HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 20,1988_2
30:0247
CITY 'COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
I
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(Oct. 4,
1988)
(APPROVED)
ORD. & RES.
READ BY
TITLE ONLY
ARCADIA
UNIFIED
SCH.DIST.
("JUST
SAY NO")
I
CLOSED
SESSION
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
and the
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 1988
The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a
regular session at 7:30 p. m., October 20, 1988 in the Arcadia City
Hall Council Chamber.
Rev. Ilia Daikovich, Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ The Saviour
Mayor Pro Tem Roger Chandler
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
On MOTION by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Young and
CARRIED, the Minutes of the Adjourned and Regular Meetings of October 4,
were APPROVED.
It was MOVED by Councilmember LJjeski, seconded by Councilmember Chandler
and CARRIED, that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only and
that the reading in full be waived.
PRESENTATIONS
vi Suzanne Keavney, Director of Pupil Personnel, Arcadia Schools, was
present to announce that next week is Red Ribbon Week and the Arcadia
Unified School District has a series of events and programs scheduled
to highlight the week. In addition, the School District has sponsored
a JUST SAY NO pledge drive for all students from Kindergarten to Ninth
Grade. A group of students from the REACH ARCADIA group was also present
to present the cards to Council. These cards are a symbol of the resolve
of the youth of Arcadia to say NO to drugs not just during Red Ribbon week,
but all through the year. On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Harbicht
thanked Mrs. Keavney and the students for all their efforts in this matter
because having the young people enlisted in this battle against drugs is
outstanding. Congratulations and thank you.
CITY ATTORNEY
The City Attorney announced that "the City Council and the Arcadia
Redevelopment Agency met in a CLOSED SESSION this evening pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 to give instructions to the City's
negotiator regarding the potential acquisition and various property
transactions pertaining to property at 162-164 East Huntington Drive
and also to property at 112 North First Avenue known as the Avis site
and authorize continued negotiations with the S. & W. Corporation and
the Vanderbur family, also with Grand Avis of Arcadia".
-1-
10/20/88
1.
PUBLIC
HEARING
Draft EIR
(Rodeffer
Proj. -
Lower
Azusa Rd.)
~
o
y
T
R
A
N
S
C
R
I
P
T
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
30:0248
The primary purpose of the public hearing was to afford the public and the
City Council the opportunity to comment specifically on any additional
enviromental issues and/or mitigation measures which should be addressed
or clarified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
Rodeffer Investments, Inc. projects as listed below.
1. A proposed inert landfill (C.U.P. 85-22) and subsequent
development of an 85 acre parcel on the north side of
Lower Azusa Road.
2. A tentative parcel map (T.P.M. 85-16) creating three
lots from one 12.2 acre lot on the south side of Lower
Azusa Road.
I
3. A conditional use permit (C.U.P 85-23) to operate a
62,800 square foot public storage facility on one of
the lots created by the above tentative parcel map.
Notices of the public hearing have been placed in the Arcadia Tribune and,
the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and mailed to property owners and all other
individuals and agencies requesting notification of any and all hearings
and the DEIR in particular in connection with the proposed projects.
Before opening the hearing to the public, Mayor Harbicht commented on
the background of the proposed projects and the specific purpose of this
public hearing. The Mayor then declared the public hearing open and the
following individuals and agencies came forward to address the City Council:
Don McMillen, Mayor of the City of El Monte
11333 Valley Boulevard, ~l Monte
Dr. Jack Witz, ICF Technology
Consultant to the City of El Monte
William D. Ross, Ross & Scott
Special Counsel to the City of El Monte
Betty Lowes
14122 Chilcott Street, Baldwin Park
Gail Avakian, Chairman
RICA - Responsible and Informed Citizens Action'
Barbara Mee, Member of La Fetra Heights Coalition of CLDRE
19014 La Fetra Drive, Glendora
Christina Astengo
12113 Hemlock, El Monte
Gail Thompson
11910 The Wye, El Monte
I
Fran McColland, r~presenting Congressman Esteban Torres
Mike Gomez
12118 Hemlock Street, El Monte
Jeff Seymour, Interim Superintendent
El Monte City School District representing the Board of Education
Mark Sullivan
12166 Hemlock, El Monte
Patricia Chavez, representing
East Valleys Organiza~ion
3226 Granada Avenue
-2-
10/20/88
JV.V-."'t;l
Jerry Velasco
12118 Hemlock, El Monte
Herb Fletcher
175 West Lemon, Arcadia
Terry Keenan
12050 Hallwood Drive, El Monte
Pat Gonzalez
4535 Maxson Road, El Monte
I
Paula Rose
4444 Bannister Avenue, El Monte
Chris Gauntt
327 East Lemon Avenue, Arcadia
Michael Raymond, Principal
Cherrylee School, El Monte
Albert Sanders
4421 Stewart, Baldwin Park
Bob Ogert, representative of Assemblywoman Sally Tanner
450 East Live Oak, Arcadia
Eugene Moses, Mayor of the City of Azusa
285 East Sierra Madre Boulevard, Azusa
Don Hager
12700 Elliott Avenue, El Monte
Sergio Villalobos
11814 The Wye, El Monte
Resident of El Monte
Loretta Emmel
1017 Orange Avenue, Monrovia
Susan Smith
12119 Hemlock Avenue, El Monte
AlIi Roysher
1784 Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia
No one else desiring to address the Council, Councilmember Gilb MOVED
to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and
CARRIED
AT THIS TIME MAYOR HARBICHT CALLED A THREE MINUTE RECESS
I
CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED
Mayor Harbicht called the City Council back to order and stated, "I would
like to suggest that the Council direct staff to forward to the consultants
all the remarks made this evening; direct communications that we received;
comments from the Planning Commission; and ask that they consider all of
those that they consider relevant; include them in the Final Enviromental
Impact Report".
It was so MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Gilb and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
,10/20/88
-3-
2.
30:0250
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
BFI - Refuse ~ Short, Browning-Ferris Industries, 213 North Marengo, Pasadena,
Operator came forward to give a presentation on behalf of his company as one of
the refuse companies who submitted proposals for the residential refuse
contract in the City. In confirmation of the chief points in their
proposal he displayed a "flip chart" and reiterated certain items "
as contained in their proposal. Mr. Short stated, in part, that they
feel BFI's rates could be the lowest proposed, in the long run, of all
the proposals Arcadia has received. They have a local operating center
in nearby Pasadena; their rates are guaranteed ... only tied in to the
CPI; service performance is bonded; they will not ask Council for a rate
increase due to landfill fee increases except for a possible pass-through I
tax or ,surcharges by a government agency. In response to a question
from Mayor Harbicht, he replied they"will find a landfill to dump the
City of Arcadia's trash". Referring to a graft chart and the rate
proposals of the other refuse operators, BFI rates, he believes, ~ould
remain relatively flat over the five year contract period with increases
only if the CPI increases and then only up to 80% of a 5% CPI incr~ase
no landfill increase. The six year (the 6th year is a "Bonus Year")
average cost would be $9.91. Mr. Short also stated the 30% per year
landfill increase in their proposal may be conservative .., it could go
higher. In any case BFI would absorb this cost. Mayor Harbicht noted
that this cost could possibly amount to an increase of 150% over the five
year period ... would BFI still be able to hold the line on rates1 An
affirmative an~wer was given. Mr. Short concluded his presentation by
stating, in part, that the benefits of BFI's proposal were cost protection;
budget safe; bonded performance; and the price is guaranteed.
19~
~\ ,
Alli Roysher, 1724 South San~a Anita Avenue. In reference to a, letter
to Council from the American Association of University Women and her own
letter published in the Arcadia Tribune on the same subject, Mrs,. Roysher
questioned the wisdom of placing the proposed Senior Citizens' Center at
the Rose Garden site rather than City Hall property. The traffic conges-
tion is a concern ... also the urban park open space will be diminished.
The purchase of the Armory for the Police Department was also mentioned
with the question of why not utilize that space ... construction would be
less costly, and there are many community needs. Mrs. Roysher noted that
some years ago $90,000 had been raised from a "Job-A-Walk-A-Torium" for an
auditorium ... and asked what has happened to those funds. Councilmember
Gilb responded that these monies are still in the bank ... the amount is
now at $100,000. The trustees in charge of the account are Mrs. Horstmann,
Joe Sargis and himself '" a report is issued about once a year on the
status of the account and any disbursement of funds. They ,have given about
$16,000 to the School District to have an "auditorium experience" from the
interest on the account. At this time they do not know what to do with
these funds.
In connection with some 'of Mrs. Roysher's points in reference to the
Senior Citizens' Center, Mayor Harbicht commented that he believes Arcadia
should have the Center ... Council has considered this issue carefully.
A petition with over 4,000 signatures thanking Council for this decision I
has been received. Also, the Rose Garden site selected for the site is
appropriate ... it works for a variety of reasons. At the present time,
Council is not considering any building project on the City Hall site.
Chris Gauntt, 327 East Lemon Avenue, suggested that the high school
really needs a larger theatre ... the Little Theatre can hardly accommodate
the 50 member orchestra ... possibly the funds from the "Jog-A-Walk-A-Torium"
could be used for this. Mayor Harbicht responded that this is why the money
was collected ... the problem 'is that we are about 12 million dollars short.
Councilmember Gilb also commented that there are some persons in the
community who want to give the monies to the school and others who do not
.,. and that is why the funds have not been given to the school.
-4-
10/20/88
Western
Waste
/
~':J
y'
.(1
I
I'
J
I'
~:,
Best
Disposal
:;1,"
Webster's
Refuse
3.
4.
4a.
ROLL CALL
4b.
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(Oct. 4,
1988)
(APPROVED)
I
30:0251
William Goedike, Western Waste, 1125 West 190th Street, Gardena.
"I would just like to clarify one point that was brought up from my
colleagues earlier about this 30% landfill increase ... we don't hold
to that statement made by the staff ... the County landfill rates over
the last four years have not averaged 30%. In fact as of July 1, 1988
there was no increase at the County... the rate stayed the same ... so
to state that it would be 30% and it should be factored in annually, we
think is a misstatement. The second part of that statement ... when you
talk about a 30% increase in the landfill, we're talking about probably a
residential rate increase per month of about 35~ or about 4 or 5%. In
other words, a 30% increase landfill does not relate to a 30% increase in
rates. Of landfill only represents about 18 to 20% of the operating costs
of a company. So when you factor the tonage back, you're talking about a
4 or 5% increase at a residential level. The County rates have not in-
creased 30% a year for the last four years -- it's more like 18 or 19%
average. And, as I stated ... just want to make sure that Council is
aware that that isn't what's happened in the past and we don't think it
is going to happen in the future."
Dale Newton, 943 Balboa Drive, Arcadia, stated, in part, that he was
here tonight representing Best Disposal for the negotiation of the
refuse bid for the City of Arcadia '" a service they have performed
for the past 15 years. He asked if there were any questions or clarifica-
tions of their bid that Council might have? There were no questions from
Council.
Wylie Scott, Waste Management/Webster's Disposal, stated, in part, that
he felt that staff's recommendations have been very good and fair ...
there is one point that we would like to verify on their proposal. "The
$12 per month rate that staff brought out in the last recommendaiton re-
presented our opinion that automated service in the City of Arcadia would
require two containers per home to be totally effective ... and that rate
does include the two containers". Webster's would like to be the company
that the City negotiates with for the service contract.
CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
On MOTION by Member Young, seconded by Member Lojeski and
CARRIED, the Minutes of the Meeting of October 4, 1988 were APPROVED.
4c.
ADJOURNMENT The Meeting adjourned to 7:00 p. m., November 1, 1988.
6.
5. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED
6a. /
HEARING V
SCHEDULED
(Nov. 1,
1988)
(MOD 88-023-
1035
Hampton Rd.)
(Appeal by
HOA)
CONSENT ITEMS
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 1, 1988 to consider the appeal by
the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association of Planning Commission's
approval of construction of a two-story dwelling with attached garage at
1035 Hampton ~oad (MP 88-023).
-5-
10/20/88
30:0252
/
6b.
HEARING
SCHEDULED
(Nov. 15,
1988)
(T.A.
88-004 )
6c. ,,'}-
TRAFFIC ~~ ACCEPTED the work and AUTHORIZED final payment in accordance with the
SIGNAL ~~ terms of the contract with Signal Maintenance, Inc. for installation of
INSTALL. & traffic signal system and modification of existing street light system
MOD.LIGHT on Huntington Drive at the access roadways to the Arcadia Redevelopment
SYSTEM Agency's Gateway Centre and Emkay projects. Pursuant to Council approval
(Signal of February 2, 1988, Arcadia Redevelopment Agency funds not to' exceed .. 1
Maint., $81,000 will reimburse the City for project design and construction costs.
Inc.-Job
No. 638)
6d.
,
TEMPORARY
CHRISTMAS
TRE~ STORAGE
TENTS
I
.~~
f"
7 .
7a.
RESIDENTIAL
REFUSE
CONTRACT
(Best
Disposal)
.~
~ \W
PUBLIC HEARI~G SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 15, 1988 to consider Text
Amendment 8B-004 adding Section 9250.3.3.1 to the R-M zone and
Section 9252.2.5.1 to the R-l zone requiring a minimum 20' 0" side
yard setback on the street side of reverse corner lots.
APPROVED temporary tents for storage of Christmas trees at 756 Sunset
and 721 W. Foothill Drive (Hawkins Christmas Trees) and Foothill and
Santa Anita Avenue on the southwest corner next to the Unoeal Station
(Tahoe Christmas Tree Co.) subject to compliance with Fire Department
regulations.
ALL OF THE AllOVE CONSENT ITEMS WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER
GILB, SECONDED BY CONCILMEMBER LOJESKI AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS
FOLLOWS:
AYES:
NOES:
AllSENT:
Councilmembers Chand~er, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
NOne
CITY MANAGER
At a special meeting on October 4, 1988, Council heard presentations
from three bidders for the Arcadia residential refuse contract. Western
Waste, Webster's Refuse Disposal (Waste Management) and Best Disposal
presented their proposals and responded to the concerns of Council and
staff. The staff report of October 13, 1988 outlined the amendments
to the respective bids by the above refuse companies and also included
an outline of the proposal from Browning-Ferris Industries who were not
present at the October 4 meet~ng to present their proposal.
Before discussion by Council, Mayor Harbicht stated that his','vie.'. of
procedure would be to select a contractor, direct staff to negotiate a
final proposal... always recognizing that if those negotiations are not
successful or do not meet with Council's spproval then change to a
different contractor to negotiate with. If a consideration 'is automated
pickup, he would expect staff to study very carefully that particular '. 'I
issue and either satisfy themselves that they should recommend to,Council
that Council should or should not go with that ... or at least to come
back with two alternatives with a very complete description of, the advan-
tages and disadvantages of each for Council to make the decision.
In the ensuing discussion Councilmember Gilb stated, in part,' that he is
not too sure tlBt the automated bin service is workable in Arcadia. It is
such a change from the type of service we have now. Council will have to
find out what would be best for our City. With reference to 'recycling,
this is a very important program and should be offered to the residents.
Councilmember Gilb went on to say that all of the refuse operators '
present this evening are first-class and first-rate, but he happens to
favor Best Disposal for many reasons; Best has been with the City for
a long time; he has never had a complaint about a driver; no'one has
ever complained to him of anyone saying abusive things to any person; their
equipment has always been workable; their trucks do not leave diesel fuel
in driveways ... so the equipment must be in good condition; the residents
\'
10/20/88
-6-
1
1
\pb
~\
8.
8a.
ORDINANCE
NO. 1896
(ADOPTED)
I,' ~vS -::5
X" \ yif
. \V,
v '
30:0253
are satisfied with the service. Although the last bin rates were too
high, according to some,. but Council had approved the rates ... so I,tt
was just as much Council's fault as anyone else .,. this was the only
complaint he has ever heard about Best. With Best's past record of
service in the City they are t~companffthat we should negotiate with
first; they have run a first-class organization and deserve to be con-
sidered first. '
Counncilmember Lojeski commented in part, that he, too, has talked with
a lot of people, especially in Durate, in connection with the automated
service .., in looking ahead the automation concept appears to be the
wave of the future. He has the same concerns about it as Councilmember
Gilb. It is a great difference from a very traditional way of doing
business in this community. With respect to the service that Best has
provided to the City, in his consideration of all the proposals he came
back to this time and time again ... the 15 years of history. He would
be comfortable at this point in time to look favorably at Best Disposal
and go with them.
Councilmember Young stated in part, that she agrees with both Council-
member Gilb and Lojeski and believes Council would be somewhat remiss if
Council at least didn't start negotiations with Best and see if they
could work out what is agreeable to the City. As to recycling, it would
be remiss also if this was not offered to our residents.
Mayor Harbicht stated in part, that, "I think we have a situation here
where we had four excellent firms all of which I think could do the job
for us. ,I was impressed with the presentations. I was impressed with the
various aspects of each of the firms and I think we ended up with very
similar proposals; very similar levels of service; very similar costs,
frankly. It's very difficult. ... it should be black and white but with
all the various kinds of rates you can't make an exact comparison. I
guess we're in a situation where .,. in my business if I'm doing a good
job for someone I expect them to continue to use my services. Best has
done a good job for us and I really haven't seen a real good reason to
change. That's where I am. If Best were to go out of business tomorrow
I would be very happy to have these other three firms to choose from and
I'm sure that we could work out an acceptable arrangement with them. But
I guess I think that we have some loyalty for a firm that has done the
job for us in the past. I think going out for proposals wss an appropriate
thing so that we could ... give everyone an o,ppor tuni'ty_, and I .
think we found out that we're getting a decent rate; decent level of
service; and what we could expect. II
Whereupon, Councilmember Gilb MOVED that the City Council AUTHORIZE
the staff to negotiate with Best Disposal to secure an agreement for
an exclusive residential refuse contract and include the recyclables
and all of the other concerns of the Council. Also include in the
MOTION a thank you to the other people who have come to Council and
made presentations. Seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED on
roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
CITY ATTORNEY
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title
of Ordinance No. 1896, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE VI OF THE ARCADIA
MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING BUSINESSES, PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND OCCUPATIONS,
THE BUSINESS LICENSE FEES APPLICABLE THERETO, AND RELATED MATTERS".
. o' ,or,.. , '...._:",; ..
Councilmember Gilb referred to discussion on this subject at the previous
meeting by Councilmember Lojeski during which he noted that 43 out of 86
people in his building did not have business licenses. Councilmember Gilb
had received calls from business people in the City about this, so he asked
staff to do a study on the Citicenter Building as to who had licenses and
10/20/88
-7-
~tono~
"
"
:t,
ROLL CALL
8b.
RESOLUTION
No. 5449
(ADOPTED)
of'\.
\~
X'
8c.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5450
(ADOPTED)
~
p-V
QV l
. \' f-'"
~. \,1\0
-!{
K
"
/. .
;.. '. 30: 0254
who did not. According to that report, 82 people have licenses; 10 do
not; 9 are exempt. The Business License Department is checking on those
who do not have licenses. The almost 50% figure was not correct.
It was ~O\'E.D by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmelll.ber 'loun& aud
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1896 be and it is
hereby ADOPTED.
Mayor Harbicht commented that he feels it is important that this study was
done because an erroneous impression was given. Regarding the 10 persons
who did not have licenses -- there is a suite iu that building where one
can rent a desk and there is quite a bit of turnover in that section.
Virtually everyone of these was in that particular suite of offices. The
City is not remiss in enforcing its business license ordinance. If these
ten had not obtained licenses, the loss to the City would have been $250.
Staff is doing an excellent job of getting licenses from those who should
be paying.
1
Councilmember Lojeski noted that when his question was posed to staff,
it was based on information from the building marquee only... he did not
check office to office ... he submitted an alphabetized list. From that
list, it was indicated to him which names were not listed as having business.
licenses. Approximately 20 now have business licenses. Those were not
erroneous numbers.
Councilmember Gilb replied that he had not said the numbers were erroneous
merely that 86 names had been submitted -- staff said 43 had licenses. He
was concerned about so many people not having licenses -- did not say the
figures were erroneous.
Mayor Harbicht said he thought staff was doing an excellent job. He does
not want to leave the impression that Council has brought them into line;
they have been doing an excellent job.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Young and Harbicht
Councilmember Lojeski (For reasons stated in previous meeting.)
None
The City Attorney presented, explained the content ,and read the title of
Resolution No. 5449, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ANNEX CERTAIN LANDS
TO THE ARCADIA CONSOLIDATED LIGHTING DISTRICT (ANNEXATION NO. 15) AND
FIXING A TIME FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS TO SAID PROPOSAL".
It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Gilb and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5449 be and it is
hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers
None
None
Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
1
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of
Resolution No. 5450, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES FUNDS AUTHORIZED UNDER SB 821".
It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Chandler
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5450 be. and
it is hereby ADOPTED.
Mayor Harbicht inquired if City was to apply for these funds and hold
them for further study of the matter. Staff replied that was true.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
10/20/88
-8-
8d.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5451
(Cont'd to
Nov.l,1988)
~,
8e.
CLAIMS OF
T.ZAMPIELLO
& 1. K.
ANDREWS
(DENIED)
1
9. "
CITY
ATTORNEY
(Fire-
Works
Display
Permit)
,,\ I'R lfi
(" ,,/)0
5vP
FIREWORKS
DISPLAY
PERMIT
(APPROVED)
10.
LOJESKI
1 SIGNAL /
(Htg. &
Golden
West)
GILB
30:0255
Ion direction of Council, Resolution No. 5451, entitled: "A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS
LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION" was CONTINUED to November 1, 1988.
On recommendation of the City Attorney, the claims of T. Zampiello and
L. K. Andrews were DENIED on MOTION by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by
Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
MATTERS FROM STAFF
A request was presented this evening for a permit for a fireworks display
at Arcadia High School homecoming. This concerns an item~ that did not
come to the City's attention until after the agenda was prepared and
distributed. The Fire Chief recommends approval of this permit subject
to the conditions of approval set forth in his report dated October 20,
1988. However, since it is not on the agenda, before it is taken up, a
motion is required under the Brown Act. The MOTION is that Council
concurs that the need to take action on this item arose after the post-
ing of the City Council's agenda; therefore Council needs to act upon it
this evening even though it was not on the agenda.
MOTION made by Mayor Harbich~, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and
so ordered.
It was then MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember
Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the permit for
fireworks display for Arcadia High School Homecoming October 28, 1988
be APPROVED, subject to the conditions set forth in staff report dated
October 20, 1988.
,Councilmember Gilb noted that this request for permit had been submitted
to Council too late to be placed on the agenda last year also. He
suggested that the school be notified as to the time requirement for
this type of permit for the future.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
Noted that he had had six complaints from residents in the Lower Rancho
in the last two weeks concerning the signal at Golden West and Huntington
Drive regarding the time they spend waiting for that';s:f,gnal ,to';oha"ge,
particularly during hours other than race track time. This is paricularly
a problem when going in a north/south direction
Mayor Harbicht directed staff to look into the matter.
(Signs
Store
Windows)
/ Noted that he had been receiving complaints regardingt:the large number
v' and size of signs on store windows, specifically liquor stores and also
in specifically, the shopping center across from the 612 buildiI\g 'and':Go':Go
Liquors. Staff replied that if Council desires, more intensive enforce-
ment of the sign code will be done. Mayor Harbicht concurred.
YOUNG
(Trees -
Champion
Develop.)
/
Referred to Newsletter of September 22, 1988 and the letter from Champion
Development for the Arcadia Avenue and Baldwin piece of property where they
offered to plant some trees. She would like to see trees planted there --
perhaps 2 or 3. Mayor Harbicht noted that this was in response to his
letter to them. Suggested they be contacted with appreciation for their
offer and Council would like to take them up on it.
10/20/88
-9-
YOUNG /
(G & S
Towing)
11.
ADJOURNMENT
(Nov. 1,
1988)
ATTEST:
30:0256
Noted that G & S Towing has moved to the corner of First Avenue and
La Porte. Their trucks are backing in and out of that corner parking
area, which is very small for the number of trucks. She is concerned
for safety of pedestrians. Also there are large flatbed trucks there.
Suggests they should be more careful. Mayor Harbicht suggested a note
to be sent to alert drivers.
City' Council adjourned at 10:35 p. m. to 7:00 p. m., November 1, 1988
in the Chamber Conference Room to conduct the business of the Council
and Agency and any CLOSED SESSION, if any, necessary to discuss personnel,
litigation and evaluation of properties.
"
,
~.' ,;. o!..~
1
" '-,
/~~
.
R. C. Harbicht, Mayor
r
, . ,.;,.< ~~ ;:' .
1
10/20/88
-10-
"
T RAN S C RIP T
(Insofar as decipherable)
o
RELATING TO
1
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL
IN CONSIDERATION AND REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED RODEFFER INVESTMENTS, INC.
PROJECT ON LOWER AZUSA ROAD (C.U.P. 85-22, INERT LANDFILL,
T.P.M. 85-16, C.U.P. 85-23, PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY)
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1988
f
1
.
1
1
MAYOR ROBERt
HARBICHT
We're now going to move on to Item 1, a public hearing on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for an inert landfill. Before opening the
public hearing I'd like to make some comments on the background and
what we're doing here this evening. I understand there's a little bit
of interest in the audience on this particular item. I'd like to
point out first, for clarification, that contrary to what you may have
been told or may have heard, this is not a proposal by the City of
Arcadia. I've read over and over that Arcadia wants to do this or
Arcadia is planning to do that or Arcadia's going to push this thing
through. And I think it's very important that everyone understands
this is not a proposal by the City of Arcadia. It's also very impor-
tant that everyone understand that the City Council of Arcadia has
taken absolutely no position on this landfill. We've taken no position
in favor of the landfill, we have taken no position in opposition to
the landfill. The matter has not been before the City Coucnil for a
position to be taken. This land is privately owned. A proposal has
been made by the owner of the land to establish a landfill, fill this
pit with inert materials. Whenever a proposal is made in our City by
any property owner for any kind of a development, any kind of proposal
that's made, it's our obligation as a City Council of the City to
study the proposal and make a decision of whether or not to allow it
to go through. That's where we are at this point. Our interest as
a City Council is considering all of the advantages and disadvantages
of the proposal and make an informed decision when the time comes to
make that decision. We want to insure that if this is approved, that
we have a safe development, that we have a desirable development, and
that we protect everyone who is affected by it. I'd also like to point
out that, despite what you may have been told or what we've seen in
various communications, the City Council of the City of Arcadia is
interested in the welfare of everyone. And when I say everyone I mean
the citizens of Arcadia, the citizens of El Monte, the citizens of
Baldwin Park, the citizens of Irwindale, anyone who might be affected
by anything that happens in our community. One of the tasks that we
have to do in order to consider this proposal is to determine what
effects this will have if, in fact, that were to go forward. One way
we do that, and something which the law requires, is to have an
Environmental Impact Report. For an Environmental Impact Report,
consultants are hired to study the proposal to try to determine all of
the impacts that this might have, to suggest ways that any problems or
potential problems which might occur can be mitigated or avoided, and
actions to correct any problems. This process has been started, but
it doesn't stop there. We're at the point now where we have a draft
of the Environmental Impact Report. But it's not a complete Environ-
mental Impact Report. We want to make sure that everyone has an
opportunity to put in their input into this Environmental Impact
Report before it's finalized; because when it's done we want a complete
document so that when we look at this as part of the decision making
-1-
10-20-88
BARBICRT
we have a complete document. What we have tonight ia that opportunity
for anyone who wants to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report to do so. This is not the time to discuss the pros and cons
of the project. We're still in the fact-finding phase of this. As
I mentioned, we're not deciding tonight whether or not this project
is going to go ahead. We're not deciding tonight what conditions we
would put on it if it were to go ahead. None of that is at issue
this evening. That's quite a ways down the road. What we're deciding
tonight is what things should be studied by the Environmental Impact
Report. The next step after this evening is for the consultants to
take into consideration everything which has been brought up this
evening and in other communications that we've had and then complete
the Environmental Impact Report. When that is finally done, we
would then consider the Conditional Use Permit, which is what's
required for this project to go ahead. And the Environmental Impact
Report would weigh heavily in the consideration of that Conditional
Use Permit~not only in whether or not the project should be approved
but what conditions should be imposed if, in fact, it was approved.
I'd like to point out the comments on the desirability or the
undesirability of the project itself are inappropriate at this time.
Ample time will be given for that when the Conditional pse Permit
public hearing is held. It will be a hearing exactly like this one
and at that time ample time will be given for those comments. Comments
tonight should be restricted to suggestions of issues that the
Environmental Impact Report should address; suggestions of issues that
should be studied to make sure that we have a complete report for when
we do get to the point where we're considering the proposal itself.
To sum up, we are here to listen to you. The Council is going to make
no decision whatsoever this evening. We are here to simply gather
information or, actually, to give you an opportunity to input informa-
tion which the consultants would then eventually study and put into
the report. I'd like to set some ground rules before we start the
discussion this evening. The first thing is, we're interested in
facts. That's the only thing we're interested in is facts. And I'd
like to point out that if a fact is true, it doesn't really matter
whether one person believes that fact or 50 people believe that fact.
The fact that it is true is the key thing. I say this to point out
that there's no need to repeat what someone else has already said
because it's not a popularity contest. It doesn't add up because two
people say it or three people say it. If one person makes a point
and says, "I think this should be considered", then it's been done.
So I would like to ask you to please try to avoid repeating what pre-
vious speakers may have said. By the same token, there's no need to
applaud or demonstrate points that someone makes. Once again, we're
looking for facts and that's all. This is a serious matter. I'm sure
you all recognize it as a serious matter. We intend to listen very
seriously to the comments that you have. We intend to consider this
very seriously when we do get to the point where we're considering it.
I
I
-2-
10-20-88
I
I
HARBICRT
MAYOR OF
EL MONTE -
DON McMILLEN
And we also intend to listen courteously to what you have to say. I
think that's exactly what you want from us or should want from us.
We have already had a great deal of comment from various people and
agencies on this. I'd like to point out that we already had submitted
a report by ICF Technology, Inc. on this, a report by Ross & Scott
encompassing one very lengthy letter and then some additional letters
with additional points, a report from the Department of Public Works
of the County of Los Angeles, a report from the EI Monte City School
District, a comment from - it's a water company, the copy is very
light here, but it's the water company, I think, that would service
this area, a comment from the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and comment from the State of California on this matter. All
of these reports are extensive and detailed and I would like to point
out now that they all have been or will be passed on to the consultants
for consideration in coming up with the final draft Environmental
Impact Report. They're, in most cases, very well done, very detailed.
There is absolutely no reason to repeat those. Those are already part
of the record and already have been taken into consideration or will be
taken into consideration as we move on. We'd also like to ask that you
keep your comments brief and to the point. We have a limit of five
minutes for anyone speaker. I'm certainly not encouraging anyone to
use the entire five minutes if they don't need it. Rowever, if there
are one or two people here who are designated to act as spokesmen for
many of you, then I would be happy to relax that five-minute limit for
those spokesmen and give them additional time to make whatever points
they feel are necessary to make. So with that, I'm going to open the
public hearing, invite anyone who has comments, again, on what should
be included in the final Environmental Impact Report. Please come
forward, give us your name and address for the record and the hearing
is now open.
Good evening, Mr. Rarbicht and the City Council of Arcadia. My name is
Don McMillen. I'm the Mayor of EI Monte. My address is 11333 Valley
Boulevard. I am here tonight because my fellow councilmen and I are
very concerned about the proposed landfill project and related develop-
ment on Lower Azusa Road in Arcadia and how it will affect a very large
number of EI Monte residents. Your staff has prepared a report for the
public hearing tonight which states that you will not accept comments
at this time regarding the merits of the proposed development on both
side of Lower Azusa Road. Although I have a lot of comments regarding
my concerns on the type of development proposed tonight, the City of
EI Monte staff and I will focus on just the Draft EIR. We don't think
this Draft EIR document is adequate. There are still so many things
left out of the Draft EIR that we had to bring our lawyer and technical
consultants with us tonight to carefully explain some of our concerns.
The City of El Monte believes there are deficiencies in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report that require that it be recirculated. We
are very concerned that there be a thorough discussion and analysis of
the environmental issues associated with these projects. Most
-3-
10-20-88
McMILLEN
HARBICRT
JACK WITZ
ICF TECR.
important among those is the land use compatibility issue with exist-
ing single family development in the City of EI Monte and the effect
of the proposed use of those residents as well as nearby schools -
on those residents as well as nearby schools. We think that traffic
will be a significant issue that is inadequately analyzed and we wish
to repeat our continued concern about how continued contamination of
the groundwater basin will be dealt with by this project. The City
of EI Monte believes they are very technical issues and that, therefore,
the level of analysis i~ the Draft Environmental Impact Report must be
more thorough. I would like to introduce Mr. Jack Witz, ICF
Technology, Inc., the City of EI Monte's consultant in this matter,
who will raise additional issues, and he will be followed by Mr. Williaml
D. Ross of Ross & Scott, our special counsel to the City of EI Monte on
this matter. Our concerns deal with the health, safety and welfare,
not just to the City of EI Monte citizens, but also the many other
people in the San Gabriel Valley who will be affected by this project.
In closing, I would hope that your City would take seriously the issue
raised by the City of EI Monte. Thank you very much.
Thank you Mr. McMillen. I assure you, we will.
Mr. Mayor, City Council members. For the record, my name is Dr. Jack
Witz of ICF Technology. I'm a consultant to the City of EI Monte and
have been assisting EI Monte in the review of the Draft Environmental
Impact Report on the propased Rodeffer Development. We have already
filed written comments on behalf of the City of EI Monte regarding a
number of issues. We are not here to repeat these comments as we are
confident that the City Council will consider our concerns in their
decision making and will address the identified deficiencies in the
final EIR. Rowever, we would like to introduce four additional areas
of concern into the public record. These concerns relate to the load-
bearing strength of compacted fill material, wetland habitat, potential
impacts to school children surrounding the site and groundwater quality
data. The final load-bearing capacity of the reclaimed landfill is
expected to be 600 to 700 pounds per square foot. Rowever, in order
to support industrial development at the site the Uniform Building and
Safety Code requires a load-bearing capacity of 1500 to 2000 pounds per
square foot. The Department of Water Resources insists that reclama-
tion be rigidly controlled by the Department of Building and Safety to
insure that subsequent development can, indeed, occur. If this recom- I
mendation is not followed, the development could be subject to sub-
sidence and consequential structural damage. Depending on the nature
of the subsequent development, the potential for accidential releases
of industrial chemicals could hinge on the structural stability of the
site. A chemical release could seriously affect the health and safety
of the surrounding residential community. The Department of Fish and
Game has indicated that wetland habitat is situated on the property.
Rowever, the biological assessment performed for the project was based
on a few visits conducted in a single season of the year. Considering
-4-
10-20-88
I
I
WITZ
HARBICRT
COUNCILMEMBER
CHARLES GILB
HARBICRT
GILB
WITZ
GILB
WITZ
GILB
WITZ
GILB
HARBICRT
WILLIAM ROSS
ROSS & SCOTT
"
the sensitive nature of the habitat, field reconnaissance of the
site during bird migrat0rv seaS0ns 0r peak bl00m peri0ds f0r annual
species of flora, we feel that these issues should have been addressed
as a minimum. The base line information used in the Draft EIR is
seriously flawed and should be updated if biological impacts are to
be assessed properly. Approximately 3800 students attend school
within a 2-mile radius of the site. Each day these school children
will be affected by dust, noise and traffic during reclamation.
Impacts associated with subsequent development, although they cannot
be fully addressed until the nature of the activity is disclosed,
may include overcrowding of schools at a minimum. Rowever, impacts
to school children were never broached in the Draft EIR and this is
a serious deficiency in the document. We also agree with the letter
dated 9-27-88 from Thomas M. Stetson, engineer for the Main San
Gabriel Watermaster, that the most up-to-date information on ground-
water quality be obtained to accurately represent the existing base
line. We would like to remind the Council that the project is
situated within the designated boundaries of a Superfund site and
that any proposed project situated within Superfund site boundaries
must be carefully scrutinized so that the quality of our groundwater'
is not further deteriorated. The City of El Monte appreciates this
additional opportunity to express their concerns.
Thank you Mr. Witz.
May I ask a question?
Just one, Mr. Gilb.
Doctor, the point that you just brought out, are those all in your report?
No, these are additional.
These are additional?
These are additional.
OK. Because I had read your report and I didn't get them all for sure,
but I wanted to be sure that
These were being analyzed as the deadline was approaching, so ....
OK. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, my name is William D. Ross from
Ross & Scott. We are special counsel to the City of El Monte on this
matter. We have additional items we'd like to raise tonight. I'll be
very brief. They supplement our written comments dated September 30,
1988 and I've prepared a further communication that makes reference in
the Draft Environmental Impact Report to these conceptual areas. The
two additional comments deal with the concept and designation of the
project site as an "area of regional significance" under the Public
Resources Code Section 27 26. This is part of the Surface Mining
Reclamation Act that's contained in that portion of the Public Re-
sources Code. Although the DEIR does acknowledge that the site is
designated as a mineral resource site MRZ-2, it does not acknowledge
that there is this special status associated with that designation.
-5-
10-20-88
ROSS
There are two responsibilities that a local agency, or as it's
termed under that Act, a lead agency, must perform when there is a
reclamation planned for a mining area. One is to process the
reclamation plan, but one is also, in its land use decision, to
evaluate on an alternative basis what will happen if that mineral
resource is eliminated vis-a-vis alternative land uses that might be
proposed for the project site. Specifically, I can reference Public
Resources Code Section 27 63, Subdivision A, which provides the lead
agency, which in this instance is defined to include agencies like
the City of Arcadia, in its land use decisions involving areas
designated as being of regional significance, shall be in accordance
with the lead agency's mineral resource management policies and
shall, also, in balancing mineral values against alternative uses,
consider the importance of these minerals to their market region as
a whole and not just their importance to the lead agency's area of
jurisdiction. Again, although the DEIR acknowledges that this is a
mineral resources area, it does not engage in either of the two
analyses that are required by this section. We would respectfully
request whether or not these analyses can, in fact, take place, since
there is no provision presently in the Arcadia General Plan setting
forth detailed goals and policies for mineral preservation and manage-
ment. There is Chapter 9 in the Municipal Code that does provide for
a procedure associated with approval or disapproval of a reclamation
plan, but this is a separate and distinct function under the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act that I have referenced. We also think that
this is important with relationship to the discussion of project
alternatives in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, specifically
that dealing with the low density or residential proposal that's set
forth in Section IV of the document. I will furnish tonight a copy
of the 1988 Regional Rousing Needs Assessment of the Southern California
Association of Government wherein it indicates that there is a current
need within the City of Arcadia to meet the projections of housing for
all segments of the economic community. We think that there is an
affirmative obligation to analyze that specific amount of housing in
the discussion of the alternatives of low density residential housing
to the proposal before you now in conjunction with the duty under the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of the Public Resources Code
Section 27 63 A that I referenced. I've set forth this argument in
some detail in a brief communication to you with references A and B
that I'd like to furnish and become a part of the record. I'd like
to briefly incorporate by reference the prior remarks of the City of
EI Monte. As I said earlier, we believe that the Draft Environmental
Impact Report should be certified, excuse me, should be recirculated
because of insufficient information as detailed in our communications
and the communications of the City's consultant. I think one critical
comment that should be noted is that of the State Director of the
Department of Fish and Game, Peter Bontadelli where he indicated
that we recommend against certification of the DEIR on the grounds that
-6-
10-20-88
I
I
I
I
ROSS
HARBICHT
BETTY LOWES
HARBICHT
GAIL AVAKIAN
the DEIR is insufficiently detailed to allow the Department or the
City to determine the net effect of the project implementation. We
agree with that statement. We think that's also confirmed by another
trustee agency as that term is defined by CEQA Guideline Section
15 36B, the State Department of Water Resources, who indicates that
the evalution of water quality in the document is based on 1985
information and indicates that on the EPA method that was utilized,
apparently the samples were kept for more than 14 days, so their
accuracy is extremely questionable. We would hope that there would
be an accurate assessment of this type of information, particularly
because of the Superfund designation for the groundwater basin over
which this project site lies. We think that the obligation to
recirculate is best summarized by the court in Sutter Sensible
Planning, Inc. vs. Board of Supervisors, where they said the failure
to include the information in the Draft Impact Statement denied the
plaintiffs and the public the opportunity to test, assess and evaluate
the data and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the con-
'/
clusions to be drawn therefrom. We would stress that this is not
information that can be cured as a response to the comments. We
believe it has to be included in a new draft which has to be recircu-
lated to some of the public agencies which obviously did not receive
it. Those public agencies are noted in the record. We would also
again emphasize that we think it's critical that this be analyzed on
a wetlands issue and I would respectfully note that although the DEIR
says that there is a communication from the Corp of Engineers indicat-
ing that this is not a wetlands area, in fact, examination of Appendix
A to the Draft Environmental document reveals no such communication
and ample legal authority is presented from the core zone regulations
to show that areas of this size are certainly wetlands. I would hope
that you consider these matters seriously. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ross. We appreciate your comments.
Mayor and City Council, I'm Betty Lowes, 14122 Chilcott Street,
Baldwin Park. I'm concerned with the possible contamination of our
water and would want to know how we could possibly have a strict and
effective inspection of the materials that would be dumped in the
landfill. I am also concerned with the truck traffic this would
generate through the city of Baldwin Park and the wear and tear that
these heavily laden trucks would cause to our streets, especially
Los Angeles Street and Baldwin Park Boulevard. Our city was not
notified early on about the proposed landfill and I would like to have
these hearings extended to give our city of Baldwin Park and others
adequate time to study the issue. Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Lowes.
Mayor, Council People, my name is Gail Avakian. I am the Chairman of
RICA-Responsible and Informed Citizens Action. I am a member of
Save the Foothills, member of the National Resource Defense Council,
the National Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Legal Fund.
I have been an environmentalist for many, many years and I want to
-7-
10-20-88
AVAKIAN
HARBICRT
AVAKIAN
HARBICRT
AVAKIAN
call to the attention of this body five inadequacies that I consider
most important. There are many, many inadequacies that could cause
many of us to spend perhaps the whole evening here. What I want to
do first is since this activity is involved with Federal and State
environmental protection acts, I would like to start off reading a
very short section from the Federal Environmental Act and it's very
important, I would like to also give copies out. This is from the
National Environmental Protection Act. The courts have indicated that
they intend to follow the Congressional mandate to interpret Federal
policies, regulations, statutes in accordance with the statutory
National policy of protecting environmental quality. In one case the
court commented strongly on the importance of construing the provisions I
of the National Environmental Policy Act in favor of the environment.
And here's the quote, "The Congress has expressed in strong and clear
language their concern over what we are doing to our environment. In
the language of the statute, Congress has recognized the critical
importance of restoring, as well as maintaining, quality." It is hard
to imagine a clearer or stronger mandate to the Courts. So we are
talking about restoring, not just maintaining, and I will pass these
out in a moment. The first inadequacy that I'd like to call attention
to is the CEQA mandate, that is the California Environmental Quality
mandate, that requires that all adjacent and significant impacts that
may be going on in the immediate area, say in the San Gabriel River
bed, should be included in an environmental report of this nature
because, as I say, CEQA mandates that we must mention other activities
that will also have impact on the same EIR report. The San Gabriel
River aquifer is an area that is on the Superfund list of the Federal
Government and of many hundreds of items listed, it is among the first
ten in the matter of urgency to take care of. Already eight to ten
years have been utilized by the Environmental Protection Act staff
operating from San Francisco and nearly $100 million has been spent
and, yet, not one source of the pollution has been mentioned, or
located. I want to, before I show a few transparencies on the pro-
jector, I would like to mention that the State Assembly Bill, which
is a law, 1803, has caused the State of California, California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, to get very much involved with
the condition, especially in EI Monte. This Board has been working, I
or the staff from the Regional Water Quality Control, have been working
on this area for some time and they have made certain significant
findings that need to be mentioned this evening.
Mrs. Avakian.
Yes.
All this I see is by way of background, but
you like to see addressed that has not been
OK. I am, right now, I'll show you. OK?
I think since this is an information meeting to talk about the EIR, it
is important that (these darn things, I never can work them right).
what specifically
addressed?
would
-8-
10-20-88
. ....\\\,
, '~'i":\ :'l
.. ... "~~(.t
,,',':;, ;'
AVAKIAN
HARBICRT
I AVAKIAN
HARBICRT
AVAKIAN
RARBICRT
AVAKIAN
HARBICRT
AVAKIAN
HARBICRT
AVAKIAN
HARBICRT
AVAKIAN
I
OK. This is from the San, Gabriel groundwater. This is, the statement
up here is the reported by the California State Water Quality Board
and this was in their report that they put out June of '88 and it
says, as I mentioned earlier, approximately 80 drinking water wells
out of 275 in the Valley have been found to contain contaminants
above drinking water action levels. Without aggressive action to
clean up the Basin, the situation will get worse. EPA predicts that
the number of drinking water wells taken out of service will more than
double in the next twenty years, so then instead of having 92 wells
out of commission, we'll have 183.
Mrs. Avakian.
Yes.
of tonight's meeting
Environmental Impact
is to tell us what things
Report that you feel
Once again, the purpose
are not included in the
should be included.
That's what I'm doing.
Well, is this something that should be included?
Yes.
It's background.
Well, no, it should be addressed and people should know about its
existence.
But, there's a lot of people other than the people that are in this
room. We're well aware of these things. What we're interested in is
what things should be included in the Environmental Impact 'Report
which have not been included.
Well, what I am doing is presenting what has not been included. But,
the information I have is of such a serious nature, I think the Coun-
cil needs to see this and, also, the rest of the audience. I mean,
it's just a few more ....
Well, I beg to differ. I don't think the Council needs to see this
information. We're aware of a lot of this information and what we're
interested in this even~ng is not a seminar, but your comments on what
should be included in the report.
All right, let's shorten it up then. This document needs to be
addressed. It's called the "Testimony and Exhibits for the State
Water Resources Control Board Rearing on San Gabriel Valley Ground-
water Problem", June 28, 1988. I hope that the City of El Monte will
have another hearing so we can show these things to them, these docu-
ments. As I said, that the CEQA mandates that you have, to include in
Environmental Impacts other significant things that are going on in
the area and, of course, one would be the San Gabriel River aquifer.
The other would be the big and the momentus EIR study that is now
being done and put into, it's getting ready to present to the public,
that the Raiders are doing. So that's very important. That must be
in, the work that is going on for the Raiders and for the San Gabriel
Riverbed must be mentioned in the EIR. Ah, also very closely related
to all this is the Azusa Western Dump and it's involved in the
-9-
10-20-88
AVAKIAN
HARBICRT
BARBARA MEE
redevelopment. It's a very large landfill dump and it needs to have
an EIR done and something very significant is happening there. As
well as the Blue Diamond quarry pits exactly due north of the
Rodeffer pit in Arcadia. Also, something that needs, number two, an
item that needs to be addressed in the area of specific impact is the
failure of the present EIR report to provide a complete definition of
what is meant by an unclassified landfill. Not only must we have
that, we also must have the statute, code, ordinanance or section and
number that this came from. If there is any thought that it will be
considered as a crass Ill; landfill dump, then we need, likewise, a full
definition so that anyone reading that report will know exactly, word
for word, what the definition means. The next thing that is not I
addressed is that there's no comment about how the landfill will
actually be policed. My past experience has been that you have too
many ,cooks tending the show and so nothing really happens. I think
this EIR is inadequate because it needs to tell specifically how you
can close down this landfill, should it be granted permission to
operate, without the necessity of litigation. This could be done
very clearly. The next item is, there is nothing that in the present
EIR, that talks about appropriate, the most appropriate alternative,
and that is as an inactive recreation area. The fourth is that we
should have a record of the Rodeffer, of Rodeffer and his many names
and rock quarry operations throughout the San Gabriel Riverbed area
that will show the type of performance record he has and his relia-
bility in doing what he says he agrees to do. We also need some kind
of a specific track record of what the County, State and Federal
agencies are supposed to do to protect the citizens. Once again,
with my long years of experience I find many sincere people, but it's
too complicated and no one's really paying attention to the overall
general picture. No mention, another inadequacy is no mention of the
compatibility with the Arcadia or the El Monte general plans with
relationship to open space. And with that I will finish and state
that there is 8 further problem, though, and that is if this enact-
ment is made by the City Council of Arcadia, whose citizens will not
in any way be affected by this ordinance, while the citizens from
other cities, not only El Monte, but all the cities south, east and
west of a plume that already of, toxicity is already shaping up, is I
already there. It is these cities and these citizens who will be
affected and they have no representation whatsoever. This is basicslly
and positively unconstitutional and against the Constitution of the
United State of American.
(Applause)
Thank you, Mrs Avakian.
Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. I'm Barbara Mee, 19014 La
Fetra Drive, Glendora. I'm a member of La Fetra Reights Coalition,
CLDRE - California Lions for the Defense of Residential Environments
and Citizens Clearing Rouse for Razardous Waste. First, I want to
-10-
10-20-88
I
I
MEE
HARBICRT
MEE
submit a letter to you of opposition to the landfill dump from the
Three Valleys Municipal Water District Board of Director, Douglas R.
Miller, addressed to the City Council. Also, I wish to give you a
map from the EPA which is not in the EIR, which will, I'm sure,
surprise you. It should have been in the EIR. It is very, very
important map. Also, regarding the EIR, the Environmental Impact
Report is deficient in that it doesn't incorporate the Main San
Gabriel Watermaster Resolution No. 7-85-45, which amends conditions
of a Class III landfill dump. This is important that you especially
note No. 6 in that resolution. The EIR is deficient because it uses
very old data and maps. Some are undated with questionable sources.
A quick scan by you of the references and documents will indicate how
flippantly this matter is treated. There is no input from the EPA
regarding the EIR. The seismic map and the EIR is up to 1973. It
does not even show the Whittier quake of last year. The EIR does not
address the necessity of a liner for this landfill dump, and that's a
very serious matter. That's on page 3-9 of the EIR, in which the owner-
operator doesn't consider it economically viable. To allow the landfill
is to destroy, as Ross & Scott told you, the mineral resources in a
MRZ-2 zone, which LeRoy Crandell and Associates says significant
mineral resources are present. That's on page 3-18. The EIR says that
the quarry pit, now filled with water, is now a ha?ard because of its
depth and the filling of the pit could result in contamination of our
groundwater. Can you imagine that? That's now. But the EIR claims
that the dump will mitig~te that hazard on the basis that an abandoned
quarry is worse than the dump. That's on page 3-18. And that is not
mitigation. We note the warning from the California Waste Management
Board of the potentional contamination of groundwater. This should be
incorporated in the EIR. The EIR does not address the zoning and the
uses and what unclassified Class III allows. What are the uses in the
zone? What's planned for the phase two that they talk about in the
EIR? That's on page 2-17. If you approve this, El Monte residents
would have to know that industrial buildings would be built with heights'
up to 35 feet. They would lose their privacy and their view. That's on
page 2-16. The EIR is wrong regarding a permit from the Army Corps of
Engineers, that's on page 2-8, in saying no permit is required. The
Army Corps of Engineers should really know that the Congress of the
United States assigned the Army Corps of Engineers the responsibility
for protection of the Nation's water resources. But the Army corps,
and I'm sure it's just one man, said no permit was necessary. And,
believe it or not, the permit just costs $100. Let's say you approve
the EIR. The threat is the way the system works. The Regional Water
Quality Board only requires forms to be filled out by the operator of
the dump.
Mrs. Mee, excuse me. You're speculating on if this was approved. This
evening we're taking comment
Well, no, that's the way they work and that is in the EIR. I shouldn't
have said that.
-11-
10-20-88
HARBICHT
MEE
HARBICRT
CHRISTINE
ASTENGO
HARBICRT
ASTENGO
But we're taking comment on deficiencies in the Draft EIR.
That is a deficiency. They comment what they do and what they do is
they require forms to be filled out. Inspection of the load in the
EIR is visual by the operator of the dump. The L.A. County Solid
Waste Management says they just review plans for the landfill. The
California Department of Realth makes sure the forms are filled out.
The owner-operator does the monitoring of the wells, of the test wells
for the groundwater. The people of San Gabriel Valley should know the
damages of pollution to our groundwater. The EIR is inadequate in this
regard. The Federal Government is not heard from in the EIR. No
Federal agency takes control over what happens to our San Gabriel
Riverbed and the precious groundwater beneath. The Main San Gabriel I
Basin Watermaster has no authority, and that's in it, has no authority
over this proposed dump located directly above our groundwater. They
can only recommend. In the EIR the California Department Fish and Game
is aware that the habitat of several species of fish are lost. But
they are only concerned. And that's in the EIR. But, in ending, power-
ful interests want you to approve this landfill and you people are in a
very powerful position tonight. You owe it to the next and future
generations to protect our environment and I know you will take this
very seriously and please read all the documents. Thank you.
Well, Mrs. Mee, thank you.
Mayor, Councilmembers, my'name is Christina Astengo. I live at 12113
Remlock, that's approximately 1/2 a block from the edge of the pit.
What was you name again, please?
Christina Astengo.' I'm an eighth grade teacher at Durfee School. This
is a school site southeast of the proposed landfill and I'm the chair-
man of the Durfee PTA Children's Realth and Safety Committee. I'm
speaking here tonight after reading for approximately five days your
Environmental Impact Report and these are several things that I found
inadequate. I won't quote you pages because you can look for yourself
and you'll find these things. But here are some things that were
missing. No. 1 - property devaluation. As land owners in the area,
and this is El Monte residents, not Arcadia, we are required by law
to disclose when we get ready to sell our property whether or not we
are within so many feet of a landfill. This is not mentioned in the
EIR. No. 2 - the method of trucking that will be permitted on this
property. Will this be a pay by load program or will this be a
salaried program? This makes a great difference. The drivers going
85 on the 605 are pay by load. Those that are going 55 are salaried.
We don't know how these people will be paid or what their qualifications
are or who they actually are working for. Are these independent or are
these company owned vehicles? No.3 - You mention industrial types.
This is an M-2 zoning which means we can go from heavy industry to
light industry. Now you quote in the EIR that it will be low profile.
But we have low profile metal finishing industries and your EIR does
not, the EIR does not adequately address how their wastes, once this
phase two and 2010 is developed. No. 4 - qualifications of the
I
-12-
10-20-88
I
I
r:
ASTENGO
HARBICRT
GAIL
TROMPSON
HARBICRT
TROMPSON
HARBICRT
inspector. And they're going to be visual inspections. Will this
individual be certified, and by who? This is not adequately stated
in this EIR report. We have no idea whether these people will be
certified by the company themselves or by some state managed program.
Row will these people be trained and what will they be looking for?
Benzine is odorless, tasteless and sightless, and yet it is in almost
every kind of product that has a petroleum base. I don't know what it
looks like, do these people? Next, I'd like to address the process
right now of the continuation of the taking of rock from the quarry.
Your EIR, the EIR, is based on a point in time and it states that it
will be filled, the landfill, in 12 to 20 years. However, the Rodeffer
Investment Company is continuing to dredge that pit, day and night, in
violation of their unconditional permit, we might add as residents, and
so the 12 to 20 years is not adequate. You'll have to do an update on
the process and how long it will take and 'how many trucks it will take
to fill this because that was based on at least a year past and they're
continuing at a rate that is quite astonishing. And, finally I would
like to address the fact that the studies on traffic were done for a
particular period of time which is not peak for that particular area.
Lower Azusa does not have a peak traffic hour in the evening. Its
peak traffic hour is in the day. And that's between 8 and 12 in the
morning and this was not adequately represented in this study. And we
have hundreds of children that pass over Lower Azusa at this particular
point in time and, again, those issues were not addressed. And I
thank you for your time and your listening. (Applause)
Thank you, Mrs. Astengo. As I stated earlier, this is not a popularity
contest. The Council is sitting here listening courteously to you. I
wish you'd repay us the courtesy. Please refrain from demonstrations.
This is a serious matter. We're here to get information from you.
Mr. Mayor, City Council, my name is Gail Thompson, I live at 11910
The Wye in El Monte. I want to thank you for this opportunity to voice
our concerns regarding the proposed landfill project on Lower Azusa Road.
As you can see by the turnout here tonight, many of us have concerns.
My husband and I have owned our home on The Wye for 20 years and have
raised two children in that neighborhood. We are very concerned about
this project and the added traffic noise and dust pollution and the
danger it brings to our source of drinking water, our wells. The
Environmental Report states the Rodeffer Company plans to lease the
gravel pit to BKK. BKK - three initials that don't inspire confidence
in the minds of people in the San Gabriel Valley. Their West Covina
disposal site and the problems there a few years ago are still fresh
in our memory. This is our first concern ~ how trustworthy, are the
people who will control what goes in that pit?
Mrs. Thompson.
Yes.
Again, you're speaking on the proposal itself. The purpose of this
evening's meeting is to just gather input into the Environmental Impact
Report, which will be one of the inputs when the decision is made. The
-13-
10-20-88
MC COLLAND
HARBICRT
MIKE GOMEZ
HARBICRT
GOMEZ
HARBICRT
GOMEZ
HARBICRT
GOMEZ
RARBICRT
GOMEZ
subject to the 404 permit process. And I will ask Congressman
Martinez to join me as well. I believe that accepting the Draft EIR
at this time should be held up until that determination is made and
then the 'Draft EIR should be recirculated. Thank you very much for
your time.
Thank you, Ms. McColland.
Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. Myname is Mike Gomez. I live at
12118 Remlock Street. I'm less than 1/2 a block away from where the
dump site is being planned and I have read the Environmental Impact
Report and I've got some comments and some suggestions. One thing that
the Environmental Impact Report does not ~ddress in my opinion, first
of all are the health concerns for the residents in that residential I
area of El Monte. According to the Environmental Impact Report, this
particular landfill is going to disturb wild life, it's going to bring
us house mice and it's going to, of course, give us a lot of traffic,
a lot of noise and a lot of odors. On section 3, page 21, the Environ-
mental Impact Report states that materials will be diverted from
sanitary landfills in the region. Sanitary landfills can mean house-
hold trash. And with that, of course, is all the junk that everybody
throws away.
Let me just,clarify that. They are saying that inert materials that
are currently going into sanitary landfills could go into this landfill.
There is no mention and no intention of any organic materials or trash
in this. It's diverting inert materials that are currently going in
the sanitary landfills.
OK. The traffic, as I mentioned before, we're talking 150 to 200
trucks, dump trucks, a day to start out with. Over the 20 year period,
by 19... well, actually, by 2010, according to the report, the Environ-
mental Impact Report, we're talking 1,050 trips, 910 which will exit
the development. I go to work every morning and I come back on that
road. I particularly don't want 1,000 trips of dump trucks going in my
way when I'm trying to get home. On section 3, page 35, the Environ-
mental Impact Report states that the cities, because of all the traffic,
are going to have to share the cost. My question is, why we as citizens
of El Monte will have to pay, through our tax dollars, while one man
and one industry makes the profit? Re has owned
Mr. Gomez.
Yes, Mayor.
We're discussing deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Report this
evening.
OK. I will get back to that immediately, Sir.
Thank you.
OK. Realth concerns - when 14.4 tons of fugitive dust emits from that
development, it's going to go into my lungs, my family's, my neighbors.
Is Mr. Rodeffer going to pay my medical costs per month - that's per
month - 14.4 tons of fugitive dust. The health issues have not been
properly addressed in this report. There is nothing that talks about
the kind of damage that we, as residents of El Monte, are going to
I
-15-
10-20-88
I
I
suffer and what kind of recompense or compensation we're going to get
from Mr. Rodeffer. I want to see in this report how it affects us
as individual El Monte residents and the surrounding communities.
I would like to encourage you to think about what exactly the law
requires Mr. Rodeffer to do with that site. I've spoken with our City
Attorney and he's clarified the law for me a little bit and he has
said that that dump site does not have to be put there. In other
words, the law doesn't call for that to be a dump site. It calls for
it not to be a public nuisance. I don't think that the EIR report
addresses sufficiently the alternatives. We're talking about a deci-
sion that you, as City Council members, have in your hands. We, as
EI Monte residents, don't have any arms to fight back with. We don't
have a voice, in this, so we ask you to very carefully consider it and
take our concerns. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Gomez. I would like to mention that you obviously do
have a voice in it. You're here this evening and we're listening care-
fully to everything that you have to say and it will all be transmitted
to the consultants. So I'd like to assure you that you do have a voice.
But we can't make a decision, Sir. (Laughter & applause)
No, Sir, you can't.
Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, my name is Jeff Seymour and I'm the Interim
Superintendent of the EI Monte City School District and I'm here tonight
representing our Board of 'Education. Our District is comprised of
approximately 11,000 students in 18 schools. Nearly 1/3 of those stu-
dents and 5 of those school sites are located approximate, in our
opinion, to the proposed landfill area. I appreciate your acknowledg-
ment of the letter sent by our School District from me to you acknowl-
edging our concerns or, at least, acknowledging the receipt of the
letter concerning our interest in the matter. So I will not go into,
as you did request, the noise, dust, safety factors that we feel need
to be considered for those approximately 3,000 students. I trust that
they will be addressed as the report is refined and refocused. The one
thing I did want to bring to your attention this evening is the
inaccurate referencing, not only were no representatives from our
School District contacted, to our knowledge, the District was referred
to as the El Monte Unified School District and no such entity exists.
So I would ask that the report clearly seek out opinions from both the
El Monte Elementary School District, which is our District, and the
EI Monte Union Righ School District, which also has approximate site to
this proposed project. Thank you very much.
HARBICRT Thank you, Sir. The concerns expressed in your letter have been noted
and will be passed on. Thank you.
MARKSULLIVAN Ronorable Mayor, City Council, my name is Mark Sullivan. I live at
12166 Remlock in El Monte. I've already read the written comments,
I've already prepared written comments about the Draft EIR and submitted
them to your Planning Department. I've extra copies of those, which
I'd like to submit for the record in case the Council has not received
them. I have additional comments which I believe need to b~addressed.
GOMEZ
HARBICRT
GOMEZ
HARBICRT
JEFF SEYMOUR-,
EL MONTE CITY
SCROOL DIST.
-16-
10-20-88
SULLIVAN
One of the basic problems with the Draft EIR is that it does not give
an adequate representation of the current condition of the site.
Residents along the western boundary are extremely concerned whether
the side walls of the slope will give way in the event of an earth-
quake. If this were to happen several homes, including mine, would
slide into the pit. My neighbors and I would then become the City
of Arcadia's newest residents. (Laughter) The Draft EIR fails to make
any indication of how stable this slope is. This matter needs to be
studied in order to determine the best method to correct the problem.
The Draft EIR fails to address the issue of the removal of previously
dumped material. All along the eastern slope of the site, foreign
material has been dumped into the open pit. In some cases directly
into the exposed water. This has been an ongoing problem for several
years. A neighbor of mine recently told me that he had seen trucks
dumping into the pit. Interestingly enough, he said that on one
occasion City of Arcadia Public Works trucks were the ones doing the
I
dumping. The City of Arcadia and Rodeffer Investments would like to
go forward with this project. No new project should even be considered
until all of the problems of the existing project are handled to their
conclusion. Is the City of Arcadia ever going to enforce the condi-
tions of the previous Conditional Use Permit which allows for the
quarry operation? If so, what's going to be done about the obvious
violations of the steepness of the west slope? The Draft EIR indicates
the City of Arcadia has a noise ordinance which does not allow any
noise' level in excess of 55 decibels in a residential area. According
to the report, this noise level is exceeded 13 hours of every 24 hour
day by the current quarry operation. Is the City of Arcadia going to
take action against this violation or does the ordinance only apply to
Arcadia residential neighborhoods? The City of Arcadia must actively
investigate and correct these and any other problems concerning the
present site before it can go ahead with any future proposals. The
Draft EIR indicates that the only solution to filling the existing
gaping hole is to make it a landfill and later make this into an
industrial park. I would like to offer a better solution to this
problem which the Draft EIR failed to recognize. The site should be
filled with certified clean fill dirt. The potential hazard of water
contamination would then be minimal. Upon completion the area should
be zoned for low density residential homes, such as one acre horse I
property lots. This would be compatible with the surrounding neighbor
hood and would also lend to the City of Arcadia's motto of "Community
of Romes". It is apparent that the only possible reason for not
selecting this as a viable alternative is the cost involved. There-
fore, the authors of this Draft EIR and the City of Arcadia need to
examine this issue. Just what will the project cost? If the project
Rodeffer Investments detail were approved, there would be significant
costs incurred by all with one exception - Rodeffer Investments. The
.property owners in the City of El Monte would take a financial beating
as a result of ow~ing property adjotning a dump. ,The City of Arcadia
-17-
10-20-88
I
I
SULLIVAN
CHAVEZ
.~
could also be required to payout several thousand dollars of legal fees
defending their action. The only big winner would be Rodeffer Investments.
If the alternative project which I have detailed were approved, the needs of
all parties would be satisfied. The City of Arcadia, the City of EI Monte
and the residents of both'cities could live again in harmony. Thank you.
Patricia Chavez, 3226 Granada Avenue.
Today I am here representing the East Valleys Organization and the
26,547 San Gabriel and Pomona Valley residents who have signed our
take up charge issues'agenda which calls for clean air we can breathe
and clean water we can drink. I am here because it is clear to the
East Valleys Organization that, above everything else, our children's
future, ,your children's future and my daughter's future is important.
We have~ead and studied the Draft EIR, consulted with agencies and
" ,
,
our mem?frship; we have talked to residents in the area adjacent to
the proposed landfill site and there are many questions that are not
answered in this report. We are here tonight to address four main points
that are of deep concern to us. First, we have a very serious problem
in the San Gabriel Valley water basin -- over 25% of our ground wells
are already contaminated and exceed the EPA's maximum contaminant level.
This coupled with the fact that the EPA has put the San
water basin on the top five priorities list and are now
Gabriel ground
providing Federal
superfund dollars to clean up this hazardous waste site.
Serious issues
need to be addressed to assure that the ground water underlying the San
Gabriel Valley is not further contaminated. We feel that our children are
too important to risk their future. Second, we need assurance that the
landfill will be regularly inspected. The,DEIR does not provide assurance
that the proposed landfill will be adequately inspected nor the ground
water monitored and tested to insure that dumping of materials at the
landfill site do not include hazardous waste which wQuldcfurther contaminate
our ground water. During a recent meeting with the EPA officials, they
admitted to us that they do not have a sufficient amount of inspectors
to adequately monitor hazardous waste sites. The task of inspecting the
proposed landfill would then be' the responsibility of regional regulatory
agencies. The DEIR indicated that the landfill operation would be monitored
by the main San Gabriel Water Master, the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and the Los Angeles County Department of Realth Services. Yet when
we called the main San Gabriel Water Master, they said they had no
regulatory role in the operations of the landfill. The Regional Water
Quality Control Board stated that theY would monitor the proposed landfill
site approximately once a year.\ The, Los Angeles Department of Realth
Services could possibly inspect four times a year. In case of violation,
they would have to contact the Regional Quality Control Board. The
operating company would file a report on the results monthly but given
the history of BKK in the San Gabriel Valley, it is too difficult for uS
to place the trust of our children's future in their hands. The inspection
of waste material by landfill employees would depend on visual inspection
of over ISO trucks a day. This type of inspection wo.ld not provide the
type of monitoring that would insure detection of hazardous waste
contaminants in the landfill. Contaminated waste cou~d be easily overlooked
'>
.. -18-
10/20/88
CHAVEZ
(cont'd)
VELASCO
and not proper~y treated. Clearly, none of the inspections outlined in
the DEIR is sufficient to risk the future of our children, your children
and my child. Statements from residents of the City of El Monte indicate
that uncontrolled dumping has already occurred at the proposed landfill
site. If the DEIR does not address this serious problem, a thorough
investigation should be conducted to determine if any hazardous materials
are present at the site and to determine if any measures need to be taken
to eliminate potential health hazards to the site or the underlying ground
water. Not knowing what is presently being dumped is a hazard too great
to risk the future of our children, your children, my child. Do we real
need another landfill here in the San Gabriel Valley? Comments to the
DEIR indicate that there are presently a number of unclassified landfil
within a five mile radius of the proposed landfill which already
sufficient daily capacity for inert solid waste generated in the San
Gabriel Valley. The need for an additional landfill site is questionable,
so such inert wastes for this new site would have to come from other
regions of the county. One of the major reasons that East Valleys
Organization first became organized was because we believe that in the
San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys there is more that unites us than divides
us. Our problems are not individual city problem$ but regional problems
and solutions are not found in anyone city but by all of us working
together. The protection of the San Gabriel ground water is a mammoth
task and requires that the cities in the San Gabriel Valley know that it is
worth the cost and is worth the effort. Protecting public health;
protecting the environment; protecting children will require the coopera-
tion and determination of all the municipalities. Decisions made in one
city affect all those living in the surrounding communities. Given all
the information I have just shared with you, we in the East Valley
Organizations have come to the firm conclusion that the future of our
children in the San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys is not worth the risk
involved. Thank you.
Jerry Velasco, 12118 Remlock, EI Monte, CA 91732
In regard to what you were saying about our reactions to the comments I
of our neighbors, you will understand that we are very upset -- very
upset -- and are being calm about this because you are listening to what
we are saying, so when we hear good comments we like to show our emotions
and express them. So just bear that we are very upset. In regard to
the topiffi I was going to bring up today, most of our neighbors have
already touched on. To make it brief, one of my biggest concerns is
how you are going to police this -- there is no way you are going to
police this; there is no way you can control -it twenty-four hours a
day. There is money involved here; the longer hours, the more money
-19-
10/20/88
I
I
VELASCO
(cont'd)
,t
HARBICRT
VELASCO
HARBICRT
FLETCRER
it will make. It's a dump over there -- you may not call it a dump.
As one of our neighbors was saying -- I was shocked -- a week ago --
or a few days ago -- Monday or Tuesday they were cutting bushes, cleaning,
watering an incredible thing. It's the nicest part of El Monte. That
is the only ugly thing there right now but, it's not a dump? I've
seen dead cats, dogs -- you name it it is there. I think most of you
might not feel as strongly as we do because you do not live there. So,
what's not good for us shouldn't be good for you or for your kids,
especially your neighbors. I mean, if you need a dump, put it right
there. I just saw a big field there -- right across from City RaIl.
What I am saying here is if you do need a dump ........
I have pointed out at the beginning of this that we are merely the
agency the application was made to. We take no position on this. I
understand that you are angry. I don't understand why you are angry
at us. We have a duty and obligation to consider any proposal that is
brought before us. We are at the fact finding stage. I would also like
to ask that, again, this is not the appropriate time to argue for or
against the projects. We are still at the fact finding stage. The
purpose of tonight's meeting is to suggest those things that should be
addressed by the Draft EIR. I heard you say that the Draft EIR should be
more specific about just how we are going to monitor what goes in ... that
is an appropriate comment and has been noted. Whether we should put a dump
in the County Park across the street is not appropriate to this meet1.ng.
It was just a suggestion if you need a dump in Arcadia -- to put it
there. As to policing this, if the City of Arcadia or the owner or whoever
is the main person responsible, they could give it to us in writing that
we are going to be safe for life for our generations to come ... I might
consider it ... myself, as a resident of El Monte. Basically, what I just
wanted to do basically to conclude that it is unsafe, especially for us
for you, if you live near El Monte ... in general... basically, for
you to consider, what's not good for you is not good for us, especially
your neighbors.
Thank you, Mr. Velasco.
Rerb Fletcher, 175 West Lemon, Arcadia
I spent one weekend reading this Environmental Impact Report and I
found quite a few deficiencies in there. I think the main one was,that',
whoever wrote this" I 'remember talking about haw the water table would be
protected, really failed to recognize that there are two phases here. One
is the first when you are actually putting things into the water; the
inspectiDnto make sure that it's absolutely clean, certainly needs to be
looked at far more than later on when there are thirty, forty, fifty or
one hundred feet of fill there. In this report, they tried to tell how
the dump would be operated and that there would be ten people working
there., As near as I could figure out, eight of those ten would be
equipment operators or laborers. So that would leave two supervisory
-20-
10/20/88
FLETCRER
(cont'd)
"
HARBICRT
KEENAN
personnel, who, I assume, would be the on~who would make the decisions.
It also said in there that a truck would come in and they would have an
overhead mirror where they could inspect it. That's a good idea because
if it is not proper looking, throw it out right away. Then, if it passes
that inspection it is to be dumped on the ground and spremout to a
thickness of one foot. Visual things can be spotted very easily but
the only reference they had in there to inspecting everything else was
a device to go over this load to find out if there were any petroleum I
based products, but there are many, many other hazardous wastes that
can't be picked up on the visual inspection. Then when you get down to
how many trucks come in there a day, let's assume that twenty an hour
come in. That's a truck every three minutes. Now that's a pretty quick
lick and a promise to go over and take a look at a load spread out on
the ground and determine whether it is good or whether it is bad. Then
there is ... this is going to be a business, and the way to make money
in that business is to as ,quick as possible to get each truck to put
its load where it is going to go because if they are going to start
moving things around and store over here and then move it here and move
it there, it's pretty costly and it seems like to me that with that type
of a setup if you really got trucks backing up there why you really
probably wouldn't get much of an inspection and I think this is a
very, very weak point in that environmental report that whoever wrote
it seemed to think this would actually do it and I just don't think it
will.
Thank you, Mr. Fletcher.
Terry Keenan, 12050 Rallwood Dr., El Monte, 91732
I live about a football field from the bottom of the dump. Several
years ago when a cable company was put in El Monte, the City of El Monte
thinking as much of' the citizens as they did of the net profit, insist-
ed that that cable company maintain an access channel for local broad-
casting. Three weeks ago on that channel a program was presented. I
was lucky enough to take part in that... concerning this problem or
this proposition. On Tuesday of last week a copy of that program was
delivered to the Clerk of the City of Arcadia and I am wondering if l-
it has been presented to the Council for you to see at this time. I
think there are several issues in that program that were addressed which
you might want to look at in regard to the EIR and your conditional use
permit certain things were said about the current maintenance of
the EIR and the conditional use permit, especially that Arcadia has and
Mr. Rodeffer's compliance therewith. It might be worth looking at.
Thank you.
-21-
10/2G, 88
I
.1
GONZALEZ
HARBICRT
ROSE
GILB
ROSE
GILB
ROSE
Pat Gonzalez, 4535 Maxson Road, El Monte
I think that something that definitely should be considered is that
that is a residential neighborhood that is our habitat .... our environ-
ment and that it should be protected. And this human issue .. the issue
of my neighbors who can't sleep at night ... they are getting sick
worrying about it ... should be included. Some of my neighbors are
selling their homes at this point because they are getting diseased.
This is their habitat ... this is their environment. I am very happy
in El Monte at this point ... I love my home ... my kids love their
school... I don't want to move. If the dump goes thro"~h, that
environment will be a diseased environment for me. I ~_dt ask you to
consider the human aspect in that environmental impact report. Thank you.
Thank you Mrs. Gonzalez.
Paula Rose, 4444 Bannister Avenue, EI Monte
Mayor and City Council, I live approximately one-half to a mile away
from the dump. I voice the same concerns as far as dust, smell, the
trucks, the traffic, th~ water pollutants. Due to the fact that I have
lived at that address approximately six years, when I first moved there
I noticed the dust problem immediately within my household. I also
becamse very ill because of the water pollutants and I had to have a
water purification system installed. One of my concerns is that I was
also involved in the program Mr. Keenan spoke of approximately three
weeks ago. Our property value will go down; our livestock area which is
in that area al~will suffer, but something I did not understand was
something that was brought to issue -- the fact that Arcadia is not
going to allow these trucks to come through their City streets in order
to dump at this dump site if this is brought into effect. I don't
understand that at all. Why would Arcadia allow this to happen and
then not allow these trucks to move through their City? Also, how is
it going to be policed -- how can we prove the fact that properties
that are being dumped at this site are not going to contaminate the
water basin? BKK. if they are the ones that are going to be involved
in this project, has already shown violation in West Covina. I have
a friend that lives over two miles away from that site and when I
visit her on a wrong day, the smell is atrocious, so Arcadia has to
consider this situation also. The residents are approximately two
miles as far as Arcadia residential area from this site, but Arcadia
is going to also be affected by this dump. It is not going to be just
the immediate area of Baldwin Park and EI Monte, so I think that these
things should be considered and maybe investigated further.
May I ask a quesiton. What did you mean your livestock is affected?
Livestock area -- that is considered livestock area. My property -- I
,
am zoned where I could have horses and my neighbors have chickens and so
forth.
Do you have livestock?
Myself, no, but my nextdoor neighbor does.
-22-
10/20/88
GILB
ROSE
GILB
ROSE
GILB
ROSE
GAUNTT
HARBICRT
RAYMOND
HARBICR!
SANDERS
I thought maybe you had cows or something.
No, but I could.
I asked the question because I did not know what you meant.
The school just brought the property next to my landlord's property
which was a horse stable and they had approximatley eight horses there
at one time so that is why it's stock area.
I didn't know what you were talking about.
Thank you.
Chris Gauntt,327 East Lemon Ave., Arcadia I
Normally I wouldn't do thia kind of thing, but I just had to say somethi
This whole thing -- it seems like the report doesn't seem to ...
it doesn't seem to communicate what it is trying to. And I was thinking
perhaps it wasn't very clear in that it needs to be detailed as to
certain definitions. It's been mentioned before. I was thinking along
the lines of detailing specifically what inert material means... I mean,
sounds like just rocks, but to everybody else it means garbage. So exactly
what 'does:,,: inert material mean? That's just one question I have to ask.
Also, I think it would be good to have a detailed report of the exact
use of the water supply... everybody is worried about. Also, a detailed
report on the effects of a major earthquake besides the fact of the
side walls caving in and the houses becoming the new residences. I have
seen situations where there was a water filled basin and what happened
as a result of the earthquake is that the land sunk into the ground and
the water level has risen up and above it and made it like a lake. And
so, that's maybe (indecipherable)
And that's pretty much it. Just clear things up so that people really
know what's going on.
I want to thank you for your comments. I know that it is hard for a young
person, sometimes, to get up in front of a group like this and I want to
thank you also for making specific comments.
Michael Raymond, Principal, Cherrylee School, El Monte
Cherry lee School is approximately four blocks away from the site. You
asked a question what should be studied and my response is that there I
is a deficiency in the report in not addressing the health, safety and
(indecipherable) of our students and I would like to suggest a panel of
experts of parents, teachers, board members of both Arcadia and El Monte
School Districts to get together and discuss these issues. Thank you.
Thank you.
Albert Sanders, 4421 Stewart, Baldwin Park
I am here to address the Council and the Mayor of Arcadia and I would
just like to say that I am not a representative of any official of
Baldwin Park I am just a citizen -- a concerned citizen. This landfill
-- I won't call it a dump because it is not going to be what I would
-23-
10/20/88
II
I
SANDERS
(cont'd)
HARBICRT
OGERT
classify as a dump -- it will be a landfill. But this landfill will
impact not just the City of Arcadia, it will impact the whole east
San Gabriel Valley. The dust problem, the water problem has been stated
eloquently by the citizens of El Monte. The citizens of Baldwin Park -- I
wish they would have come here -- more of them to speak on their concerns.
I have heard dust being the problem, water being the problem; the air
pollution -- a lot of people -- we are worried about these things in
Baldwin Park. We do not believe that this would be a good idea -- this
landfill would be a good idea -- for the San Gabriel Valley -- not just
for the City of Baldwin Park because Mrs. Rose has stated about the trucks;
the traffic within the area. Baldwin Park would be a major thoroughfare
for all the trucks. We right now have problems with large trucks that
we are trying to deal with through diffetent means. Imagine if we had
to try and control two or three hundred a day. Our streets are impacted
now. You, as a City, know how hard it is to raise money to repair streets
these days. We have major streets that are in so bad need of repair
that it is a hazard just trying to drive down. Los Angeles Street is
one of the major streets we have. We would like to keep it like it is
at least if we can't improve it. The City of Arcadia, to me, is missing
a great opportunity with this landfill by not considering to take this
area over with its Redevelopment Agency because, I believe, for the City
of Arcadia, they are missing a prime area of development, not just Dmr,~
landfill but for other things. A commercial area could be put there and
we have the technology and equipment to make it even though it is filled
with water part of the year sometimes, the technology is there to make this
area a prime light industrial area, if you wanted it. Or you could take
and like some people have said, put it into an area where you would have
animals or horses or whatever, but you could turn this into something
other than what you are planning now to make it so it will not impact on
the area but become an asset to the area. Right now we have Sally Tanner
trying her best in Sacramento to eliminate some of the air pollution
in the San Gabriel Valley. She is not going to be able to do this if
we have another major polluter and this landfill would definitely be an
air polluter, if not a water polluter. It's just a thing to think about.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Sanders
Bob Ogert, 450 East Live Oak, Arcadia
I come here th~s',evening not as an Arcadia resident, however. I come here
because I am a representative of Assemblywoman Sally Tanner and I would like
to thank Mr. Saunders for his comments about Mrs. Tanner. The air and
water quality and the life style of the people who are involved in the
immediate area around that proposed landfill are major concerns of Mrs.
Tanner and,as you know, she has worked very diligently in this Valley
-24-
10/20/88
OGERT
(cont'd)
HARBICRT
MOSES
HARBICRT
HAGER
'.,,-
'.\~ .'
','''-'-
. . -~
'" ',.,-'
,"", "':," 5: '
on both: air 'and water quality control and a project of this type would
appear to fly, in the face of the major effort to clean up the San Gabriel
Valley. We would have truck emissions, additional dust and other things
which would add to our already bad air quality. The San Gabriel Valley
is considered to be probably the worst area for air quality. We might
be adding to that with this project. I have been involved for about two
years or more in listening to the environmental reports and the hearings
that have been held here in Arcadia and those in El Monte and it would
appear to me that this latest environmental report is not really addresl
the concerns which you gentlemen are going to have to make the decisions
about with regard to that report. It seems that we are reiterating tim
after time what the major concens are and this enviromental impact
report does not give me or most of the people here any confidence that
the problems that they consider to be major are really going to be addressed.
Not perhaps whether they will be addressed, but I really don't have a great
deal of confidence that the report addresses these problems. And I would
urge you to reconsider the entire community of the San Gabriel Valley
in your considerations. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ogert.
Eugene Moses, 285 East Sierra Madre Blvd., Azusa
I am the elected MaY9r for four terms in the City of Azusa and I like
it there. Also I would like to say that I want to put one point across
to be professional and also to say that I want to put the point across
that the water in the general area has already been contaminated. Azusa
has a dump and we had to close down two of our wells with TPE and TCE.
Now it doesn't make sense to me when you do an environmental report that the
ground water could have a proper one because -- let me state the reasons:,
No. 1 the water is moving all the time and contaminates move so how can
you come up with a formula saying how much contamination you are going to
get in your ground water; it is almost impossible, so please keep this in
mind. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mayor Moses.
I
Don Rager, 12700 Elliott Avenue, El Monte
I do not believe the environmental impact report adequately addresses
the police protection and fire protection. It only refers that your
Police Station is at 240 Runtington Drive and that you have patrol areas
and that you have a mutual aid pact with the City of El Monte so that
means if the present buildings down there have a fire or you have a major
accident, you are going to rely on the City of El Monte for mutual aid.
Well, maybe EI Monte might be tied up and you can't get people over there.
Your police vehicles are not over there at the present time. I have been
by there the last three weekends in a row -- the gates are wide open. Chil-
dren ean OIalk in there. I called up one time when I saw children walking
-25-
10/20/88
I
I
HAGER
(cont'd)
VILLALOBOS
HARBICRT
EMMEL
HARBICRT
SMITR
;
I.
I
\
in. Your Police said "where do we enter -- off of Peck Road?" They
don't even know how to get there. So; I think half of you people in
Arcadia do not know where this dump site is. They can't get to there
without going through another city.. unless you want to walk a very
hazardous path. Thank you, Sir.
Sergio Villalobos, 11814 The Wye, El Monte
Good evening. I am a resident of the EI Monte area that is in question
here - adjacent to the landfill. I also happen to be a letter carrier
for the City' of El Monte and I was ready to refer', to the issues 'that
everbody has already done here tonight, but now, since you insist that
we just talk about the enviromental report. In my opinion, I think
that either the City of Arcadia or the Councilmembers have' not in-
formed the pertinent residents of the surrounding communities in-
cluding Baldwin Park and El Monte. As I mentioned before, I am a
letter carrier and I did not see any type of mailings to the residents
of the surrounding area. I think they are only about three and a half
blocks from there. I only got one but I talked to many, many neighbors
and they did not get anything. Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Loretta Emmel, 1017 Orange Avenue, Monrovia
This area here seems to be near a residential area with a big rural area of
horse properties; it is natural habitat. Why not make it a recreation area
for all the people from all the cities to enjoy; thereby eliminating
polluting air and water and all the other polluting elements. Perhaps
this would make us all happy -- even the poorly prepared environmental
report be darned. Thank you.
Thank you.
Susan Smith, 12119 Remlock Av., El Monte
I also am about a half mile from the proposed dump site. One issue that
has not been addressed is that I would like to have considered is the aspect
in the environmental impact report of the access only coming from the
south entrance into the dump site. Currently, the north end is relatively
exposed. The residence that was located on Clark Street has now been
leveled. The horse stables, also protecting the northwest side have
also been leveled pnsumably to put more tree stumps on by the tree company.
But that whole side there is open to access. If this were opened up as
a dump, I think also it would have to be considered for people entering
there illegally by the means to get into that dump unsupervised with
possibly hazardous or dangerous loads. This should be taken under
consideration, too.
-26-
10/20/88
contract and unilateral agreement?
If you are going to testify, I am going to have to ask you to give
yotr name again.
I am sorry. I am Mrs. Barbara Mee of Glendora. Do you say you know
about this unilateral agreement?
HARBICRT Yes.
MEE
HARBICRT
MEE
HARBICRT
MEE'
MEE
HARBICRT
MEE
CITY
MANAGER
MEE
GILB
HARBICRT '
ROYSRER
HARBICRT
ROYSRER
HARBICRT
ROYSRER
HARBICRT
GILB
LOjESKI
HARBICRT
Barbara Mee, 19014 La Fetra Drive, Glendora
Mr. Mayor, could I just add one document to
this is something
I forgot to tell you and it is very important. What it is, is a
irrevocable offer and unilateral agreement entered into by the City
of Arcadia on this property with the owner of the landfill and it was
given to us as part of public information. It is dated January 20, 1958. '
We have that document.
You do have that document?
And is that in effect .. that irrevocable
I
O.K. Then you will let the public know about that contract?
It is a public document.
Well I meant, is it still in effect?
There is no such thing as a unilateral contract. It was an offer made
by Rodeffer back in -- whatever the date of that was -- and City Council
never took action on that.
O. K. That's what I wanted to know -- if it was part of the public
information. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor, I would like to move to close the public hearing.
Well, this lady wants to talk.
I'd like to know how many more are going to talk. It's twenty minutes to
eleven... to ten. (indecipherable)
If anyone else has new information or has a point they would like to make,
we are anxious to hear them. But please try to restrict your remarks to new
points.
AlIi Roysher, 1784 Santa Anita Avenue
If this is not the appropriate time to comment on this '" I happen to
be in sympathy with the property owners ... when will that appropriate
time be?
The next step in this will be to take under consideration all of these
comments that were made and the various recommendations we have received
and prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report. Then, following that'l
we will go into the conditional use permit process and there will be a ce
of public hearing of that.
So that there will be an announcement of that and that will be the
appropriate time to speak.
Yes, it will.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Roysher.
I MOVE to close the public hearing
Seconded.
So ordered.
-27-
10/20/88
I
I
HARBICRT
HARBICRT
YOUNG
GILB
HARBICRT
ROLL CALL
t
.
We will take a three minute recess here.
RECESS
CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED
Council will come back to order. I would like to suggest that the
Council direct staff to forward to the consultants all the remarks
made this evening;
I so move
Second
.,. direct communications that we received (indecipherable); comments
from the Planning Commission and ask that they consider all of those
that they consider relevant; include them in the final enviromental
impact report (indecipherable), Any further discussion?
May we have a roll call, please?
AYES: Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Rarbicht
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
-28-
10/20/88