concluding that while this request for a clay liner is probably with good intentions, it is unnecessary under the rules and requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the imposition of rules by the Watermaster. Robert Lacoss, Planning & Design Solutions, 22982 El Toro Rd., Lake Forest. He said that this a quarry reclamation and a grading operation. Both the State and the City are requiring that the pit be filled. In discussing this with the community there are four main concerns: 1. What is it going to be filled with? 2. How is it going to be filled? 3. How can we be sure that is going to be done as it is supposed to be done? 4. Who is going to be responsible for seeing that? The pit will be filled with clean inert materials and that means no hazardous materials; and material with water soluble pollutants such as asphalt can't be put in place there; no decomposable materials, nothing organic. The primary fill will be soil, rocks, gravel and concrete. The contract between Mr. Rodeffer and Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 5 Roadway Construction indicates that they are going to be dealing with Caltrans projects, highway improvements, and the excavation from those. In answer to a question by Chairman Clark, Mr. Lacoss said that inert material is stable material that when put in water will not dissolve pollutants from it. It contains no hazardous material that can get into the groundwater. It's fairly clean material that is not organic and breaking down and creating gases and leachates. Basically, a clean landfill. There will be an inspection process which will be followed. Essentially, they will be spreading it down in a lift or a layer of 6 to 12 inches, and it will be compacted to standards and inspected to see that it's compacted. It will be built from the bottom up. The material will be clean and and it is going to be capable of compaction and it is not going to have hazardous materials in it. With regard to dust control, which many people have expressed concerns with, they will be watering down the operation area and roads at least twice a day. The equipment will have noise standards that have already been set and when the operations and the fill reaches a certain level, they will be required to construct the equivalent of a 12 -foot berm to protect the residences from the noise for the remainder of the operation. Also, standards will be set for equipment and truck emissions. The entire edge around Lower Azusa Rd. will be bermed and heavily landscaped. Trucks will not be allowed to go on surface streets within the residential neighborhood. Trucks will only be allowed off the 605 freeway. Mitigation measures on that include some lane improvements to make sure there is smooth flowing traffic off of the freeway. Along with Arcadia who will approve the CUP, Operations and Reclamation Plans, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board will require a Waste Discharge Requirements which will be very specific and will look at the operation plan. They will take the information from other agencies and will set forth what can be put in the fill, what standards are going to be compacted and the kind of controls there are in terms of inspections of the loads. A Solid Waste Facilities Permit will also be obtained from the California Integrated Waste Management Board. They will take the operation plan and submittals from the applicant and approve the plans prior to issuing a permit. Mr. Lacoss described the proposed operation. In addition to the above, additional requirements may be added by the State Regional Water Control Board or Water Quality Control Board. The County Department of Health will be inspecting other operating procedures. After reviewing the operations plan, the State Regional Water Control Board will put in the monitoring sequence that actually will have to be followed. The EIR before the Commission is a draft of the mitigation monitoring program that requires monitoring steps as well and will have to be approved by the City. Mr. Lacoss explained the current conditions of the site and utilized diagrams to point out fill levels. Due to the heavy rains depth of the water has increased to approximately 40', where it used to be small ponds before. He showed diagrams, indicating the various years of fill. The State Mining and Geology Board requires a reclamation plan which is included in the Commission's packet that requires the site be returned back to its original condition and elevation. They had concerns about reclaiming with inert materials and wanted staged revegetation to prevent erosion as the pit is filled up, all of which are part of this plan. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 6 The California Regional Water Control Board issued the discharge requirements for landfills and after reviewing the operations plans and recommendations from other agencies will make its final decisions. The Water Quality Control Board and the Watermaster have already made recommendations. The California Regional Water Control Board would like the operator to document materials that have been received and site closure information and records open to all permitting agencies. The Integrated Waste Management Board issues a permit that basically implements what those requirements are and that permit is going to be implemented by the County Health Department. The South Coast Air Quality Management will issue a permit for operations of the facility and will assure that the plans are in place to control the fugitive dust emissions and set standards for the equipment and the truck emissions. In addition to the City of Arcadia, Los Angeles County Department of Health services will monitor and have mitigation monitoring programs. They will look at the groundwater monitoring issue and oversee record keeping procedures, personnel requirements, site security measures, access roads, internal road conditions, sanitary facilities, water supply lines, safety procedures, procedure for material unloading, spreading and compaction requirements, final site face, stockpiling, performance standards, as well as fire, nuisance, dust. The City of Arcadia will be responsible for enforcement of the conditions that are part of the CUP, EIR an the Operations Plan. The local enforcement agency for the State will be the County Health Department. In his opinion, this inert landfill has a good selection of checks and balances and is fairly comprehensive with all the different agencies having seen it and making sure that it is done properly. He reiterated that this is a grading plan. Mr. Rodeffer agrees with the rest of the community and would like to see that the operation is clean and free of hazards. In response to a question by Commissioner Hedlund, Mr. Lacoss said the operation will be closed on rainy weather. Mr. Renner, 1011 No. Bender, Covina, representing Roadway, said the business will be closed during rainy days. Commissioner Hedlund remarked that the EIR address the life of the project to be 8 -12 years. In light of the recent cutbacks by Caltrans, there will probably not be a lot of construction in this area for the foreseeable future. Where will they be getting the material from to fill this with, especially if there is zero construction, which is the way it looks right now? Mr. Renner responded by saying that they have other projects besides Caltrans. Currently, they are working with the Metrorail which has approximately 1.3 million cubic yards of excavation excluding materials from private development. If there is a slow down in construction, it might take longer than 12 years to fill. In response to a question by Commissioner Hedlund, Mr. Lacoss said lab tests will be done if there are any reasons to suspect that there is a problem with any of the materials at the source site. Lab tests will also be done on materials that can't be detected visibly or with a gas detector. When the reclamation plan is put together, they will be submitting a buttressing plan for the unsafe side of the pit but now is not the appropriate time because everything is not complete and ready to submit. Leighton & Assoc. Geologists has made some recommendations on how it should be buttressed and that report will be forthcoming. Ms. Butler said inspections of the quarry slopes will be required. Leighton & Associates and Engineering Science have made recommendations such as regarding or curing slumping areas with plastic sheeting or wire mesh and shot creek. In response to a question by Commissioner Huang, Mr. Lacoss stated that inspectors will stop trucks turning right on Lower Azusa Rd. On -site inspectors will monitor the direction that the trucks travel and will see to that the operations plan is implemented correctly. With regard to dust emission, they will require the Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 7 watering down of any stockpile areas on a regular basis. The roads will be watered down twice a day in the operation area and the filling of the trucks to a level not increasing over the top. In Opposition Diane Burns, 12020 Cherry lee Dr., El Monte, was concerned about safety and emissions and noise. She was concerned about the hazards of 150 trucks that will be traveling to and from the site daily on Lower Azusa Rd. which is already overcrowded, especially in the morning. She felt they should be held liable for dredging too close to the homes which are now in jeopardy. Adding 150 trucks a day will increase noise and emissions. They live in a country atmosphere and will lose their freedom by a solely money - making operation with little or no thought of the residents. Alberta Crigler, 12043 Cherrylee Dr., El Monte, said the report states that the air quality will be significantly adverse after mitigation. This is not acceptable. They do not want more bad air around their homes. The trucks will be driving where people ride their horses. She said the trucks will be very noisy. Mr. Lacoss answered Ms. Crigler's concerns, by saying the trucks will not be driving along the top except to build a 12 -foot berm. They will be filling from bottom up -165 feet below. The EIR indicates that the noise level will not become a problem until it reaches a certain elevation, and at that time they will have the berm in place. Ms. Crigler said there will be heavy equipment working in that area and she could not understand how the plan could be accepted without an emergency buttressing plan. Mike Gomez, 12118 Hemlock St., El Monte, was concerned about traffic circulation and scheduling and said according to the report, there will be 67,500 trucks a year coming to the site. This translates to 540,000 trucks in eight years and 810,000 trucks in 12 years. He wondered how a couple of inspectors would be able to thoroughly check 3500 tons of materials for contamination? He asked if small excavations would be tested as well as the larger ones? Page 20 of the report indicates that "crawler tractors" will be utilized for final disposition of materials. This is obviously a noise factor. What happens if the soil is contaminated and pollutes the groundwater? Is there an alternate plan to decontaminate the water at that point? This is not stated in the report. He was concerned about the affects of a moderate earthquake and the possibilities of it triggering a large - scale slope failure. The statement on page 83, "the project site is not located in an earthquake, fire, or flood hazard zone" is inconsistent with the statements on page 34 and 46. He asked how Arcadia could have granted the permit to Rodeffer Investments in 1967 to operate the sand and gravel quarry, when they were aware of the potential earthquake danger to the area and the adjacent properties? Now, the residents are faced with the dangers which they did not create. He went on to say that their drinking water will be contaminated, the air quality will be affected by truck and equipment emissions, noise will be increased. The El Monte residents will have to live with the above negative impacts. Their property values will also be affected. This has not been addressed in the report. He asked the Commission to very seriously consider the decision that will be made. Steve Archilbald, representing Assemblywoman Hilda Solis, who represents the City of El Monte, Chief Consultant to the California State Assembly Select Committee on groundwater contamination and landfill leakage. He has been involved with establishing and analyzing environmental law in Sacramento, specifically for the San Gabriel Valley, for the past six years and has advised both Assemblymembers Sally Tanner and Dick Mountjoy. They would prefer the installation of a liner at the site, given the hydrogeologic characteristics of gravel pits in the San Gabriel Valley. A large number of inert waste landfills are located in pits, which have a relatively solid nonporous geologic layer underlying the site or where the underlying Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 8 groundwater is not so crucial a drinking water. This is not true of the Rodeffer pit. Because they will be accepting inert waste from potentially thousands of sources, it will be much more difficult to screen these loads with any degree of surety. This in conjunction with the major impact that any leachate would have on closely underlying groundwater, cries out for a liner. He went on to say that the already contaminated San Gabriel groundwater basin is not the place in which to experiment with an unlined waste dump. The operation of a new landfill and gravel pit is inconsistent with efforts to protect and clean up the biggest superfund site in the nation. One of the comments made was that the State Legislature mandates to fill the quarry as set forth in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. This is particularly misleading inasmuch as nothing in SMARA requires this pit to be filled, let alone filled with inert waste. SMARA does require potential dangers to public safety to be abated, but that can be accomplished in several other ways. They felt the EIR must place greater emphasis on these alternatives. The EIR cannot and does not adequately address the very problematic issue of non inert material being accepted and disposed in the pit. Load checking programs are never able to catch all illicit waste. Even with recycling and load checking programs in place, there are many household hazardous waste that is still being disposed in solid waste facilities. The EIR gives very little consideration to these problems beyond the establishment of a load checking program and the after - the -fact monitoring of downgradient water. He questioned whether it is appropriate under CEQA for a public agency to be designated as lead agency when it bears no accountability at all to the citizens adversely affected by the project. Although this project is under Arcadia's jurisdiction, it will affect El Monte residents. This is an unfortunate application and misuse of CEQA. David James, Chairman of Forest Preservation Society of Southern California, said their staff is still looking at the EIR and they have not had the opportunity to go through the document. If the Commission votes on this tonight, they have done so without the full benefit of their comments. The EIR does not address a worst -case scenario. He did not think the City has the resources to correct a catastrophic contamination of the basin water supply. It lacks both the money and the technical means. Arcadia must plan and account for a worst case scenario, including all measures which would restore contaminated water supplies. He asked where the City would get its money from to clean the site up in case of contamination? It's citizens? The present project does not include the worst -case scenario, which envisions total contamination of the underlying aquifer. Approval of any project which threatens basin water supplies without first addressing the worst -case scenario is irresponsible to the citizens of Arcadia and the San Gabirel Valley. He urged the Commission to deny the project. Ann Ammons, 12121 Cherry lee Dr., El Monte, said there is activity at night. She was concerned about the trucks and what it might do for the stabilization of the area in there. Traffic will worsen in the area which is already congested. The freeway will become hazardous with the increased number of trucks from this site. She was also concerned about the air pollution. Jerry Velasco, 12118 Hemlock, El Monte, said that contrary to what some might say, he has never been influenced by the El Monte City officials. The residents are trying to express their feelings. Most of the people approving the issues will be from Arcadia and answering to Arcadia officials. He was concerned that no one considers what the El Monte residents think and feel. Who will be responsible for contaminated water? Will Arcadia be the responsible party or will it be Rodeffer? 8 -12 years is a long time to have to listen to noises created by the trucks. Their lives will be affected. Doreen Moore, 9816 Flaherty, Temple City, past resident of Arcadia. She noted that several years ago, the Arcadia Tribune and the L.A. Times ran articles stating that all dumps have been found to toxic, even the ones that are not hazardous dumps. She asked what is the soil permeability? Is it 2 inches per second? Is it going to be few inches per second, few inches per minute, or is it not going to be very much? Due to the type of soil, which is an old river bed, if by chance one truckload gets through with some toxins in it, either known or Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 9 unknown, it is not very long before it is going to go straight through those soils to the the old aquifers to the silt that is underneath. She asked what is Rodeffer's record and his standing at his other dump sites throughout the State? What is the record of the trucking companies plus the unknown trucks that will be coming there? What is the record for Caltrans? What will be done about nighttime activity, especially when nighttime is when most illegal dumping occurs? Has this area ever been tested for toxic materials? Has anyone taken the noise decibels? She felt uncomfortable leaving the future of the project unknown and thought a decision must be made that this will definitely not become a hazardous dump, which is often a cycle with inert dumps. With regard to liners, she said that clay or cement liners will crack in case of an earthquake. Having a crack in a dump over an old riverbed that houses aquifers for the area, is a serious thought to consider. There was a five minute recess. Tom Biodoouski, 4707 Banniloc Ave., El Monte, said when they started mining in the area, they built a berm along Lower Azusa Rd. and trees and plants were planted and it looked nice and was well maintained. However, it is now an eyesore and the residents have to look at it. He did not think they are concerned about safety but are concerned about monetary issues. On occasions he has seen trucks lined up at the entrance, as early as 4:30 a.m., before the gates open. There is a curve which creates a hazardous situation. Bonnie Jimenez, 12203 Lower Azusa Rd., El Monte, agreed with Mr. Biodoouski and said the property is definitely an eyesore. In reference to the meeting at the Masonic Hill, the majority of the people were against the project and she remarked that there are only a handful of people in favor of it. She asked why the City of El Monte cannot have equal responsibility for monitoring what is going on there. The citizens of El Monte would feel safer knowing their city would be monitoring the project. William Tucker, 5127 Durfee, El Monte, said his property is adjacent to the pit. The cliff wall of the pit is less than 100 feet from his front door. He remarked that Rodeffer has not been a good neighbor. There has been noise from the drudging on late into the night. He did not think they are concerned about safety because the fence has not been properly maintained for many years. He said the rules and regulations sound good but did not think they would be implemented. He wondered who would be responsible for all the health problems due to the poor air quality and the poor water quality that will result from this operation. He was concerned about their property values. Royall Brown, 2153 Aroma Dr., West Covina, said he has appeared before this Commission several times and BKK has been the corporation associated with the project. BKK has had a very bad reputation with the citizens of the various areas and the water people. It is a welcome change to see that the applicant has left his involvement with this corporation and moved on to somebody else. He thought the use of the land in the future should be a part of the EIR. The Commission should understand that nationwide, it is becoming recognized that any type of disposal operation is becoming considered incompatible with water development. Arcadia will not be well thought of if the project is approved. He remarked that Ms. Fox indicated discussing the project with the Army Engineers and he felt that wetlands and natural course of the river should be part of the Executive Summary. He went on to say that the overriding Planning consideration in this case should be the natural course of the river as defined hydrologically is defined by the bluffs. The homes in El Monte are on top of the bluff and at the bottom of the bluff is the existing gravel pit. He said the Commission can use the Niles Comb case to turn down this project. In this case, the public is given the right to use the natural course of the river at all times in the future for use of water purposes. The Federal Government, recognizing the importance of the natural course of the river, has passed the 401 provisions and the permit requirements for wildlife preservation. The fact that the pit has water in it, makes it wetlands. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 10 Irrespective of whether the applicant has gone through the proper procedures with the Army Engineers and the list of Governmental Agencies that should be involved, the wetlands question should be part of the alternatives. He thought to fill the pit would mean the loss of wetlands. The Federal Government is promising the opposite and they should try to increase wetlands and not lose them. If this project is approved, the City is going against a national goal. The San Gabriel Valley needs more spreading grounds. They could have conserved many millions more gallons and acre feet of water this past year, if more spreading grounds were available. He urged the Commission to support the alternative for groundwater recharge basin and recommend that to the City Council. There are other good public uses to the benefit of the maximum number of people to use this property as a spreading grounds. It is unique in nature in that it is immediately adjacent to the river and all they would have to do is put a pipe between the river with a valve going to the of the pit and make it usable as spreading grounds. Jim Angerer, 11702 Hemlock, El Monte, urged the Commission to consider the purpose and the credibility of the source of all the information that has been received tonight. Dave Hill, 12043 Cherrylee, El Monte, said during groundwater monitoring, downgradient groundwater quality exceeds both the WDR limits and upgradient groundwater quality, groundwater shall be extracted and cleaned until downgradient groundwater quality meets the WDR limits and upgradient water quality. He asked if anyone would care to comment on the above? Ms. Butler said that that has been recommended as a monitoring measure and the consultant can address that. George Bucey, 5063 La Medera, El Monte, questioned the safety of the bridge near the site with the number of trucks traveling over it and possibly sitting on the bridge to enter the gates full of gravel. Mark Persico, City Planner for the City of El Monte, 11333 Valley Blvd., El Monte. He said there is almost total lack of enforceability of the conditions as set forth in the report. He hoped the Council will act to strengthen these conditions and they will have additional comments to make before the Council. Mr. Gomez asked how the City of Arcadia can recommend approval of the project, when Mr. Lacoss mentioned that there was a problem with one of the slopes and that they were in the process of submitting that. Ms. Butler said one of the mitigation monitoring measures is to look at the slope stability and address that issue prior to commencement of operations on the site. Prior to operation, the applicant will have to submit a plan on the slope stability. The approval of the project is subject to the conditions that are set forth in the chapter for mitigation monitoring measures. In rebuttal, Ms. Fox stated that she was concerned with some of the comments made by Steve Archibald, representing Assemblywoman Solis. Some of his statements were inappropriate in terms of legal statements. He made a comment about the inappropriateness of the City of Arcadia being the lead agency. As the jurisdiction responsible for granting land use permits on this property, Arcadia is in fact the only appropriate lead agency for this project. With regard to comments by Mr. Royall Brown, she said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who is the jurisdiction and is responsible under federal law for addressing federal wetland issues, has already stated that there is no wetland on the Rodeffer property. It has nothing to do with a river course. It is not a navigable waterway and is a sand and gravel pit that has been depleted and has filled with water. She referred to a letter dated April 1991 which is part of the record. A second check in July 1993 , confirmed that this is not a wetland issue. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 11 She further stated that CEQA states that an EIR is an informational document and is not to be used as project justification. She remarked that one of the speakers suggested having a representative from the City of El Monte being present at the site, and said the applicant would be in favor of that. With regard to the question of who is responsible for overseeing what happens to the property, Federal law says that is is the property owner ultimately responsible. Mr. Miller said he would like to concur with Ms. Fox with regard to some legal points that were made. Arcadia is the jurisdiction in which Mr. Rodeffer's property resides, and Arcadia has no choice but to process the application. For years, Arcadia has tried to involve El Monte to become a part of this. Several years ago a meeting was held involving City Managers, Planning Directors and City Attorneys from both cities to discuss working together on this project and policing it and joint monitoring was even suggested. The El Monte officials did not respond and used the information from this meeting to engender another lawsuit which the taxpayers of El Monte paid for. Arcadia has to process this because it is in our jurisdiction. El Monte seemed to just want to litigate. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Daggett to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Daggett was in favor of recommending approval of the project to Council. According to the EIR, there are no unavoidable adverse impacts. He added although they are not to be concerned with the future use of the project, he suggested some thought be given to amplifying on the design value or the bearing capacity of the compacted soil. Ms. Butler clarified and said the EIR identifies impacts; and if the mitigation measures set forth were adopted, and if they were to comply with all of the conditions of approval including the mitigation measures, there would be no unavoidable impacts, with the exception is the air quality. Commissioner Amato agreed with Commissioner Daggett. He was concerned with hours of operation and suggested reducing them. He suggested joint inspection by Arcadia and El Monte. Commissioner Hedlund thought the years of operation should be addressed. He was seriously concerned and thought the slow down of construction will have a tremendous affect. He thought there should be better clarification of the cleanliness of the material that is going to be used. Dirt is inert but now they have to address the runoff from construction sites. They have to address the content of that natural dirt through its content. He thought having joint inspection would slow down the process. He went on to say that he has always been an advocate of water recharge in Southern California and would like to see that item addressed more. One of the concerns is that contaminated water could enter the area from run off. In this day and age, they should do everything to eliminate contaminated runoff from going into any body of water. He thought that might be one of the reasons why water discharge was not considered as an alternative and he did not think that is a good enough reason. Commissioner Huang asked who would enforce the mitigation measures? He thought the mitigation measure for cleaning up contaminated water is too general. He suggested the consultant take a close look at this mitigation measure and see whether and after thorough examination, there will be significant or insignificant level of impact. Chairman Clark thanked the audience for their comments. He expressed concern over what is an inert material and what should go into the pit and the possible contamination of groundwater supply, both of which are legitimate concerns and should be looked at carefully. The issues of air pollution, traffic, and noise are there and there is no way to deny that there probably will be an increase of contaminants in the air, more traffic and noise as a result of the pit being filled up. An Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 12 existing State law requires that something be done about this pit. It is a hazard in many respects. The item to address is how to best rectify the problem in attempting to minimize the negative impacts on the environment and the neighborhood. The EIR and Reclamation Plan as proposed are a good start although additional information is needed. Mr. Miller explained the motions that need to be made. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Daggett, seconded by Commissioner Amato to prepare the appropriate resolution for adoption at the Commission's next meeting, reflecting the Commission's action and setting forth the Commission's comments and recommendations on the Draft EIR in terms of adequacy of impact analysis, mitigation measures, and project alternatives. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Huang, Clark NOES: None MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Daggett, seconded by Commissioner Huang to direct staff to convey the Commission's recommendations, comments, and findings regarding the Reclamation Plan to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Huang, Clark NOES: None MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Daggett, seconded by Commissioner Amato to recommend approval of CUP 92 -003 to the City Council and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for adoption at the Commission's next meeting, reflecting the Commission's action and recommendations. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Huang, Clark NOES: None Ms. Butler anticipated that the public hearing before the Council will be sometime in December. Further study will be done to respond to all the comments received tonight as well as comments received up to September 24th. If anyone in the audience would like to be notified, they should let the Planning Department know. Notices will be sent for the meeting before the Council to those persons currently on our mailing list as well as anybody else who requests it. Chairman Clark thanked the audience and all their input. The resolution for the above project will be presented to the Commission at its October 12th meeting. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 13 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None MATTERS FROM COUNCIL Councilman Lojeski discussed the items which were on the Council's last meeting. He discussed the closure of Wilderness Park, Dominico's Restaurant, the design review of the ATM machine at that location, the capital improvement program regarding the library. He discussed the reorganization of the Planning, Building, Code Enforcement and Redevelopment Departments into one Community Development Department. He informed the Commission that approximately 150 applicants applied for the position of Community Development Director and it has been narrowed down to 9 applicants. Discussion ensued about the trash company servicing the City. MATTERS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Amato indicated he would not be present at the September 28th meeting. Mr. Miller said the Rodeffer project is set up so if there is litigation, Mr. Rodeffer will bear the court costs and the City will not be liable. MATTERS FROM STAFF Since there were no items on the Commission's agenda besides the resolutions from tonight's meetings and with one Commissioner absent, the Commission suggested adjourning to the October 12th meeting, which will give staff more time to prepare the resolutions and try to address some of the questions raised tonight. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to October 12,1993 Secretary, Arcad Pla , i g ommission Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/14/93 Page 14