Loading...
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