HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 3,1990_2
I
1
{.'/I :J -~1J
u -7 D :, (I 0
32:0153
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
CLERK
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(June 7 &
June 19,
1990)
(APPROVED)
ORD. & RES.
READ BY
TITLE ONLY
U I) " ~, ".
(, I L tJ
61::!O-lfO
5A~ L.l 1:>
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
and the
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 3, 1990
The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in
a regular session at 7:55 p.m., July 3, 1990, in the City
Hall Council Chamber.
Rev. Ted Chang, Mandarin Baptist Church
City Manager George Watts,
PRESENT: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young
ABSENT: Councilmember Gilb
On MOTION by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember
Ciraulo and CARRIED, Councilmember Gilb was EXCUSED.
On MOTION by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember
Fasching, and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Long Range Study
Session of June 7, 1990 and the adjourned and regular
meetings of June 19, 1990 were APPROVED.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Ciraulo, seconded by
Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED, that Ordinances and
Resolutions be read by title only and that the reading
in full be WAIVED.
PRESENTATIONS TO OUTGOING BOARD & COMMISSION MEMBERS
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Young and Councilmember
Harbicht presented plaques of appreciation for their efforts
and accomplishments during their terms on the Sister City
Commission to outgoing members, Ruth Gilb and Barbara Saelid,
THE OATH OF OFFICE WAS THEN ADMINISTERED BY THE CITY CLERK TO
THE FOLLOWING INCOMING MEMBERS OF VARIOUS BOARDS AND/OR
COMMISSIONS AS INDICATED:
Jo Ann Scott, Librarv Board
Janie Steckenrider, Senior Citizens' Commission
Barbara Hopp, Sister Citv Commission
Mayor Young and Councilmember Harbicht, liaisons to the
various Commissions and Board then presented the incoming
Commissioners and Library Trustee with their credentials, a
City pin, and welcomed them to the City family.
7/3/90
-1-
CLOSED
SESSION
ITEM 7e
POSTPONED
AZUSA
LANDFILL
,1 \;-~(. ..3,)
11 t--': ~ (1
1.
PUBLIC HEARING
(Cont'd from
6-'19-90)
(Rodeffer
Reclamation
Plan)
(APPROVED)
ons;: - ~7
{I'Ve, f..
32:0154
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 54956.9 (a) to
discuss the following litigation: Arcadia Redevelopment
Agency vs. Wilson; the claim of Twentieth Century Insurance
for Eve Lisoni; Perales vs, City of Arcadia; and the case of
Sciuto Va. City of Arcadia".
Mayor Young announced that Item 7e on tonight' s agenda is
postponed to a study session at 5:30 p. m., July 17, 1990.
PRESENTATION
I
Ric Soencer, District Manager, Azusa Land Reclamation Co.,
1201 W, Gladstone Street, Azusa, California, was present on
behalf of Azusa Landfill. Mr, Spencer stated, in part, there
is a great deal of controversy about this landfill at the
present time. The primary concern is whether or not the
landfill will protect the environment. Today's landfills are
state-of.the art, high technical waste management units which
are designed specifically to protect the environment. He
explained in detail how a landfill works and specifically how
the Azusa Landfill is designed to protect the env;ironment
including the separate liner systems specifically designed to
prevent leakage, This is the safest solid landfill site in
the State. This has been attested to by such government
agencies as Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State
Water Resources Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District, etc. By the year 1995 Southern California is
looking at a trash disposal shortfall of about 6,000 tons per
day. The City Manager referred to a news item from
Supervisor Schabarum stating that contaminates from Azusa
Landfill had been leaking into the water wells located down
grade from the site. Mr. Spencer responded that the water
wells have been sampled and analyzed since 1984 on a bi.
monthly basis and the Regional Board and the State Water
Quality Control Board have both reviewed and analyzed these
results and determined that the Azusa Landfill is one of the
few landfills in the State that is not leaking. H. R. Stoke,
1040 Hampton Rd. noted that the document referred to has
already been submitted to the trial court and rejected. He
would be glad to submit the same rebuttal information to the
Council which had been submitted to the court,
The Reclamation Plan was submitted by Rodeffer Investments on
April 18, 1990 for the sand and gravel quarry located on Lower
Azusa Road in the City of Arcadia, The plan was submitted
pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 as
amended by Assembly Bill AB 747 which requires that vested
mining operations have an approved Reclamation Plan prior to
July 1, 1990 or the continuation of the surface mining
operation is prohibited until a reclamation plan is approved
by the City. The Reclamation Plan is not a specific
operations plan for reclamation of the gravel quarry. The
plan acknowledges that the property must be reclaimed to a
usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative
land uses. The Reclamation Plan is not an application for
approval of a landfill. If, after reviewing all material and
receiving all public testimony, the Council approves said
plan, the plan would not permit or authorize a landfill or any
other type of development on this site.
1
7/3/90
-2-
1
,
1
32:0155
Mayor Young declared the hearing OPEN.
Prouonents
T
R
A
N
S
C
R
I
P
T
Glen Watson, Richards, Watson, Gershon Law Firm, Los Angeles,
Mr, Watson stated, in part, that some 32 years ago he and his
client Ori Rodeffer came before the City Council and applied
for annexation of the subject property to the City of Arcadia,
Council agreed with the annexation, accepted the property into
the City, and later licensed and permitted a gravel operation,
The original plan of excavation and sale of gravel has just
about run its course and the proj ect will have been
completed, Under the law it is time to come before Council
with a reclamation plan. The plan has been well analyzed by
City staff. They are in agreement with staff's
recommendations on file as to the findings of Council .., the
reclamation plan, which is on file, and the response filed by
Mr. Lockman to comments made at the Planning Commission public
hearing.
P
R
E
p
A
R
E
D
Harry Schrey, Rodeffer Investments, 11770 East Warner Avenue,
Fountain Valley. Mr. Schrey, representing Rodeffer
Investments, applicant for the reclamation plan, stated, in
part, they concur with the findings of City staff and the
Planning Commission, and have amended the plan incorporating
the suggested changes, which were brought to their attention
by the City of El Monte. Rodeffer Investments felt at the
time they presented the plan to the Planning Commission, that
under the law it substantially met the requirements of the
State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act .,. they do want to
cooperate with the City of El Monte, the amended plan is
wi tness to that. The plan is required by the State of
California the City and Rodeffer Investments have no
option in this matter. Rodeffer must submit the plan, and
the City must act on it ... either to accept it or reject it.
The plan does not allow Rodeffer Investments to do anything
to the land. It says that Rodeffer Investments can not walk
away from this quarry when it is no longer feasible to mine
it. Moreover, without the approval of the reclamation plan,
they must close down the operation of the quarry and would
then not be obligated to do anything with the site. On July
1, they closed the site pending action of the lead agency, the
City of Arcadia, this date.
W. J. Lockman. President, LockMan and Associates, 249 E.Pomona
Blvd" Monterey Park. Mr, Lockman stated, in part, that the
Rodeffer Reclamation Plan was prepared by his firm. The plan
is required of all mining operations that are considered to
have a vested right at the time the law was passed in 1976 by
the State of California. The plan does not backfill the
quarry... it is a commitment on the part of the quarry owner
to backfill and not leave a hole in the ground. Many other
permi ts are required before any material can be placed in this
pit. In response to comments presented at the Planning
Commission public hearing, Mr. Lockman had prepared an
addendum to the plan to reinforce sections of the State Mining
and Reclamation Act (SMARA). The addendum was read to Council
as follows:
"Addendum to June 21, 1990 Response to Comments. 3502(b)(2)
Health and Safety. The unreclaimed property consists of a pit
160 feet in depth with banks with approximate 1:1 slopes, and
the possibility of water in the bottom in periods of high
water tables or runoff. The site is protected by chain link
fence with barbed wire strands at the top. Entry by
unauthorized persons, including children, could be gained by
digging under or going over the fence by climbing, by use of
a ladder or other means, or by cutting. A guard cannot
7/3/90
-3-
32:0156
monitor all locations at once, although precautions are being
taken. A person venturing on the slopes could lose footing
and be injured in falling, sliding or rolling down the slope
and could be drowned if the fall ends in water.
"There can be no question that the public health and safety
would be enhanced by reclamation that would backfill the pit,
eliminate the slopes and water, and restore the ground level
to natural grade.
"3502(b)(4) Comoaction of Fill Materials. The backfill will
be compacted in accordance with good engineering practice in
order to provide adequate support for possible industrial
building sites or other improvements and roads.
"3505(b) Vested Rhhts. The Reclamation Plan set forth the 1
fact that quarry operations began in March 1967, eight years
before the adoption of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
of 1975, and have been continuous to July I, 1990. Several
million tons of rock, sand and gravel were mined before the
Act became effective. That mining could not have been done
without incurring substantial liabilities for work and
materials, including incurring liabilities for several million
dollars worth of labor, use of equipment, fuel and other
materials. The mining produced all the rock material that the
operator could market and" was diligently conducted."
The addendum was then filed with the City Clerk.
Ori Rodeffer, 2227 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar. Mr.
Rodeffer stated, in part, that he would prefer to be good
neighbors with the City of El Monte and the people who live
next to his quarry, and would like them to be the same to his
operation. He has no ill will for the people of the City of
El Monte, If the time ever comes when the hearings are over
and a permit is accomplished, the City of El Monte or the
neighbors would be welcome to send inspectors to the fill to
satisfy themselves that everything is conducted in a
workmanlike manner and that there are no contaminate materials
placed in the fill. The materials he is referring to will be
composed of brick, concrete, dirt and inert material that will
not contaminate the water supply. He noted that the Los
Angeles Times, this date, carried an article which reported
that the City of Irwindale licensed eight out of 19 gravel
pits to be filled with non-contaminating inert fill. This is
the only way to return ground that has been used for another
purpose back to a useful purpose. The holes were dug to
create sand and gravel that are the very foundations of houses
that we live in. In the future, trucks that haul garbage out
of the City will return with rock and gravel because there is
less than ten years left of rock and gravel in all of the
County of Los Angeles. Filling his quarry is the right thing
to do for the City of El Monte, and the people of El Monte.
In response to questions from Council, Mr. Rodeffer replied 1
that the inert materials to fill the quarry will come from
demolition of buildings; somewhere between 200 to 500 truck
loads a day are available for this type of fill in the County.
If his pit received all that was available in Los Angeles
County, it would take about three years to fill. He has
received different estimates from various engineers and he
believes it may take seven years to fill his pit .,. others
think it will take longer. Further, they will place top fill
on the top. Mr. Rodeffer concluded by stating that their plan
has been exactly the same for 35 years, that is, excavate the
material, fill the hole, and put an industrial park in of the
type that is in Irvine, which is landscaped and properly done,
This is still their plan.
7/3/90
-4-
I
1
,<'
,.
32:0157
Ou'Oonents
Ted M, Handel, Ross & Scott, Attorneys, 520 South Grand Ave.,
Los Angeles, California, on behalf of the City of El Monte,
stated, in part, that a reclamation plan, by its very nature,
is a substantive guide for the present and future use of a
quarry site; Rodeffer will use this plan to limit the analysis
of whatever permits it may need from Arcadia to proceed with
its plan for the quarry site. This plan needs more than just
bare bones responses to SMARA'S statutory and regulatory
requirements. Further, the City's environmental analysis is
completely inadequate under the California Environmental
Quality Act. The health and safety effects go beyond leveling
the ground and the impact that the entire reclamation process
will have on neighboring residents, i. e., dust, materials
placed in the proposed landfill and traffic. The Regional
Water Quality Board is currently evaluating the merits of a
rule initiated by the City of El Monte to protect inert
landfills. The State Mining and Geology Board requires that
consideration be given to the land use characteristics, not
only of the mined area, but the surrounding area as well. The
Department of Fish and Game advised that nearly a third of the
quarry is a wetlands site which must be protected. Another
question is that of the potential impact on groundwater
contamination. Also, it is not permissible to extract just
one element of the City's General Plan and say that a land use
action is consistent with the entire City of Arcadia's General
Plan; none of these General Plan consistency issues is
addressed in the plan. Similar deficiencies exist in the
environmental analysis that has been prepared. The initial
study that staff has prepared is inadequate. It doesn't
explain the purpose of the plan; it doesn't acknowledge the
prior Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1988 for
an identical project; it doesn't indicate any of the
environmental consequences that will result from this project.
Also, there is no data to explain how staff reached its
conclusion to issue a negative declaration. This project will
have significant effects identified on the CEQA guidelines.
It will interfere with movement of migratory wildlife. It
could degrade a groundwater resource and interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge. It will increase
traffic in relation to the capacity of the street system. It
could increase substantially ambient noise levels. It could
diminish the habitat for wildlife. It could create a
potential public hazard. The fact that the plan itself may
or may not authorize reclamation of the site does not preclude
preparation of an environmental impact report. In reply to
question from Council, Mr. Handel further stated, in part,
that nobody is objecting to filling the pits. The question
is to make sure they are filled properly. Particularly there
is the issue of water contamination. The City of El Monte is
going to the Regional Water Quality Board to insure that the
materials that are put in this landfill are, indeed, inert.
The City of El Monte does not feel. that the assurances,
without any enforcement behind them, are adequate, The
Arcadia City Attorney noted that one of the assurances is that
they will be subject to the Municipal Code and to a
conditional use permit, and to complete environmental review.
Approval of this plan does not grant approval for the
prospective use of the property. Mr. Handel reiterated that
such assurancss are a critical requirement in this process. ,
The City of El Monts does not know how Rodeffer will try and, '
use this reclamation plan.
AlIi Rovsher, 1784 Santa Anita Ave., Arcadia, CA, stated, in
part, that she has driven to the area under discussion; that
-5-
7/3/90
, \ ~
32:0158
area is attached to the City of Arcadia by a narrow ribbon of
land a few hundred feet wide and is completely surrounded by
El Monte and Irwindale, There is a rural ambiance, The late
Herb Fletcher concluded that adequate time would not be
available for inspection of the dump trucks. A dump in that
proposed location would probably pollute Arcadia's water.
Arcadia should be a good neighbor to El Monte and reject this
plan.
Barbara Mee, 19014 La Fetra Drive, Glendora, CA, stated, in
part, that this reclamation plan dos not substantially meet
the requirements of the law; it doesn't even come close.
Rodeffer Industries cannot prevent or minimize the adverse
environmental effects, including watershed and wild life. The
health and safety of one million people in the San Gabriel
Valley rests in Council's hands tonight. There is already
a serious water contamination problem in the San Gabriel
Valley. She does not feel that the Planning Department's
negative declaration is adequate. She suggested property
could be used for water conservation, The use of the property
for a landfill would be the worst possible use.
Christina Asten20, l2ll3 Hemlock St., El Monte, CA, stated,
in part, that she has read this plan and there are a number
of items still to be addressed. She recommends suspension
of all operations at that site completely until something is
formally done. There have been violations such as working
hours in the past which Arcadia has not addressed. She feels
that priorities in this matter are given to Rodeffer rather
than to the surrounding residents. She expressed concerns
about the problems of dust, truck traffic, groundwater
contamination as well as safety considerations regarding the
pit itself. She does not feel these issues have been
properly addressed.
David Flores, 12248 Mulhall St" El Monte, CA , stated, in
part, that he does not think Council should defer to the
Planning Commission's recommendations because the Commission's
pre-hearing notice to the community was inadequate. Council
should conduct a separate, independent determination based
solely upon the information presented at this hearing. The
City Attorney interjected that this is a new hearing. The
fact is that this is not necessarily a legally required
hearing; nor was the hearing before the Planning Commission,
However, with regard to conditional use permits, a hearing
would be required. Mr. Flores continued to point out that
this plan involves a commitment by the applicant to fill in
the hole; also a commitment by the City of Arcadia to go along
with that. What would happen if Mr. Rodeffer leased the
property, for instance, to BKK? He feels the plan is
inadequate; the applicant has been more concerned about just
the need to submit a plan than in demonstrating thet the
proposed reclamation has been carefully planned. He feels
this proposal should be disapproved until such time as it is
properly planned.
Robert Law, 4315 N. Durfee Ave., El Monte, CA, stated, in
part, that Council has tremendous responsibility here with
regard to conditional use permits and safety and health, He
is sure some commission gave assurances about Chernobyl,Three
Mile Island and the Space Shuttle; they all had assurances
that nothing would go wrong. This plan is deficient in this
regard. Conditional use permits are often in violation and
policing them is a very, very major problem. He has called
attention to Code violations on this piece of property in the
past. The property has never been maintained according to
the conditions of operation until this issue was raised about
the refill. It has been a disgrace for years.
-6-
7/3/90
1
1
32:0159
I
Rovall Brown, 2153 Aroma Drive, West Covina, CA, stated, in
part, that he is an elected official of the municipal water
district in this valley. The problems in this valley with the
Superfund sites of landfills are well noted by the leadership
of the EPA. Future disasters can only be averted by better
land use planning. This plan before Council tonight is part
of the complex process dictated in California law for land
use. We have an open, continuous set of geology here that
allows the San Gabriel river to freely come to the surface and
go underground. This site is part of the river system. As
such, the plan should reflect that and for that reason alone,
it should be referred back to staff to correct this deficiency
in the plan and redo it so the public can have a full
understanding of what this river system is. A use that
should be considered by Council is that of a spreading basin
and the creation of groundwater mounds to keep plumes from
moving and contaminating othe.: ",ells. This site could be part
of a system to create such a groundwater mound. The site
could be part of a well field for both injection and removal
of water. The plan has serious deficiencies. It needs to
have further usage identified as part of the Code requirements
and should be sent back to both Rodeffer and the Planning
Commission for that type of data to be added to the study.
Susan Smith-McGlohin, 12119 Hemlock Street, El Monte, CA,
stated, in part, that the history of this site has not been
one of complying with the Code. Many deficiencies have gone
on in the past. She asked Council to please reconsider this
plan because it is the future of the nearby residents.
Joe Astengo, 12113 Hemlock St., El Monte, CA, stated, in
part, that he commends Council for their efforts in trying to
find an alternative for the ugly holes presently on the site.
We are all charged with responsibility for the water system
now -- not Irwindale, El Monte or Arcadia -- all of us. Our
drinking water is especially critical now. He reiterated the
violations of Code at the site in the past by t!--.8 mi.I.~i.~g
operations; policing has not been adequate. He does noc se~~
that what has been submitted in this reclamation plan is going
to be any different with the new operation. He asked Council
to turn it down,
Ruta Lee Turner, 12144 Roseglen St., El Monte, CA, stated, in
part, that the area does not need more landfills; it needs
more wells. She suggested wells be dug on this site.
1
Prooonents Rebuttal:
w. J. Lockman, stated, in part, tha.t 'i,;::.der the laws of Arcadia
the backfill could be allowed by either a conditional use
permit or a grading permit, both of which require compliance
by CEQA. The Planning Department has confirmed this and also
informed them that the environmental process would be required
for either of those permits. The Regional Water Quality
Control Board would also require permits. .. other permits are
required also, If it is a conditional use permit, that
involves an unclassified fill, In response to another
comment, the reason two million tons of gravel are still in
the pit in 1990 from 1988 is because of the drought and water
table. It is Mr. Lockman's testimony as an expert that the
plan before Council complies with SMARA and he is prepared to
7/3/90
-7-
32:0160
testify to that fact before an appeals board or to a court of
law, Under SMARA, Council's review is limited to does this
mee~ ~he State law... and that is the whole issue.
Glen Watson, stated, in part, that he would reply to comments
made by Mr. Handel since Mr. Handel has said he is making an
administrative record, which suggests that this is a hearing
required by law, which it is not. The residents do not
understand that the Council is processing a reclamation plan
which is required by law, and if the City Council denied the
plan or didn't act on it, under law there is an appeal taken
to the State Mining and Geology Board'. The control over the
terms of the plan would then pass from the City Council to the
State. Also, while most realize that filling the hole is good
environmentally, they don't seem to recognize that filling it I
with clean inert fill is the only environmentally sound way
to fill it and the way to put it back the way it was before
the mining was done. Another thing '" Congress has passed
a law known as the Superfund Law, several statutes have been
enacted... the owner of a piece of property in a watershed
and over a water aquifer who would permit contaminated waste
to go in that hole while he is the owner would be subjecting
himself to a multi-million dollar liability ... the owner
could not afford to take that risk. He must protect himself
by seeing that no contaminated material of any nature goes in
that hole ... that is his legal responsibility. Further,
staff has compared the plan provisions item by item, paragraph
by paragraph, with the statutory requirement and the
proponents agree with staff's finding that they are' completely
in accordance with the statute, as supplemented by the
responses of Mr. Lockman dated June 21. A plan only provides
a paper game plan and it cannot result in contamination.
Further, the State Legislature adopted SMARA and segregated
the project itself by providing for a reclamation plan with
procedures to take it to the State if not acted upon by the
City and enjoining the operator to shut down until the plan
is acted upon, or until an appeal is taken, and the statute
gives the right for the operator to continue operations while
an appeal is pending before the State Board. This is
something that should be noted for the record. Referring to
the negative declaration, staff has a very adequate,
customary, sufficient environmental check list, checking off
every environmental aspect possible in connection with the
plan, and all indicated a negative declaration. In reference
to comments about Fish and Game ... no consultation ~ith Fish
and Game is required for the purpose of filing a reclamation
plan for approval. Finally, in reference to the one condition
suggested for approval of the reclamation plan, the $100,000
surety bond to be deposited with the City within 30 days after
approval of a reclamation plan for the subject property, Mr.
Watson suggested that this was an appropriate condition for
a conditional user permit... not for the reclamation plan,
since the property could not be brought into an acceptable
alternative use after mining has ceased until a permit has 1
been secured to do so. Mr. Watson, then set forth what the
conditions requiring the $100,000 surety bond should be. The
requirement for a $100,000 surety bond, they believe, is
premature, although ultimately they would not object to the
$100,000 bond at a time when they are permitted to operate,
if and when they are,
Answer to Rebuttal:
Ted M. Handel, Ross & Scott, Attoneys, 520 S. Grand Avenue,
Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA, stated, in part, that, technically
speaking, they are the appellant here; it is not Rodeffer.
The Mayor responded that this is not an appeal case tonight.
Mr. Handel insisted that it is. He took exception to Mr.
7/3/90
-8-
,,'"
32:0161
Watson's comments concerning the notice of hearing
requirement. Independent of what the reclamation plan
requirements say, CEQA does require a hearing. Also, the
neighboring residents have a property interest and, there is
a mandatory requirement for a hearing. He noted that an
appeal had been filed and believed the City Clerk ",,',11
acknowledge. The City Attorney responded that the appeal has
been noted. Mr. Handel has had his right to be, heard.
However, he reiterated that this is not really an appellant
process.
No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on
MOTION by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember
Ciraulo and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows:
I
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young
None
Councilmember Gilb
Councilmember Harbicht stated, in part, that much of what was
said tonight is irrelevant to the matter before Council.
Prior to the passage of the Surface Mining and Reclamation
Act, people who were mining, simply mined until they were
finished and then in many cases just walked away leaving a
scar on the landscape. The purpose of this legislation is to
make mining operators responsible for repairing the damage
they have done. Therefore, whoever is doing the mining is
required to submit a plan showing how they intend to repair
the land. This is what is before Council tonight. There are
significant additional steps required before this plan could
ever be implemented; a Conditional Use Permit; Environmental
Impact Report; Public Hearings would be required. The City
of Arcadia is very concerned about the environment; it is just
as concerned to assure that the water supply is not
contaminated as El Monte residents. When this matter again
comes before Council for implementation, all those
environmental concerns will be addressed. The plan is
complete; it addresses what it is designed to address and
Council should approve it. Referring to the surety bond,
Councilmember Harbicht said the $100,000 surety bond should
be required.
1
Councilmember Fasching commented that the applicant is
complying with the law. Council is merely granting him the
right to go ahead and submit the plan. Council and the City
of Arcadia are just as concerned about environmental matters
as the EI Monte residents. When it comes time to get to that
aspect of the plan, the Arcadia City Council will be acting
in the interests of the people of El Monte as well as those
of Arcadia and the people in general in assuring that there
is no contamination and that the environment is protected.
He noted an interesting proposal by one of the speakers; the
possibility of this area one day being considered for water
storage. He wondered how Rodeffer would feel about that
possibility; this could possibly be mentioned as an alternate
plan.
It was then MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by
Councilmember Ciraulo and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows
that Council APPROVE the Reclamation Plan as submitted,
including the addendum which was submitted this date, July 3,
1990; that the conditions as outlined in the staff report be
part of that motion, and the findings; and that the $100,000
surety bond be REQUIRED and the language clarified to indicate
that that is to ensure timely application for a Conditional
Use Permit and preparation of environmental impact documents.
'j
7/3/90
-9-
2.
PUBLIC HEARING
(T .A. 90-004
reo Height of
Wireless Radio
Masts, Towers
or Antennas,
not Incl.
Satellite Dish)
(APPROVED)
( c'
C S r (~ - It' -,
rn (Iu 0'" 'I
3.
PUBLIC HEARING
(Zone Chg.
Z-90-00l -
311 & 325 E.
Live Oak: 2616
S. Third Av.;
Area E.of
Third Av., W.
of Fourth Av.
& port'n Alley)
(APPROVED)
J ;
7..10-(",/
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
32:0162
Councilmembers Ciraulo,
None
Councilmember Gilb
Fasching, Harbicht and Young
The Planning Commission at its May 22, 1990 meeting voted 4
to 0 with one member absent to recommend approval of Text
Amendment 90-004 to the amend building height requirements in
the R-M, R-O and R-l zones to provide an exception to allow
wireless radio masts, towers or antennas (not including
satellite dish antennas) to be a maximum of 35'-0" in height
when attached to and an integral part of the main dwelling.
I
Mayor Young declared the hearing OPEN.
No one desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION
by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Mayor Young and CARRIED
on roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Ciraulo,
None
Councilmember Gilb
Fasching, Harbicht and Young
It was then MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded ,by Mayor
Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Council
APPROVE and FILE the Negative Declaration and find that the
Text Amendment will not have a significant effect on the
environment and DIRECT staff to prepare the appropriate
ordinance for introduction.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young
None
Councilmember Gilb
The Planning Commission at its May 8, 1990 meeting voted 5 to
o to recommend approval to the City Council of zone change
Z-90-00l. This will change from PR-3 (multiple family zone
with automobile parking zone) to C-2D (general commercial zone
with architectural design zone) the properties at 311 and 325
East Live Oak Avenue and 2616 South Third Avenue (area east
of Third Avenue west of Fourth Avenue and south of the alley).
Mayor Young declared the hearing OPEN.
No one desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION
by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Fasching
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young
None
Councilmember Gilb
I
It was then MOVED by Councilmember Ciraulo, seconded by Mayor
Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Council
APPROVE and FILE the Negative Declaration and find the zone
change Z-90-00l will not have a significant effect on the
environment and DIRECT staff to prepare the appropriate
ordinance.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young
None
Councilmember Gilb
-10-
7/3/90
I
I
4.
PUBLIC HEARING
(T.A. 90-005
Earthquake
Hazards -
Exist'g Bldgs.)
(APPROVED)
c-
O 5' 'f,J - & "
1/f i -,'" ,
5.
,
o Ii 7 (J - I"
. "I III t
1- . (~ -
6.
7.
7a.
ROLL CALL
32:0163
In December 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1916
which added regulations to the Arcadia Municipal Code setting
forth regulations for the reduction of earthquake hazards in
existing buildings. The City's ordinance was virtually
identical in content to the model ordinanc!, recommended by the
State of California Seismic Safety Commission. In late March
1990, the City received a Revised Model Ordinance for the
Seismic Retrofit of Hazardous Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
from the State of California Seismic Safety Commission. The
Seismic Safety Commission recommends that local governments
consider this new Model Ordinance as the basis for their local
ordinances. Major changes incorporated in the Seismic Safety
Commission's 1990 Model Ordinance are outlined in staff report
dated June 5, 1990.
Mayor Young declared the hearing OPEN.
No one desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION
by Mayor Young, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED
on roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Ciraulo,
None
Councilmember Gilb
Fasching, Harbicht and Young
It was then MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded 'by Mayor
Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the
Negative Declaration be approved and the recommendations of
the Seismic Safety Commission as set forth in detail in
staff report dated June 5, 1990 be APPROVED and that staff be
DIRECTED to prepare the appropriate ordinance for
introduction.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young
None
Councilmember Gilb
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Dominic Holzhaus, no address given, stated, in part, that he
had originally corne this evening on behalf of BFI in Azusa;
he is with the firm of Lathan and Watkins. Consent Item No.
ge is of concern to BFI. BFI has established an industry fund
of twenty million dollars toward cleanup of the San Gabriel
Valley and has a general interest in this. He notes that
staff is recommending that Council support the formation of
a super agency for supervision of the San Gabriel Superfund
cleanup. This is a complex issue currently under review by
EPA and the State Board. Public hearings have been held and
the public comment period is open until July 20 concerning the
appropriate infrastructure. Perhaps it is premature for the
City of Arcadia to take a position on the appropriate
infrastructure for the cleanup agency. He recommends on
behalf of BFI and Azusa Reclamation that this item be
continued until after those hearings have been completed,
CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PRESENT: Agency Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young
ABSENT: Agency Member Gilb
7/3/90
-11-
7b.
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(June 19, 1990)
(APPROVED)
32:0164
On MOTION by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Ciraulo and
CARRIED, Member ~.LO .aci EXCUSED.
On MOTION by Member Ciraulo, seconded by Chairman Young and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows, the minutes of the
meeting of June 19, 1990 were APPROVED
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young
None
Member GUb
7c.
ARCADIA REDEV. The Arcadia Redevelopment Tax Increment Funds can only be used
FUNDS. ROLL-OVER to repay debt. Every year at June 30, the Agency rolls over
(APPROVED) its debt to the City. This needs to be done in order to
assure that the L. A. County Auditor/Controller recognizes the
[) G j c -5 [' debt between the City of Arcadia and the Agency for the coming'
~ f fiscal year, in this case 1990-91. The estimated cash
il'II..', (.' I )))available as of June 30, 1990 to pay back and re-loan to the
Agency is $1,113,432.00. In addition, the Agency must roll
over the $3,245,656.82 loan from the City to June 30, 1991.
11
7d.
ZAHIR-YOUNAEI
STAFF RPT.
CORRECTION
(APPROVED)
[(If<..Lf+
LO /;[ ",'" ,', 1 n ,/
7e.
NORTHWEST
CORNER
PROPOSAL
(H & H Develop.)
(CONT'D TO
5:30 p.m.,
July 17,1990)
:J~
I
,11'"
I ~ i . {~.
I
It was MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Fasching
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the $1,113,432
Cash Increment Fund and $3,245,656.82 loan from the City be
loaned back to the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Project Fund
and be payable on June 30, 1991.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Ciraulo,
None
Member Gilb
Fasching, Harbicht and Young
The June 19, 1990 staff report authorizing the acquisition of
the ZahirjYounaei Property contained a typographical error on
the purchase price. While the cost per square foot
($40. OO/Sq. Ft.) and total consideration contained in the
Acquisition Agreement ($580,000) were correct, the staff
report incorrectly cited the price at $540,000.
It was MOVED by Member Fasching, seconded by Member Harbicht
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia
Redevelopment Agency APPROVE the purchase of the Zahir/Younaei
Property at 154 E. Huntington Drive for $580,000
($40.00/Sq.Ft.) and AUTHORIZE and DIRECT the Executive
Director to execute all documents necessary to finalize the
transaction.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young
None
Member Gilb
In February 1990 the Agency released a revised RFP for the
162,000 square foot Northwest Corner Project. On May 11, 1990
two proposals were received from Kaiser Foundation Health
Plan, Inc. and H & H Development. On June 16, 1990, W. M.
Hamilton of Kaiser informed the Agency that they had decided
not to proceed with the project. Therefore, the review of H
& H Development proposal is the only one provided.
1
The staff report dated June 22, 1990 provides a detailed
analysis of the 'concerns the Agency has with regard to this
proposal. Because of this, it was recommended that this item
be CONTINUED until after a study session at 5:30 p. m., July
17, 1990.
-12-
7/3/90
I
I
7f. .
ADJOURNMENT
8.
9.
9a.
PUBLIC
HEARING
SCHEDULED
(Aug.7,1990)
0580 _(,5
111 <to-OolC
9b.
FINAL MAP
(48496 (6-unit
Condo - 315-
321 Diamond)
05(00-(;0
l' ~ '+ 8"L{- 9 (;
32:0165
It was then MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member
Ciraulo and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that request
to consider the Northwest Corner Proposal be CONTINUED to 5:30
p.m., July 17, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Ciraulo,
None
Member Gilb
Fasching, Harbicht and Young
The meeting ADJOURNED to 5:30 p. m., July 17, 1990.
CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED
CONSENT ITEMS
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 7. 1990 for consideration
of Text Amendment 90-006 to amend side yard setback
requirements and building height requirements in the R-M, R-
o and R-l zones and amend "Authority" sections of the
Administrative Modification and regular Modification
procedures in the single family zones.
APPROVED Final Map 48496 for a proposed six unit residential
condominium at 315 and 321 Diamond Street, submitted by
Civiltec Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Mur-Sol, Inc.,
property owner. Before the Final Map is recorded, all
outstanding conditions of approval, as outlined in report from
the Public Works Department dated October 2, 1989, shall be
complied with,
9c.
ARA LOAN APPROVED roll-over of Arcadia Redevelopment Agency loan in
ROLL-OVER amounts of $1,113,432.00 Cash Increment Fund and $3,245,656.82
0(,,/0 --;0 loan from the City outstanding as of June 30, 1990 be loaned
-rAY r';"f(t/Yj1E.,Jff/J~back to the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Project Fund payable
on June 30, 1991.
9d.
PARKWAY
LANDSCAPING
(Colorado Bl.
& St.)
a9/0-50
c. 1.-0 {, /1 P 0
ge.
SAN GABRIEL
VALLEY GROUND-
WATER CLEANUP
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Alternative
No. 4
APPROVED)
~810-'10
C L" 1/ ~I tj P
AUTHORIZED additional parkway landscaping along Colorado
Street and Colorado Boulevard between Michillinda Boulevard
and the railroad underpass near Santa Anita Avenue, in the
form of 5- gallon-size oleanders spaced at 4 foot intervals
at a cost of approximately $5,000 and APPROPRIATED $5,000 from
the Gas Tax Fund to fund the additional parkway landscaping.
ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY
COUNCILMEMBER HARBICHT, SECONDED BY MAYOR YOUNG AND CARRIED
ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Ciraulo,
None
Councilmember Gilb
Fasching, Harbicht and Young
The San Gabriel Valley Association of Cities has requested
input from the City of Arcadia regarding San Gabriel Valley
groundwater cleanup. Four alternatives have been presented
and outlined in their letter of June 11, 1990. Councilmember
Harbicht noted that the deadline for reply to the San Gabriel
Valley Association of Cities (July 1) has passed; while Mr.
Holzhaus suggested the City should wait before taking a
position on this matter. Mayor Young responded that Council
did not feel the two-day delay in replying to the Association
would matter. The Association has been getting a good
response. Staff is recommending Alternative No.4 because No.
-13-
7/3/90
10.
"QUICK MART"
CONV.STORE
(CPD-l Zone)
(CONT'D TO
July 17,1990)
0&10 -fl
:; ,,-:OJ !: !--(I6--
11.
lIa.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5538
(ADOPTED)
6~ 31J-~1"
lIb.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5539
(ADOPTED)
0:)30-:>0
lIc.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5540
(ADOPTED)
o :l.3n -S'D
;.tr':
\~"v'"
32:0166
1 is unacceptable; No. 2 and No. 3 are not representative of
the public. Under No.4, a new legislatively established
authority would be separate from the municipal water districts
and the Main San Gabriel Watermaster and would be able to
objectively exercise the power needed to go forward with the
cleanup. In reply to Councilmember Harbicht's question,
staff replied that with regard to Alternative No, 4, there
will probably be delegates from each water district and the
Watermaster rather than from each city.
It was then MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Mayor
Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Mayor
communicate to the San Gabriel Valley Association of Cities
that Alternative No.4 is the City of Arcadia's choice for
action.
I
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Ciraulo,
None
Councilmember Gilb
Fasching, Harbicht and Young
CITY MANAGER
Ronnie Lam, 1265 Old Mill Road, San Marino, applicant, was
present to request that consideration of his request to
determine that a "Quick Mart" convenience store is a
compatible use in the CPD-l zone be continued to July '17, 1990
because he did not think there had been sufficient notice and
his attorney is not available at this time.
It was the consensus of Council that consideration of the
request to determine tha.t a "Quick Mart" convenience store is
a compatible use in the CPD-l zone be CONTINUED to July 17,
1990.
CITY ATTORNEY
The City Attorney presented and read the title of Resolution
No. 5538: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR VARIOUS
POSITIONS IN MANAGEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990-1991".
The City Attorney presented and read the title of Resolution
No. 5539: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR VARIOUS
POSITIONS OF GENERAL EMPLOYEES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-1991".
I
The City Attorney presented and read the title of Resolution
No. 5540: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR VARIOUS
PART-TIME EMPLOYEE POSITIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-1991".
It was MOVED by Councilmember Fasching, seconded by
Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as
follows that Resolutions Nos. 5538, 5539 and 5540 be and they
are hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young
" '
.,"
7/3/90
-14-
I
I
lld.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5541
(ADOPTED)
0'i'{0 - S'o
, --
Co L. -r N'G-- fY)1l/ tll
DIS'f
L."
lle. "
RESOLUTION'
NO. 5542
(ADOPTED)
o 'i4o- S'o
L.-(lI'I6- III H IiJ--!
DISf
12.
13.
FASCHING
(Landscaping
Colorado St.
& B1 vd . )
YOUNG
(In Memory of
Charles
Shugert)
fl n;lo{< Y 01"
5HI{&-SR../
32:0167
NOES:
ABSENT:
None
Councilmember Gilb
The City Attorney presented and read the title of Resolution
No. 5541: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, WITHDRAWING ALL TERRITORY LYING WITHIN
THE CITY OF ARCADIA FROM THE LONGDEN LIGHTING DISTRICT
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 19290 OF THE STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA".
\
The City Attorney presented and read the title of Resolution
No. 5542: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, WITHDRAWING ALL TERRITORY LYING WITHIN
THE CITY OF ARCADIA FROM COUNTY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
540 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5853 OF THE STREETS
AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA".
It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by
Councilmember Ciraulo and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows
that Resolutions Nos. 5541 and 5542 be and they are hereby
ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young
None
Councilmember Gilb
MATTERS FROM STAFF
None
MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
Councilmember Fasching noted with regard to Item 9d, that
there are no sidewalks along Colorado Blvd. and Colorado
Street and wondered if there would be room on the parkway for
pedestrians to walk after this additional landscaping is
completed. Staff replied there would be room to walk because
the landscaping would be against the walls. If, in the
future, the landscaping grows so there is any problem for
pedestrians, it can always be trimmed back,
"I would like to adjourn the meeting to 5: 30 on July 17, in
memory of Charles Shugert. Charles Shugert was born in
Oxford, Ohio in 1911. He graduated from the University of
Miami in 1932 where he was a member of Sigma Chi fraternity.
He was elected into the University of Miami Hall of Fame in
1952 and was a member of the University's President's Club.
Charles was a lieutenant commander in the U. S. Navy during
World War II. He moved to Arcadia in 1961 and operated
Shugert's House of Toys. If any of you lived here then and
experienced going in that House of Toys, it was wonderful.
He let the children play with the toys before they brought
them and, many times, didn't buy them. He was a life member
of the Arcadia Rotary and a long-time member of the Arcadia
Republican Club and the Arcadia Businessmen's Association.
Charles was one of the first male volunteers at the Methodist
Hospital and recently received a pin for twenty-two hundred
hours of service. He also received the Western Regional
Volunteer Award from the Arcadia Chapter of the American Red
Cross for his work with the Meals on Wheels program, He is
survived by his wife Mickey; two sons; one daughter; five
grandchildren; and one great-grandchild. Memorial services
were held on Friday, June 22 at the First Presbyterian Church
-15-
7/3/90
.;
14.
ADJOURNMENT
(July 17,
1990 -
5:30 p.m.)
ATTEST:
32:016B
of Arcadia. The meeting is adjourned in memory of Charles
Shugert,'
The meeting ADJOURNED at 10:37 p. m. to 5:30 p. m., Tuesday,
July 17, 1990 in the'City Hall Conference Room to conduct the
business of the Council and Redevelopment Agency and any
Closed Session necessary to discuss personnel, litigation
matters and evaluation of properties.
7l7~I!*!:~r
Mary B. cung, yor
J
7/3/90
-16-
\;i:~ .
-::;;
'.'
I
I
I
I
T RAN S C RIP T
(Insofar as decipherable)
RELATING TO
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL IN
CONSIDERATION OF A RECLAMATION PLAN FOR THE RODEFFER QUARRY ON LOWER
AZUSA ROAD
I
I
I
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 3, 1990
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 3, 1990
PUBLIC HEARING
MAYOR YOUNG
DONNA BUTLER,
ASST. PLANNING
DIRECTOR
- CONSIDERATION OF A REClAMATION PLAN FOR THE RODEFFER QUARRY
ON LOWER AZUSA ROAD
Next on the agenda is a public hearing for consideration of
a reclamation plan for the Rodeffer quarry on Lower Azusa
Road. This is continued from June 19. This is a public
hearing. We will first have a staff report from Donna Butler.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, in April
Rodeffer Investments submitted a reclamation plan for the
gravel quarry located on Lower Azusa Road in the City of
Arcadia. The reclamation plan is required pursuant to the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act which requires that vested
mining operations have an approved reclamation plan prior to
July 1, 1990, or continuation of the mining operation is pro-
hibi ted until a plan is approved by the City. The reclamation
plan is not a project or an application for approval of a
landfill. The plan is mandated by the State. Approval of
this plan does not permit or authorize the property owner to
fill the quarry or utilize the quarry for any other type of
activity. Any future use of this site would require a condi-
tional use permit. If, at a later date, a conditional use
permit is filed for a landfill or any other type of activity
or development of the site, an environmental impact report and
public hearings will be required, The Planning Commission,
at its May 22 meeting, recommended to the City Council
approval of the reclamation plan with the finding that the
plan substantially complies with the requirements set forth
in Sections 2722 and 2733 of the Surface Mining and Reclama-
'tion Act. The Commission noted on its recommendation that
approval of the plan does not permit the use of the property
as a landfill. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act states,
"The lead agency's review of these plans is limited to whether
the plan substantially meets the requirements of Sections 2772
and 2773 and the city's surface mining ordinance. Plans that
are judged to meet the intent of this chapter shall be
improved for the purposes of this chapter. Plans that are
judged as not substantially meeting the requirements of
Sections 2772 and 2773 and the lead agency's surface mining
ordinance shall be returned to the operator within 60 days.
The operator then has 60 days to revise the plan to address
identified deficiencies, at which time the revised plan shall
be returned to the agency for review and approval. If the
plans remain unapproved by July 1, 1990, the continuation of
the surface mining operation is prohibited until a reclamation
plan is approved by the lead agency." Following the Planning
Commission's meeting, Lockman and Associates, Rodeffer's
consultants on this, submitted an addendum to the reclamation
plan which addresses issues relating to Sections 3502 and 3503
of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code. The staff
report outlines the requirements of Sections 2772 and 2773,
as well 'as Sections 3502 and 3503 of Title 14 and the
consultant's responses to these requirements. The reclamation
plan recognizes that the property must be reclaimed to a
usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative
land uses. It does not address in detail how the reclamation
of the quarry will be accomplished, This is subject to future
specific application and review by the City. Based upon the
original reclamation plan and the addendum dated June 2l, it
is staff's opinion that the plan, as amended, substantially
meets the requirements of the State Surface Mining and Recla-
mation Act and Title 14. A negative declaration has been
prepared for this plan. The Council should note that findings
4 and 5, which are set forth in the staff report, may also be
deemed conditions of approval. If the City Council determines
that the plan substantially meets the requirements set forth
in the staff report, the Council should move to approve the
-1-
7/3/90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOUNG
GLEN WATSON,
LAW FIRM OF
RICHARDS,
WATSON, GERSHON
HARRY SCHREY,
RODEFFER
INVESTMENTS
reclamation plan and adopt the findings and conditions set
forth in the staff report or as amended by the Council and move
to approve and file the negative declaration and find that the
plan will not have a significant effect on the environment.
If the City Council determines that the plan does not
sufficiently address the issues set forth, the Council should
then refer the plan back to Rodeffer Investments for revision.
Procedurally, because this matter is a recommendation from the
Planning Commission, proponents of the plan should address this
issue first. This does conclude staff's report, unless you
have any questions,
Council, are there any questions of Ms, Butler? This is a
public hearing for the reclamation plan only, All those in
favor of the plan may now come to the podium and speak. Please
give your name and address and try to limit your comments to
5 minutes.
Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Glen R.
Watson of the Law Firm of Richards, Watson, Gershon in Los
Angeles. I'm appearing tonight in behalf of Rodeffer Invest-
ments, who has the reclamation plan on file. I'm compelled
to, at the risk of dating myself, observe that some 32 years
ago I stood before the City Council of Arcadia with my client,
Ori Rodeffer, and applied for annexation of this property to
the City of Arcadia. And that resulted - the Council agreed
with the annexation, accepted the property into the City,
later licensed - permitted a gravel operation, and I think has
enjoyed a good relationship with Rodeffer Investments. Now,
going on to the reclamation plan that's before you, that
original plan of excavation and sale of gravel has just about
run its course. At this point only the - I'll call them the
dregs - remain and the project will have been completed and
under the law it's now time to come before you with a
reclamation plan. The reclamation plan has been adequately
and, I think, extremely well analyzed by staff. We agree with
everything she stated. We agree with the staff
recommendations on file as to the findings of the City Council
and in view of the excellent report, the reclamation plan,
which is on file, the response filed by Mr. Lockman to the
comments made at your earlier public hearing, our presentation
will be very short. Our first witness, we'll have Harry
Schrey, who will make a brief statement in behalf of the plan.
Mr. Schrey of Rodeffer Investments.
Mayor Young, Members of the Arcadia City Council and members
of the City staff. My name is Harry Schrey, the address is
11770 East Warner Avenue in the city of Fountain Valley. I
represent Rodeffer Investments, who is the applicant for this
reclamation plan. We concur with the findings of City staff
and the Planning Commission and we have amended the plan to
the extent of incorporating suggested changes, called to our
attention by the City of El Monte. Although we felt in the
beginning, at the time we presented it to the Planning
Commission, that under the law it substantially met the
requirements of the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act,
we do want to cooperate with the City of El Monte and the
amended plan is witness to that, Their concerns have always
been our concerns. The plan is a requirement of the State of
California and the City of Arcadia and Rodeffer Investments
had no option in this matter. We must submit the plan and the
City must act on it, either to accept it or reject it. It
does not allow Rodeffer Investments to do anything to the
land. What it says is that Rodeffer Investments can not walk
away from this quarry when it is no longer feasible to mine
it. This state requirement is a result of many operators just
walking away from a hole in the ground that they've dug in the
form of mining. The State felt that there were too many
unattended, abandoned holes in the ground that the State lost
control of and this plan came into being. Without the
-2-
7/3/90
YOUNG
SCHREY
WILLIE LOCKMAN,
LOCKMAN &
ASSOCIATES
YOUNG
LOCKMAN
YOUNG
LOCKMAN
approval of this reclamation plan, we must close down the
operation of the quarry and would then not be obligated to do
anything with it. However, we have followed the letter of
the law and this law states that as of July I, if we do not
have a reclamation plan approved by the lead agency, in this
case the City of Arcadia, we must close the site. On July 1
we closed the site, pending action by the Council tonight.
We request your affirmation of the Planning Commission
recommendation and the staff recommendation to approve the
reclamation plan as amended and presented. As Mr. Watson told
you, we have the engineer who prepared the plan, Mr. W. J.
Lockman of Lockman and Associates, and if the Council has no
questions of me, I would like to introduce Mr. Lockman to
carryon with the presentation.
Are there any questions of Mr. Schrey? Seeing none, continue
please.
Thank you, Ma'am.
Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, our firm prepared this
plan that is before you.
May we have your name and address, please.
Oh, my name is Willie Lockman, President Lockman & Associates,
249 E. Pomona Boulevard in Monterey Park. Madam Mayor, the
plan has been prepared by our firm. As had been previously
mentioned, it is before you because it is required of all
mining operations that are considered to have a vested right
at such time as the law was passed by the State in 1976. And
without this plan filed in a timely manner, which was by March
31, 1988, and without this plan being acted on by your body
by July I, 1990, the mining operation could not continue. I
was at the Planning Commission meeting and heard many of the
objections by the protestants. Again, Madam Mayor, keep in
mind that this plan does not backfill the quarry. This plan
is a commitment on the part of the quarry owner to backfill
and not leave a hole in the ground. That there are many other
permits that are required before there will be one cubic yard
of material placed in that pit. In reading the comments that
I had received and in discussing the matter with Donna, I
would like to introduce an addendum to our plan to simply
reinforce a couple of sections of the State Mining and
Reclamation Act, that we refer to as SMARA, if I may call it
SMARA from here on out. But, it's a one page addendum and I
would be glad to file it with the City Clerk and read it here
now, whatever the pleasure would be, Madam Mayor.
Would you all like to hear it? All right.
It deals with three items of SMARA and, again, it's
reinforcing the original plan. The first deals with health
and safety, the second deals with the compaction of fill
materials and the third deals with vested rights. These were
three issues that have been raised by the opponents. And
under Section 3502,b, subparagraph 2, Health and Safety, the
unreclaimed property consists of a pit 160 feet in depth, with
banks with approximate 1 to 1 slopes and the possibility of
water in the bottom in periods of high water tables or runoff.
The site is protected by chain link fence with barbed wire
strands at the top. Entry by unauthorized persons, including
children, could be gained by digging under or going over the
fence, by climbing, by use of a ladder or other means, or by
cutting the fence. A guard cannot monitor all locations at
once, although precautions are being taken. A person
venturing on the slopes could lose footing and be injured in
falling, sliding or rolling down the slope and could be
drowned if the fall ends in water. There can be no question
-3-
7/3/90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOUNG
LOCKMAN
E.O. RODEFFER,
RODEFFER
INVESTMENTS
\.1, ?~"
that the public health and safety would be enhanced by
reclamation that would backfill the pit, eliminate the slopes
and water, and restore the ground to level to natural grade.
Under Section 3502. b, Subparagraph 4, Compaction of Fill
Materials, the backfill will be compacted in accordance with
good engineering practice in order to provide adequate support
for possible industrial building sites and other improvements
and roads. Under Item 3505, Subparagraph B, Vested Rights,
the reclamation plan set forth the fact that quarry operations
began in March 1967, eight years before the adoption of the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, and have been
continuous to July I, 1990. Several million tons of rock,
sand and gravel were mined before the Act became effective.
That mining could not have been done without incurring
substantial liabilities for work and materials, including
incurring liabilities for several million dollars worth of
labor, use of equipment, fuel and other materials. The mining
produced all the rock material that the operator could market
and was diligently conducted. Very truly yours, W. J.
Lockman. I'd like to file that with you. It reinforces some
sections of the plan, Madam Mayor, that seem to be objected
to by the opponents. I would be glad to answer any questions
that the Council may have at this time.
Are there any questions of Mr. Lockman? Seeing none, thank
you very much.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I'll make this very short. Madam Mayor, Members of the
Council and members of the staff, my name is Ori Rodeffer,
2227 Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar. The first thing I would
like to do is to depart a little from the reclamation plan and
speak a little about some of the problems that we've had with
El Monte. We'd like to bury that hatchet, if we possibly
could. We have no ill will for the City of El Monte. We have
no ill will for the people who are next to our quarry. We'd
prefer vastly to be good neighbors to them and for them to be
good neighbors to us. If we ever reach the point in time when
all of the hearings are over and we have a permit, if one is
received, we would like to invite the City of El Monte to send
an inspector to our operation and to satisfy themselves that
everything is being conducted in a workmanlike manner; that
there's no contaminatory materials. This kind of a fill is
one with garbage in it. The kind of a fill we're talking
about is composed of brick, concrete, dirt and inert materials
that do not have anything to contaminate the water or anything
else, So there's no problem with that. We also invite our
neighbors - they don't have to be a public inspector; they can
come to our operation at any time, take a look at it, make
criticisms, make suggestions, and we'll try to take care of
them and be a good neighbor. This morning in the Times there
was a very apt article - it'just coincidentally happened -
that the City of lrwindale licensed 8 out of 19 gravel pits
to fill themselves in with non-contaminating inert fill. The
reason the City of Irwindale did that is because it is the
only way that you're going to return ground that has been used
for another purpose back to useful purposes of the future.
The past is past. They've dug the holes because they created
the sand and gravel that are the very foundation of the houses
that you live in. Tomorrow they will be hauling the garbage
out into another county and they'll be hauling the rock and
gravel back in, because you have less than ten years left of
any rock and gravel in the whole County of'Los Angeles. So,
you needed these materials and now you need to plug up the
holes by filling them. And it's,for that reason that we have
done this. Imagine a city who has voluntarily, practically,
licensed 8 of this type of quarry that we're asking you for,
We think it's the right thing to do.for you. We think it's
the right thing to do for the City of El Monte and the people
-4-
7/3/90
of El Monte, our neighbors, And it's the right thing to do
for me so that I can have a hole filled and not have any
worries in the back of my mind. Thank you very much for your
attention, I'll be happy to answer any questions from anyone.
YOUNG
Any questions of Mr. Rodeffer?
COUNCILMAN
FASCHING
I have a question, please.
YOUNG
Mr. Fasching.
FASCHING
Mr. Rodeffer, in listening to the presentation of Azusa
Landfill, I know where they're going to get their material and
this is a plan that we have before us tonight, not the actual
filling of this hole. That's the ultimate plan. I'd like to
know where you get this material that you plan to fill the hole
with,
RODEFFER
Well, there's some hundreds of truck loads every day with this
exact kind of material that have to go somewhere. They are -
it's demolition material. Generally, it's demolition material
where something is torn down to be rebuilt into another
building and all that sort of thing. It just seems that people
have great need to do things and when they do they create some
waste that has to be gotten rid of.
FASCHING
This is the same material that Irwindale intends to use on
those pits out there? The same type of material?
RODEFFER
Yes, It has to be. In fact, it will be competitive as to
where they take it.
FASCHING
When they tell us how many tons of waste material for this
landfill in Azusa's available, do you have estimates on how
many tons per day or month are available for your type of fill?
RODEFFER
Well, we know that it's somewhere between 200 and 500 truck
loads a day.
FASCHING
That's available in the county? Is that correct?
RODEFFER
Yes, and it demands that it go somewhere every day.
FASCHING
And if you got it all, how long would it take you to fill this
hole?
RODEFFER
Oh, if we got it all it would take about three years. We
think it will take us somewhere - 1 think, and I have different
estimates from engineers, so perhaps I'm wrong.
FASCHING
So there's no methane gas, there's no bacteria.
RODEFFER
No. No, there is not.
FASCHING
Thank you.
RODEFFER
It's inert material. And I think it will take about seven
years to fill the hole. Others think it will take longer.
FASCHING
And what are you going to put on top?
RODEFFER
There'll be top fill put on the top. Our plan has been the
same for 35 years. We've had exactly the same plan. Excavate
the material, fill the hole and put an industrial park in of
the type they have in Irvine, which is landscaped and is
properly done. That's still our plan.
FASCHING
Thank you.
-5-
7/3/90
I
I
I
I
I
RODEFFER
YOUNG
RODEFFER
WATSON
I YOUNG
WATSON
I YOUNG
TED HANDEL,
LAW FlRM OF
ROSS & SCOTT
I
I
I
Anyone else?
Thank you, Mr. Rodeffer.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Madam Mayor, Glen R. Watson again. That concludes our
presentation. We would like to reserve the right to come back
on rebuttal after we hear what the opposition has to say.
Certainly.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in
favor of the reclamation plan? Seeing none, we will go to
anyone that wishes to speak in opposition to the reclamation
plan.
Mayor Young, Members of the City Council, my name is Ted
Handel. I'm with the ~w Firm of Ross & Scott, 520 S. Grand
Avenue, Suite 300, Los Angeles 90071. I'm appearing on behalf
of the City of E1 Monte. I will try to abide by the five
minute limit, but please understand that we want to make sure
that we have a complete administrative record here. Contrary
to the impression conveyed by Rodeffer and staff, the reclama-
tion plan is not just a paperwork requirement. Consider, for
example, these reclamation plans that were submitted on a
timely basis to the City of Irwindale back in 1988, amended
this year, and now being reviewed, actually, by Mr. Lockman,
as the City of Irwindale's consultant. Those plans, some of
which I would like to submit for the record, go into consider-
able detail, for example, regarding the geology of the site,
the materials that are mined, the schedule that is proposed
for reclamation of the site, and use of the area once it is
reclaimed. A reclamation plan, by its very nature, is a
substantive guide for the present and future use of a quarry
site. You can be assured that Rodeffer will use this plan,
both its substantive contents and the environmental analysis
prepared by the City, to limit the analysis of whatever
permits, if any, it may need from the City of Arcadia to
proceed with its plans for the Rodeffer quarry site. It is
essential that the reclamation plan contain more than just
bare bones one or two sentence responses to SMARA's statutory
and regulatory requirements. Yet that is all Rodeffer has
provided you. Further, the City's environmental analysis is
completely inadequate under the California Environmental
Quality Act, or CEQA. First, with respect to SMARA, their
health and safety concerns some of which have just,
apparently, been added to and we, obviously, 'haven't had the
opportunity really to look at them very carefully. In Mr:
Lockman's June 21 letter, which we believe precipitated those
comments, he states that these concerns as they relate to the
pit, water and one-to-one slopes versus level ground is quite
obvious. In this limited respect it is obvious. Obviously,
if you have a flat surface and as, apparently, his additional
comments say, if it's flat you obviously can't fall in. It
doesn't address, of course, the question of what happens in
the interim period of time when the site is being reclaimed.
The health and safety effects also go beyond leveling the
ground and the impact that the entire reclamation process will
have on neighboring residents, whether it be dust, the
materials that are placed in the proposed landfill and
traffic. A second issue is water quality. The inert landfill
which Rodeffer proposes to create could serve as a groundwater
remediation source and contribute to the cleanup of the San
Gabriel Valley water basin. In fact, the Regional Water
Quality Board is currently evaluating the merits of a rule
making proceeding initiated by the City of El Monte to protect
inert landfills. The plan, the letter and the staff report
-6-
7/3/90
do not address this issue. Next, a proper plan must also
evaluate the physical and land use characteristics of the
mined land and their surrounding area, under Public Resources
Code Section 2773. The State Mining and Geology Board, through
its regulations, requires that consideration be given to the
land use characteristics. Again, not only the mined area, but
the surrounding area as well. Arcadia Municipal Code Section
9521.1.'3 contains a similar provision by requiring that
approval of a plan not adversely affect the City's General
Plan. A proper consistency analysis goes beyond the statement
on the reclamation plan that no General Plan amendments or zone
change are contemplated or the cursory finding by staff the
reclamation of the site is consistent with the General Plan
designation of "Industrial". It is impermissible, if you'll
excuse the pun, to extract just one element of the City's
General Plan and say that a land use action is consistent with
the entire City of Arcadia's General Plan. This also assumes,
of course, that the General Plan itself is legally adequate,
Here there must be analysis first with the circulation element.
How, for example, will the local transportation network be
impacted by increased truck traffic on Lower Azusa Road?
Second, is the action consistent with the open space and
conservation element? We've gone through your General Plan
and there's a reference to, at least it' appears, a portion of
the site as being designated as open space, and not industrial.
Third, is it consistent with the safety element? This raises
a question not only concerning truck traffic, but, again, also
the potential impact on groundwater contamination, Fourth,
is it consistent with the housing element? Will there be
adequate housing for the jobs that Rodeffer proposes to create
through its use of the site for industrial purposes? And what
will happen if people leave their homes in El Monte because
they don't want to live next to a landfill or an industrial
site? Finally, there's the land use element. Is the proposed
site compatible with surrounding development? Again, giving
particular consideration to the fact that you have primarily
residential development, certainly, within the City of El
Monte. Again, however, none of these General Plan consistency
issues is addressed in the plan, letter or staff report.
Similar deficiencies exist in the environmental analysis that's
been prepared for this plan - an adequate environmental
analysis on proper characterization of a project. Rodeffer
and the staff have strained to define the project here just
to the reclamation plan. Again, with the hollow assurance that
somehow or other there will be further environmental review
when the reclamation process is initiated. This is directly
contrary to court rulings which state that a 'project can't be
chopped up. It can't be segmented. But, rather, you have to
look at the whole of an action, which has the potential for
resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly
or ultimately. Second, the initial study that the staff has
prepared is inadequate. It doesn't explain the purpose of
the plan. It doesn't acknowledge, for example, the prior Draft
Environmental Impact Report that was prepared back in 1988 for
an identical project - reclamation of this site, use as a
landfill. And it doesn't indicate any of the environmental
consequences that will result from this project. Despite the
fact that, for example, if you look at the checklist that
Rodeffer submitted, that it will have some of those con-
sequences. Finally, there's no data to explain how staff
reached its conclusion to issue a negative declaration. Next,
the City failed to consult with the Department of Fish and
Game, as a trustee agency. Nearly two years ago the Depart-
ment advised the City that nearly a third of the quarry site
is used by migratory birds and is a wetlands site, which must
be protected. Yet Rodeffer's consultant states in his June
21 letter that the plan will have no impact on a fish and
wildlife habitat, This is completely wrong. ~stly, on the
CEQA there are deficiencies in the negative declaration. The
-7-
7/3/90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COUNCILMAN
CIRAULO
YOUNG
CIRAULO
..
HANDEL
staff has concluded that this project, again as you heard from
Ms. Butler, will not have ~ significant adverse impact on the
environment and, therefore, has recommended certification of
the negative dec. Consider, however, that the project will
have the following significant effects that are identified on
the CEQA guidelines. It will interfere with movement of
migratory wildlife. It could degrade a groundwater resource
and interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. It will
increase traffic in relation to the capacity of the street
system, It could increase substantially ambient noise levels.
It could diminish the habitat for wildlife. And it could even
create a potential public hazard. The fact - and perhaps this
is a very critical issue here - the fact that the plan itself
mayor may not authorize reclamation of the site does not
preclude preparation of an environmental impact report, And
I say that because we've cited now a letter to you, a case
where the courts looked at a General Plan amendment. And the
court said that even if that General Plan amendment itself
doesn't give the necessary permits to go ahead and authorize
the particular use that was issue in this particular case, it's
still going to preclude the preparation of an EIR. There were
some significant environmental impacts that had to be
addressed. Another issue, also, that has to be considered is
the cumulative impacts that this project will have on a
regional basis. Irwindale, again, apparently is going through
the process of reclaiming sites within its boundaries, or will
at a certain point. And, as you've heard, there's a newspaper
article today, and we've raised the question of whether or not
it accurately characterizes exactly what is going on in the
City of Irwindale right now. We understand that these amend-
ments to their reclamation plan that were prepared for these
was rejected by the City of Irwindale. But we haven't veri-
fied that yet. Again, also, when I talk about regional impact,
we're talking about what is going to happen if you reclaim not
only this site, but the ten other sites, for example, that are
in Irwindale. What will happen, for example, in the'way of
additional truck traffic? What will happen with the issue of
groundwater contamination? Finally, the last issue I'd like
to bring up with regard to the negative dec is the issue of
timely public review. It's a very critical process of the
environmental analysis process. Under your Municipal Code,
the Planning Commission is the body authorized to approve a
reclamation plan and the City Council is designated as an
appellant body. In this instance we were only given 11 days,
rather than the statutorily required 21 days, in which to
review this document before it was considered by the
Commission. In closing, Mayor Young and Members of the City
Council, we urge the City Council to reject the Planning
Commission's approval of the Rodeffer reclamation plan and,
as staff suggested, refer it back to Rodeffer and staff for
additional data and additional analysis. Further, the staff
should be instructed that it is insufficient legally to prepare
a findings which merely quote the language of the statute, such
as Finding #2 on page 9. Finally, if the reclamation plan does
receive further consideration, we also recommend that an
environmental impact report be prepared, because there is
substantial evidence in the materials that we have submitted
to support this action. Thank you, I'd be pleased to answer
any question that you may have.
Madam Mayor, I have a question.
Yes, Mr. Ciraulo.
Mr. Handel, why do you feel that the dust and truck traffic
will impact that any greater than the original mining of the
property?
We're not saying that it may not have that kind of impact.
-8-
7/3/90
./
The issue is now you have a different set of environmental
review process, if you will, than was considered ~ what are
we talking about? - 33 years ago when the Arcadia City Council
first considered this.
CIRAULO
No, but you indicated that there would be an impact of dust
and truck traffic. Why would that be any greater in filling
the hole than it was in mining it originally?
HANDEL
OK. The issue we would raise is, we don't necessarily know
if it will have greater dust, greater impact. The issue is
that it is the burden of the applicant and the burden of the
City in preparing an adequate environmental analysis to
evaluate. See, we don't even have the data I Councilman
Ciraulo, to determine whether or not that impact exists. We're
simply raising it as an issue and saying that that impact could
exist. You had the impact when you were going through the
whole mining process. Certainly, it probably exists with any
kind of a landfill operation. The burden on us is simply to
raise it as an issue, and then ask that there be additional
data and additional consideration be given to that question.
CIRAULO
Fine, thank you.
YOUNG
Any other questions? Mr. Fasching.
FASCHING
I'm trying to get to the bottom line as to why the City of El
Monte actually - is it the dust; is it the traffic? We've
listened to this - when it comes time to fill this, it will
be with material that will be of a very stable nature and no
possible, that I can see, injury to the environment or the
water table. We talked about the compatibility of the sur-
rounding area. That section of the City and the freeway there
is not a very pretty thing. We have these things. So,
wouldn't it be better to fill this thing and have it leveled
and stable material in the ground than leave this hole in the
ground?
HANDEL
Well, the issue, Councilman Fasching, I think is a question
of the assurances that the residents in the City of El Monte
are receiving. What we're being told right now is acceot that
in time a proper environmental review will be done. Acceot
in time that the proper permits will be obtained.
FASCHING
Well, that's basically our responsibility, is it not? The City
of Arcadia? In issuing permits and use permits to do this.
HANDEL
Yes, you obviously have the' jurisdiction. But, if you want
to have some understanding of the City of El Monte's concern -
consider, for example, that when Mr. Lockman testified before
the Planning Commission he suggested, for example, that it
might just be sufficient just to get a grading permit for this
site, Consider, for example, as I mentioned, that no con-
sultation's been made with the Department of Fish and Game
this time. And yet, they're designated as a trustee agency
and they're supposed to be consulted, both by the City and the
applicant, under the Fish and Game Code. It's the fact that
the proper actions, the entire thought if you will, isn't being
given. All the people are basically saying is that, look, this
is just a statutory requirement. They've satisfied it with
this very cursory review. And the City of El Monte's saying,
no, that's not enough for us. Too many things have gone on
in the past with this site that we need some additional
assurance from the City of Arcadia in this review process,
FASCHING
One other thought here is that the thing of the City of
Irwindale has just been in the newspaper the last few days.
I, for one, think if they fill all those pits in Irwindale it's
going to lead to the success of that city, because I don't
think they have many alternatives out there,
-9-
7/3/90
I
I
I
I
I
HANDEL
I
I
FASCHING
HANDEL
FASCHING
I
HANDEL
I FASCHING
COUNCILMAN
I HARBICHT
HANDEL
Well, keep in mind, nobody's objecting to the issue, I think,
of filling the pits. The question is to make sure that they
are filled properly; that what are we going to be looking at
as the ultimate use of that property? For example, one of the
issues we talked about again is this issue of groundwater
contamination. That's why the City of El Monte right now is
going to the Regional Water Quality Board, to insure that the
materials that are put in this landfill are, indeed, inert.
To insure that site, for example, perhaps we would talk about
putting in a clay liner. But all we've got right now is just
a few very cursory statements out of a reclamation plan, and
some kind of vague assurance, without any enforcement behind
it. I mean, for example, if I can just take another moment,
the staff has recommended, for example, $100,000 surety bond.
$100,000 maybe, if you're lucky, will take care of the City's
administrative costs. The City of El Monte - I guess maybe
the bottom line is we're looking for some teeth behind the
actions that are being recommended here - or that are being
proposed.
Well, then, if you're looking for teeth behind the methods and
what's going to be proposed, you're not concerned then with
we're going to have a beautiful piece of ground when it's
ultimately done. You want assurances that what goes in there
is what they say is going to go in there. Is that correct?
Well, keep in mind - well, that's only part of it. The other
issue is I'm sure the City of El Monte....
Well, we're as much concerned about that because - I'm with
you - not everybody's very honest in a lot of instances about
what they say they're going to do. But in this instance we're
dealing with a company here, that I think has been here for
a long time, and if we, as the City of Arcadia, can get these
assurances, and the policing in action to make sure that only
goes in there what's there, and what they say is going to go
in there, and the surface, then, would be restored - maybe they
want to grow strawberries. They do that on the side of some
of those properties out there. I don't know what they want
to do, but to me anything, as long as it's done properly, would
be an improvement to a big hole in the ground.
Councilman, let me just, if I can, ask the rhetorical question.
What is it in this document, what is it in the staff report,
what is it in the findings that, again, give you any assurances
that this, in fact, will happen? All we hear about is that
this will happen in the future. But there's nothing in the
plan itself, either in terms of the reclamation process itself
or, and this is an equally legitimate concern of the City of
El Monte, as to what the future use of that site is going to
be. Not to say that the City of El Monte, by any stretch,
accepts the fact that they want that to be an industrial site.
And those all should be addressed here,
Well, that's in the future, as far as future use. It's going
to be seven years...
May I respond to that? What is in there is the fact that
before anything can be done with regard to reclaiming this
property is a conditional use permit is required. And in a
conditional use permit, all of those issues will be addressed.
And with regard to what's going to happen there, you can look
to the zoning to see what's designated to happen there.
Councilman Harbicht, if I can respond though, the issue is
that, again, if you look at the regulatory requirements, if
you look at your own Arcadia Municipal Code, you have a
responsibility to make sure that this thing is consistent
not only the zoning, but the general plan as a whole.
-10-
7/3/90
CIRAULO
MICHAEL MILLER,
ARCADIA CITY
ATTORNEY
HANDEL
MILLER
HANDEL
YOUNG
HANDEL
YOUNG
HANDEL
YOUNG
Mr. Handel, I'd just like to say, I think I understand the
concerns of the City of El Monte, But I'd also like to make
an assurance to you that this City Council will make sure that
all the regulations are met and all the permits that are
necessary will be taken out. If that's what the City of El
Monte is looking for, I think we can say that to you.
Let me add if I might, Mr. Handel, that in Findings 4, 5 and
6, which have also been deemed to be conditions by our Munici-
pal Code and in the report by Ms. Butler, those are the
assurances that have already been mentioned by some of the
Council members. One of them is that they'll be subject to
the Municipal Code and to a conditional use permit, to com-
plete environmental review and that this approval of the plan
does not grant approval for the prospective use of the pro-
perty. Those are all fairly specific and they are conditions
of this plan.
Well, we understand that. But again, I have to go back as I
said, for example, on the issue of CEQA, What you've effec-
tively done here, for example under Condition #6, and this has
been expressly prohibited under case law, is to chop up or
segment this project. You said, OK, the reclamation plan is
"Facet 1". You said that maybe there'll be a conditional use
permit, that's #2. Maybe there'll be something else in the
way, let's say, of some kind of zoning action later on. And
we're going to look at each one of these things on a separate
environmental basis.
That's another argument. We have conditions here that are
assurances. You're arguing (inaudible) argument that you can
take this in court sometime if you want ,to. But you asked if
there were assurances and there are assurances right here.
Right. But part of what I'm saying is, though, when we look
at assurances, is there compliance with the underlying
statutory and regulatory requirements? And in our judgment,
again, there isn't.
Well, this is only for the plan. It's not for the actual work.
Right. But, Mayor Young, again as I said, the plan has to be
looked at from the standpoint of saying, look, let's look at
this as a substantive guide for what is going to happen with
this piece of property. What is the actual reclamation process
here? What is going to happen with the future use of this
site? Again, I ask the question, too, you know, if we're
getting all these assurances, 'that here's a critical require-
ment in this process. Fish and Game, for example, is supposed
to be consulted. They haven't been. Again, we have a state-
ment by Mr. Lockman at the Planning Commission hearing that
maybe all they need is a grading permit. Again, and we don't
also know how they're going to turn around and try and use this
reclamation plan, if you will, in the sense of piggy-back.
My understanding is that this plan, as proposed, meets the
Reclamation Act guidelines.
Our understanding is different and we would look, for example,
we would also call your attention to the reclamation plans that
were submitted two years ago in Irwindale, which are far more
complete; give you a far more comprehensive basis for evalu-
ating whether or not this is a proper way to reclaim this
property and how it's going to be reclaimed. And those are
the kinds of questions, the kind of deficiencies that we say
need to have further consideration here. And, again, to have
a proper environmental analysis prepared now.
Are there any other questions? Thank you.
-11-
7/3/90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
HANDEL
YOUNG
ALL! ROYSHER
YOUNG
BARBARA MEE
Thank you very much.
Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak
against the plan?
I'm AlIi Roysher, 1784 S. Santa Anita Avenue. As a resident
of Arcadia since 1955, I am convinced that if all of our
residents knew about the landfill proposal, they would not
approve it. The location is at the tip of an incongruous
gerrymander in the shape of a crooked finger attached to the
southeast corner of Arcadia by a narrow ribbon of land only
a few hundred feet wide, surrounded completely by El Monte and
Irwindale. They would expect us to be good neighbors and
respect the wishes of the El Monte residents against the
proposed activity. I have driven through the entire area just
west of the quarry. There's a certain rural ambiance there
with mature trees and well kept homes on large lots, some large
enough for horses, and an elementary school. But there are
some small parcels and the neighborhood could go either way.
When faced themselves with much lesser intrusions, Arcadians
reject them. A few years ago developers planned to build a
tennis club adjacent to northeast Arcadia on property south
of Wilderness Park and east of Highland Oaks Drive. When area
residents realized the amount of traffic and noise that would
be created, they were able to defeat the proposal. Shortly
after you discussed this dump proposal at your 1988 meeting,
the late Herbert Fletcher made a careful study of the policing
required to check the contents of the refuse trucks. He
concluded that adequate time would not allow for inspection
and that dumpers would actually be regulators, like foxes
guarding the hen house. We should also be cognizant of the
fact that the San Gabriel Valley already has the worst
groundwater pollution in the west, according to the EPA. A
dump in the proposed location would make it worse and probably
pollute Arcadia's water. In conclusion, let us be good
neighbors and proceed according to the wishes of the El Monte
residents. Thank you.
Thank you. Please, no clapping.
Mayor Young and Members of the Council, my name is Barbara Mee,
19014 La Fetra Drive, Glendora. This reclamation plan does
not substantially meet the requirements of the law. It doesn't
even come close. Rodeffer Industries cannot prevent or
minimize the adverse environmental effects. They would have
to ignore the watershed and the wildlife. They would have to
ignore the health and safety of one million people in the San
Gabriel Valley. To say that the health and safety of one
million people rests in your hands tonight is not an exag-
geration. One million people drink the water pumped from wells
in the San Gabriel Basin. This drinking water must be blended
now with imported water to meet Department of Health drinking
water standards. There are 88 confirmed groundwater contam-
ination cases of potentially responsible parties -- 88 already
confirmed. I have a map here which I would like to show you
which I would like you to really look at. And this is from
the Environmental Protection Agency. It will give you an
overview - rather than 1000 words, you can see this map - and
it will show you how serious this water contamination is. I'd
like you to look at this while I'm speaking. (Can - well, I
don't think they can see it.) I just want to show you. This
is where we are now - Arcadia. This is the project site. This
dark area is the worst contamination and it even comes from
the Santa Anita Wash. It comes from the Eaton Wash, Arcadia
Wash, Santa Anita Wash, fills down into the contamination.
Incidentally, you might be interested to know that this is the
Azusa Land Reclamation that you just heard about tonight. This
is in the worst contaminated area listed on the Superfund site.
Can you see this? This is where you are. This is the project
-12-
7/3/90
site. This is Azusa Land Reclamation here. And this area is
the worst contamination. It is right adjacent to San Gabriel
Basin. Here is the San Gabriel Basin. This is the San Gabriel
River. And that is the spot zoning of a quarry that is'in the
middle of a - completely surrounded by a residential' area.
Were you able to see that?
YOUNG
We'd appreciate it if you'd stick to the subject of the
reclamation plan.
MEE
Well, I did want you to see that map so that you could - maybe
help make you realize the severity of this. But this is an
$800 million massive problem. And I call that map my $10
million map, because that's what the EPA has spent to date and
they still have not even begun cleanup of the Superfund sites.
So, also, I just wanted to mention that, as the attorney for
El Monte mentioned to you, the Planning Department's negative
declaration is absolutely an abomination. We hope that your
common sense will prevail tonight and put a stop to allowing
our San Gabriel Valley from being the garbage dump of L.A.
County. We have too many landfills now and you can help in
accomplishing this by rezoning this property as water
conservation. But we do, the people of San Gabriel Valley,
do expect a regulatory safety net to protect us from
environmental and health harm. We look to protection from the
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State
Resources Agency and the United States Army Corp of Engineers
and the EPA and the AQMD. The hazards are obvious. Landfill
liners all leak and I don't believe that Mr. Lockman could
guarantee to you and say to you tonight liners never leak.
If he can say that and be personally held accountable, that
might be a step in the right direction. But if this does slip
through that safety net, then I think all of the bureaucrats
should be held accountable. So, please deny the reclamation
plan. It is the worst possible land use. Thank you.
YOUNG
Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak?
CHRISTINA
ASTENGO
Ladies and gentlemen of the Council, my name is Christina
Astengo. I live at 12113 Hemlock Street. I represent Durfee
PTA Children's Health and Safety Committee. I've been a
resident of El Monte for a number of years, over 10, and I've
lived at this site here for approximately 4 years. As stated
many times over, there is not a single Arcadia resident living
in our area, not a one. I don't know how many of you are
aware of this area. I don't even know how many of you have
done your homework, perhaps, being a teacher I'm interested
in that, and have read through this plan that's been prepared.
I've read through it many times and there are a number of gaps
which still have not been addressed. To mention a few, first
of all, as a resident I would like to recommend the suspension
of all operations at that Lower Azusa site completely until
something is formally done. Now I know in the past permits
have permitted people to have certain working hours. Those
have been violated. And we've called, as residents. Your
City police officers frequently don't even know where this
site is, You have to give them directions. So, this is a
problem. They need to be notified that they're suspended.
Hopefully, they will have been notified of that tonight.
YOUNG
Excuse me, we are talking about the reclamation plan, not about
the current operations, not about the future.
ASTENGO
Am I correct in understanding, Mayor Young, however, that since
they do not have a plan approved that their operations have
been suspended?
YOUNG
As of July 1.
ASTENGO
That's correct. OK. Well, we just want you to know that as
-13-
7/3/90
I
I
I
I
I
residents we frequently see the operation going beyond their
limit.
YOUNG
There will be people there. As I understand it, they may be
repairing trucks, but there will be no mining.
ASTENGO
All right, thank you. That's one reassurance that we can have.
Also, I object to the change in time. This is the day before
the Fourth of July and when we met on May 22, the City of El
Monte and the residents requested that there be a continuance
of this. And that was denied, given the basis that we were
properly notified, etc., etc. However, the Rodeffer Investment
Company was asked, apparently, to reschedule because they
needed more time to address issues. And they were given a
continuance. I feel slighted, personally, It gives us the
impression that the priority is with this group and not with,
perhaps, the surrounding residents. I also am aware of the
fact that the City of Arcadia makes a revenue on every single
truck coming in or out of that pit. And we all know that.
That gets to the Irwindale issue here as to why they might have
approved these plans. That city is going to reap quite a bit
of revenue from these additional reclamation plans. And from
our point of view, we look at that. We wonder whether or not
pockets are being lined and, perhaps, steps are being
overlooked. To address the issue of the dust and traffic.
The original plan, when this was gone over 30 years ago..,.
I
I
HARBICHT
ASTENGO
HARBICHT
ASTENGO
I HARBICHT
ASTENGO
HARBICHT
Mrs. Astengo, may I interrupt you for just a moment, please.
Sure.
Whose pockets are being lined?
I have no idea.
resident. . .
I'm just - from the point of view of a
Who are you accusing of lining their pockets?
I'm not accusing anyone, sir.
But I'd like to tell you that I'm insulted that first you
inferred that I haven't read this plan and I'm now insulted
that you seem to be inferring that somehow we are personally
benefiting from this.
ASTENGO
No, sir,
HARBICHT
That isn't what you meant?
ASTENGO
No, sir.
HARBICHT
I just want to clarify that point.
I
ASTENGO
No, sir. No. If I were going to - I've been before your group
before - I would be straight to the point as to that. When
you read through the papers about people giving the reclamation
plans approval, and so forth, there have been a number of these
that have been looked at and they do mean and increase revenue
for the city, That is beyond question. That's pretty well
known. Dust and traffic - to go back to the issue as to
whether or not this is being increased - looking through the
original EPA report, or the Environmental Protection Agency's
draft, that was submitted - this was supposed to take 20 years
to fill. Now we hear between 5 and 7, maybe 9, and between
200 and 500 dump trucks a day. There are not 200 to 500 trucks
coming in and out of that, even when it was going full bore,
and the dust and the traffic was horrendous. And that would
go back to a permit that was granted some 33 years ago, I
imagine, when the place was first put into operation. And
despite the efforts of a number of the residents and
I
-14-
7/3/90
YOUNG
DAVID FLORES
complaining, sometimes those complaints just never got heard.
So this is something else that we're interested in seeing
looked into. The slope, the health and safety amendment that
was added in, the one-to-one slope, the slope gradient right
now is grossly off in many sections. And some certified
engineers will attest to that. There is not much of a slope
on that west bank and in order to know that you must come to
the end of our streets and see that. You can't take it from
a consultant or pictures or certainly not the pictures that
were prepared by BKK as to how this would be filled in and what
the current slope is. These are from 1988. They've been
pulling from the pit since then, rather non-stop since the
drought. It also mentions that the water that's currently
there is runoff. That's groundwater. It's not runoff. That's
groundwater that you're looking at. And we're concerned, those
of us - especially those of us on private wells that are
already on that Superfund site that will be 30 years in
cleaning up - will not get cleaned up. The inert materials
that will be put in will be put in right on top of our drinking
water. These are just some of the issues which we still have
not really heard this evening addressed properly. And I know
Mr. Rodeffer said that we could possibly have the inspector
come out. I would like to know at whose expense this inspector
will be employed. It seems to me it is not our responsibility,
the City of El Monte, to enforce or inspect. That that would
come from the city that will give them the license to put this
into plan. And, the long range plan is a landfill and we don't
feel that that's compatible. We also don't want another
Dootson Industrial Park right up against our back yard and many
of us already have that. Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak?
My name is David Flores. I live at 12248 Mulhall Street in
the City of El Monte. There are 3 points I'd like to make.
I did attend the Commission hearing. I didn't speak at the
hearing, but I did attend; heard the testimony and listened
to the deliberations of the Commission. And I wanted to make
a couple of points in terms of what I observed that I think
are relevant to you here, because I don't believe - none of
you were there as far as I know, though you may have looked
at the record. First, I've heard it stated here that there's
been a public hearing with regards to the Commission and that
basically you're an appellant body that's reviewing what -
their recommendations. Basically, I do not think that you
should defer to this Commission's recommendations, because I
don't believe that recommendation's entitled to deference due
to the fact that the Commission's pre-hearing notice to the
community was inadequate. I'm not talking about this Council's
notice. I'm talking about that Commission's notice. Many
people who submitted postcards asked to be notified of all
hearings, including that Commission hearing. They were not
notified of that Commission hearing. Commissioner Bill
Woolard, I believe was the name, he, responded to another
Commissioner who was very concerned about this - that other
Commissioner who expressed concern about the adequacy of the
Commission notice - and Commissioner Woolard responded that
the notice requirements did not apply to that Commission
hearing, but only apply to this Council hearing. No exception
was taken to that comment by the Arcadia City Attorney. What
I'm suggesting is that the City of Arcadia cannot contend, on
the one hand, that that Commission hearing was a public
hearing. That Commission hearing was not a public hearing
insofar as the notice requirement is concerned. That it's not
a public hearing as far as the notice requirement is concerned,
but insofar as this City Council hearing is concerned, that
it was a public hearing that you could defer to. OK?
Suggesting you can't have it both ways. Therefore, I think
that the Council either needs to, and this of course depends
on your Municipal Code and what have you, that you either need
-15-
7/3/90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to send that back to the Commission with direction that the
Commission conduct a full and open hearing after adequate
notice, which was admitted - it's on the Commission records -
that that was not the case or that you totally disregard the
Commission's recommendation and, assuming you can do so under
your Municipal Code, that you make a - if you don't want to
send it back - that you conduct a separate independent De Novo
determination solely upon the information presented at this
hearing. I say that because it was suggested that you're only
an appellant body and you may be prevented by your own
Municipal Code from conducting a De Novo review.
MILLER
Well, basically, this is a new hearing. And let me add
something else for the record, if I may. That the hearing -
the public hearings that are being conducted - are basically
because it's a public issue and there's a public interest.
But the fact is that this is not necessarily a legally required
hearing, nor was the hearing before the Planning Commission.
Clearly, with regard to conditional use permits and permits,
you'd have to have a hearing. So, I understand your points,
but notice was proper and it's even questionable as to whether
these hearings are even legally required.
FLORES
OK, fine, Mr. Miller. I just wish to bring that to the
attention of the Council, because it was admitted by the
Council in their deliberations and no exception was taken to
the City Attorney that notice didn't apply to the Commission.
That's what I heard. OK?
MILLER
Thank you.
FLORES
And so I just want to bring that to your attention. I heard
it and I want to make sure the Council understands it.
Secondly, in terms of whether or not approval of the plan is
meaningful, the Commissioners, when they deliberated, they seem
to be of the opinion that the plan could be approved because
it didn't necessarily require that the reclamation plan would
ever go into effect. And we heard some of that tonight with
regard to conditional permits. The "how to" remained
unresolved. Yet, I would suggest that approval of the plan,
it seems to me, is basically shifting the burden of proof,
which is currently on the applicant, who at the present time
has the burden of demonstrating that the plan is proper and
meets the legal requirements, to anyone, including the City
of Arcadia, who may later come forward to change the plan.
Now, 1'11 defer to Mr. Miller, he's your attorney, but I'm just
bringing this up to you that it was pointed out that this plan
involves a commitment by the applicant to fill in this hole.
But it seems to me that it also involves a commitment by the
City of Arcadia to go along with that. And I suggest that -
suppose that the applicant, that Mr. Rodeffer in good faith
reliance on the City's approval of this plan pays consideration
to an operator, perhaps BKK, for a lease for the property;
that he spends money in good faith reliance on the plan's
approval - I think it would be an economic hardship on him to
reverse the plan at a later date. So I don't think you can
look at it very cavalier. You've got to give this serious
consideration. Not just say, well, we can always change it.
It would be a hardship on him to just change it later on. So,
I therefore, recommend that the Council make sure that you
ask the City Attorney for a legal opinion regarding whether
the shift of the burden of proof on that, whether the City
could be liable to the applicant in the event that the City
should decide sometime in the future to not implement this plan
after the applicant has detrimentally relied on the City's
approval of the plan. I mean, personally, it's not a big deal
to me as an El Monte resident. I just bring it out, you know,
for you to consider. I mean, you're the City Council and I
think you have a duty to your citizens of Arcadia to make sure
that you're covered in that regard. Finally, with regards to -
-16-
7/3/90
YOUNG
ROBERT LAW
MILLER
my last point - with regards to the plan approval, one Planning
Commissioner noted that the plan was - he said, well, it's
tongue in cheek. He said really, calling it a plan - it's
really a misnomer, OK? That's on the record there. I think
that characterization is very accurate. I think it's very
apparent that there are many deficiencies that have been noted
regarding the plan; that the applicant has really spent little
time in preparing it. Mrs, Astengo, in the last hearing - she
didn't mention it this hearing - she mentioned, for example,
that it took more - the numbers from the last plan in terms
of what it took to fill in the hole was the same as this time.
And she asked the question, well, if they've been mining and
taking more out, then the number should be different. OK.
She said it's the same number. Well, if that's true, that
seems to indicate a lack of preparation. So it appears from
the (inaudible) of the plan that the applicant has been more
concerned about just the need to submit a plan - any plan -
than in demonstrating that the proposed reclamation has been
carefully planned. And they basically said, look, we've got
to do it. Well, I suggest it's got to be done right. It's
got to be properly planned. Councilman Fasching, I thought,
raised some very gqod questions with regard to the nature of
the plan. What is it all about? What are we going to do here.
And I think he's raised some excellent ques tions. Orally, the
applicant responded and tried to alleviate his concerns. But,
yet, if what we hear is true, that the bare bones is all that's
required, then Mr. Fasching's points were irrelevant. His
questions are irrelevant. They really have no bearing on this.
I basically agree with Mr. Fasching. I think they are very
relevant questions. I think these things have got to be in
the plan. They can't just be verbalized here in the hearing.
I think they're good questions. And, therefore, I think this
proposal should be disapproved until such time as it is
properly planned. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? We've
had a number of people speak tonight and we know that a lot
of you wish to repeat what's already been said, but in the
essence of time, we would appreciate it if you have new words
of wisdom, why, that's fine. Thank you.
I'm Robert Law. I reside at 4315 North Durfee in El Monte,
I don't know that I have words of wisdom but I certainly hope
I have a couple of things that you will think about and
consider. I am very concerned about a number of things that
have been said here this evening. I think there is a
tremendous responsibility that you hold. Some has to do with
conditional use permits. Some has to do with safety and
health. And the idea that the report does not give assurances.
You know, there was, I'm sure, a commission that approved the
plans for Chernobyl, for Three Mile Island, for the Space
Shuttle. They all had assurances that nothing would go wrong.
Today they must all live and share part of the responsibilities
of those tragedies. And I don't mean to minimize it, I think
that you equally have some of those same responsibilities to
shoulder. You have a responsibility not to just give a go-
ahead with no assurances outside of my word. I said things
are going to be this way. ' There are no assurances in this
plan. It is very deficient. Conditional use permits - we had
a meeting that was held at Cherrylee School, perhaps 2 or 3
years ago, over this same issue. And at the time I raised a
question having to do with conditional use penilits, having just
gone through a battle with El Monte ove'r' conditional use
permits and one that you have also had' before you, the
conditional use permits to horse property and people that don't
maintain the property afterwards. And my experience has been
that once the conditional permit is given out."
Excuse me, sir, but I have a responsibility to indicate that
the jurisdiction of this hearing is limited. We're not talking
-17-
7/3/90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LAW
MILLER
LAW
YOUNG
LAW
YOUNG
ROYALL BROWN
about the conditional use permit. There is no conditional use
permit before this body now. We're talking about a plan that
is very limited in what we must go over. It's got a list in
the Public Resources Code and that's what we're limited to.
I'm sorry, Mr. Miller, but I sat up there in this audience and
I listened to the Councilmen here talk about conditional use
permi ts this evening and they're saying that if this were
approved that the conditional use permits would be granted and
that it was their responsibility to see that they were
enforced.
They didn't say it would be granted. They said the conditional
use permit process must be gone through before any permit to
fill this property is ever granted. And it certainly can be
denied, also.
I know it can be. But the truth of the matter is that the
conditional use permits are very often in violation and
policing them is a very, very major problem. As a matter of
fact, this particular property over the number of years - and
I've lived in El Monte for 30 years; prior to that I lived in
Arcadia - I have watched this property. I've seen violations.
In fact, myself, I called attention to violations at the last
meeting and had called violations on this piece of property
to your Code Enforcement in the past. In fact, the property
had never been maintained according to the conditions of
operation ,until this issue 'was raised about the refill that
came in later. Then they started to do some maintenance in
terms of the property. But it had been a disgrace for years,
prior to that. And yet it operated for years under conditional
use permits, So I do think it is an issue and it's a very
valid issue that policing what happens, what goes into that
landfill. You talk about inert dirt as opposed to garbage.
What guarantees is there that this inert dirt isn't
contaminated?
There is to be
understanding.
please.
spreading and there are to be observers, is my
And will you talk to the reclamation plan,
that you deny it, as responsible people.
not only to the citizens of Arcadia, but
to the citizens of the entire community.
I recommend
Responsible
responsible
Thank you.
Is there anyone else that wishes to speak?
Good evening, Council and staff and guests. I'm Royall Brown,
I live at 2153 Aroma Drive, West Covina. I'm an elected
director of the municipal water district here in this valley.
I've come before you tonight in response to comments from the
EPA directed at water district directors in this State. The
problems we're having in this valley with the Superfund sites,
of landfills, are well noted by the leadership of the EPA.
Future disasters such as we've already experienced in this
valley, according to the opinions of the leadership of the EPA,
can only be averted by better land use planning. This
reclamation plan before you is part of the complex process
dictated in California law for land use (inaudible). Your
staff has pointed out, there are specific sections. Your staff
has given you copies of many of these sections. The applicant
has made short, terse comments to some of these sections. I
would like to quote from Title 14, section answer in the letter
of June 21, Section 3503.b, Water Quality, I quote from the
Lockman letter: "This section is not applicable since the pit
contains no streams and is not land designated as groundwater
recharge." I'd like to point out to you that historically the
San Gabriel River is not a channelized river. It was a
meandering stream that was subject to rapid movement over a
large area of this valley. The pit area is part of that
-18-
7/3/90
meandering stream area. The channel that we have today is man-
made and is not the only extent of the river. The river is
partially underground. Historically, it has always been that
way. Many times in the past in many seasons, even in the
current years, the river flows and then disappears and
reappears. This is not a confined aquifer groundwater system
that we have here in this valley. We have an open, continuous
set of geology here that allows the river to freely come to
the'surface and go underground. So, this site is part of the
river system. And, as such, the plan should reflect that and
for that reason alone it should be referred to staff to correct
this deficiency and refer it back for re-doing so the public
can have a full understanding of what this river system is all
about and its impact by this pit, whether it be used for some
use in the future. I'd like to speak to that now. Section
2772.g lists requirements of items to be in the reclamation
plan. I quote, "A designation of the proposed use or potential
uses after reclamation." The plan submitted with the addendum
- the best indication I have of what the uses are is Section
9.1, "The quarry will be backfilled with suitable inert solid
materials. This is not an ultimate use (inaudible), but a
method to prepare the site for some unnamed use." The Code
requirement is, if there is not a pre-designated plan for what
the use of this land shall be, all the possible uses shall be
identified. I'd like to point out some of those uses that you
should'be considering tonight and require the reclamation plan
to so include. Any pit can be used for a spreading basin.
One of the things that we're considering in the water industry
and agencies of this valley is possible creation of more
groundwater mounds as a barrier to the movement of the
previously pointed out mitigating problems that we have in this
valley with volatiles. I might point out that we also have
a problem that was not referred to. That's the volatiles
problem. We have a problem with total dissolved solids. We
have a problem with nitrates in this valley. The placement
of groundwater mounds is an accepted technique to keep plumes
from moving and contaminating other wells. So, this site well
could be part of a system to create a groundwater mound.
Another possible use that has been discussed - and the staff
did acknowledge this possible use at the Planning hearing, but
the reports given to you didn't reflect that as far as I can
find out - that is, conjunctive use. The Board of which I sit
on has contracted with Metropolitan jointly with outside
consulting firms, a study of conjunctive use of groundwater
in this valley. We're looking into this as a possible means
of correcting the groundwater problems that we have in this
valley. This site, whether it is filled or remains open, could
be part of a conjunctive use proposal. Conjunctive use
involves the bringing in of more water, spreading it or
injecting it by wells. This site might well be part of a well
field for both injection and removal of water. Significantly,
a major pipeline, the middle feeder of the Metropolitan Water
District, a pipe some 12 feet in diameter, crosses immediately
south of this site, this valley. The conjunctive use plan as
proposed by our consultants infers that this pipeline be used
to export water, as part of the conjunctive use, out of this
basin.
YOUNG
Mr. Brown, excuse me, you have reached the 5 minute point.
Can you conclude some way?
BROWN
Yes, I could, by merely pointing out I think that this plan
has serious deficiencies. It needs to have further usage
identified as part of the Code requirements and should be sent
back to both Rodeffer and the Planning Commission for that type
of data to be added to the study. I thank you. Do you have
any questions?
YOUNG
Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Brown? Thank you,
-19-
7/3/90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUSAN SMITH
McGLOHIN
YOUNG
JOE ASTENGO
YOUNG
RUTA LEE TURNER
YOUNG
TURNER
YOUNG
My, name is Susan Smith McGlohin. I live at 12119 Hemlock
Street in El Monte. I've been a resident of El Monte for 10
years. I'll make it short and sweet. The gentlemen say that
when bringing up children you have to tell them to wash their
hands, both hands, back and front, with soap, then rinse them,
then towel them dry, both hands, back and front, before you
do it. The point I'm trying to make is that, unfortunately,
American business sometimes needs the same kind of disciplines
in place,. They need everything spelled out in the beginning
in order to hold to Code. Unfortunately, the history with
this place hasn't been that way. You may not have been
apprised of all the deficiencies that have gone on in the
past. You'll just have to take our word for it that they've
been there. I wish that you'd reconsider this plan and ask
for the assurances that have been requested before. Have
everything spelled out, because it's our future and I totally
back what the first woman said there, if you go back to your
heart and think about it, maybe the best policy is just to be
a good neighbor and reconsider it on that point. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak?
My name is Joe Astengo. I live at 12113 Hemlock in El Monte.
I'd like to commend the Council for their efforts and their
conscious efforts to find an alternative for these ugly holes
that we all have here. I agree that the holes do have to have
something done to them and I believe Councilman Fasching made
the point that what other alternatives are there? The other
alternatives are the recharging of the water system. We are
all charged with our environment now. We're not the City of
Arcadia, it's not the City of Irwindale, it's not the City of
El Monte. It's all of us. Our drinking water is an especially
critical point at this point in time. Especially with the
drought being as it is. I would also say that there has been,
mention made of Irwindale's choice to have their pits filled
and I observed that apparently it looks to me like maybe Al
Davis has chosen not to stuff their holes with football players
and so maybe they're in a pretty big hurry to get those holes
stuffed with something else. And I hope that the City of
Arcadia's not in that position. And as a resident I, again,
would like to reiterate the violations of the operations - the
mining operations - that my home life has been disrupted from
all hours, 24 hours a day, on weekends when you get woke up
at 2: 00 in the morning, 3: 00, 4: 00 in the morning, by the sound
level generated by the mining operation. I would say that that
means that somehow the policing has not been what it needed
to be. And, again, I don't see where it has been submitted
that this reclamation plan now is going to be any different
in the new operation. And I ask that you turn this down.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak?
Mrs. Young and Mr. Watts and Councilmen. My name is Ruta Lee
Turner and I want to thank you for the invitation to appear
here tonight. I don't have much to say, but the landfill
people say that they didn't have no place...
May we have your address, please.
Oh, sorry about that. It's 12144 Roseglen, El Monte. Now
these landfill people say they have no place to put their
landfill. They need - they are running out of space. The
County - the City of Needles is invited Los Angeles County to
bring the dump in there.
Excuse me, that's a different kind of trash. That is not what
this pit is for. That is for everyday garbage, yard, household
trash. And we are not talking about that tonight.
-20-
7/3/90
TURNER
OK. But then, I'm talking about what we need more than a
landfill is more wells, because the area here is running out
of water. Where I live, we only on one well now and you said
bring more wisdom or something here. Well, what we need is
some wells. Now, you know it would be a good idea if you would
dig some wells there and then we can all have some water,
because we only can have just a small amount of water. And
we don't have enough water for anything.
YOUNG
I don't know what water company you deal with, but I would
suggest that you talk to them to dig more wells.
TURNER
Well, I would suggest a suggestion that this place over here,
you wanted to put it to some use that would be beneficial to
the people.
YOUNG
It probably is not suitable for wells.
TURNER
Well, you don't know until you try. Don't knock it.
YOUNG
Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? May we have a
motion, please. Oh, before we close the public hearing, does
Mr, Rodeffer or his group care to have a rebuttal?
WATSON
Madam Mayor, Glen Watson. We would like to divide it if we
may. Mr. Lockman will make a very few comments. Then I will
close.
LOCKMAN
Very briefly, Madam Mayor. To address a few of the issues
raised, as to the source of materials for the filling, under
Arcadia's laws, Arcadia could allow the backfill by either the
conditional use permit or a grading permit, both of which
require compliance with CEQA. They are not what we call
ministerial permits. That has been checked out with your
Planning Department and we have been informed that the
environmental process would be required for either of those.
Since both of those types of City permits involve what we call
an import, that is material that's being brought to the site,
the Regional Water Quality Control Board would also require
permits,' what is called discharge requirements. So that their
requirements would also have to be met under either of those
procedures. Then there are many other permits, of course, if
it is a conditional use permit, that involves what is called
an unclassified fill, At this hearing at the Planning
Commission this question of in 1988 there was 2 million tons
left, in 1990 there is 2 million tons of material left to be
mined. The reason for that is the drop in the water table.
That was responded to in writing and is on file with you. That
the reason 2 million tons is still there is because of the
drought and the water table. And, again, I would remind the
board -I would remind the Council that Rodeffer is before you
because of a State law. The State law says, Rodeffer, if you
want to continue to mine as a vested right, you must file a
reclamation plan. Rodeffer has said we hereby comply with the
State law and we hereby offer to reclaim the pit we've created
by backfilling it. It would be our testimony as an expert that
the plan before you complies with SMARA and we are testifying
that here and I'm prepared to testify to that before an appeals
board or to a court of 'law. I think the Council, then, under
State Act - under SMARA - and you'll probably be advised by
your attorney - that your review is also limited to does this
meet the State law? And that's the whole issue. Not one yard
of material is going to be placed in there if you approve this
plan tonight. And we would hope that the City would realize
that. We would hope that El Monte would realize that. And
I can represent to you that we have certainly advised Rodeffer
to that fact. I would be glad to answer any questions about
the Irwindale situation, if Council would be interested.
-21-
7/3/90
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOUNG
Are there any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Lockman.
WATSON
Madam Mayor and Council, Glen R. Watson again for Rodeffer
Investments. I'd like to reply briefly to some comments made
by Mr. Handel, simply because he says he's making an
administrative record, which suggests that this is a hearing
required by law, which it is not. This is not a hearing
required by law. Actually, under the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act, the Council could act on this matter in an
administrative capacity. The Council, in the public interest
and to let everybody say their piece, has invited the public
to attend. But this is not, in our view, a required public
hearing, although we're glad to participate in such ever type
of procedure as this City may prescribe. The residents don't
really understand that the City Council is processing a
reclamation plan which is required by law. And, unlike many
things which come before this City Council, the speakers don't
seem to realize that if the City Council denied the plan or
didn't act on the plan, under the law there's an appeal taken
to the State Mining and Geology Board. And the control over
the terms of the plan would pass from the City Council to the
State. We don't want that. I don't think the residents would
want that. I'm sure the City Council doesn't want that. And
so we submit the matter to the City Council and I'm sure the
City Council will act upon it and retain local control over
the terms of the reclamation plan. Another thing they don't
seem to recognize is that, while most realize that filling the
hole is good environmentally, they don't seem to recognize that
filling it with clean inert fill is the only environmentally
sound way to fill it. And it's the only way to fill it and
put it back in the position, basically, that it was before the
mining was done. Another thing they don't seem to realize is
that since the old days when people could dump anything they
wanted to, Congress has passed a law known as the Superfund
Law. Several statues have been enacted. No one could be more
foolish than the owner of a piece of property in a watershed
and over a water aquifer who would permit contaminated waste
to go in that hole while he's the owner would be subjecting
himself to a multi-million dollar liability that any possible
revenue from the property or the sale of the property couldn't
compensate him for. Responsibilities to clean up the water,
the whole thing, he could not afford to take that risk. He
must, in his own self interest, protect himself by seeing that
no contaminated material of any nature goes in that hole. And
if he can't see to that, he shouldn't fill it. And he knows
that that's his legal responsibility. He doesn't need any
warning from the public not to contaminate the water supply.
A few things quickly, just one liners. Mr. Handel says that
the plan is inadequate and does not comply with the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act, Your staff has compared the plan
provisions item by item. paragraph by paragraph, with the
statutory requirement and we agree with their finding that they
are completely in accordance with the statute, as supplemented
by the responses of Mr. Lockman dated June 21. A plan cannot
contaminate. This is not a conditional use permit application.
A plan can only provide a paper game plan and it cannot result
in contamination. Mr. Handel questions whether this is in
accordance with the General Plan. Reclaiming a site with clean
fill in an industrial zone, in our view, is in accordance with
the General Plan. He speaks of the housing element. That's
irrelevant. He says you cannot segment a project, but he
forgets that the legislature of California adopted the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act and segregated it itself by
providing for a reclamation plan with procedures to take it
to the State if not acted upon by the City and enjoining the
operator to shut down until the plan is acted upon, or until
an appeal is taken and the statute gives the right for the
operator to continue operating while an appeal is pending
before the State Board. All of these are undesirable things,
but that's simply something that should be noted for the
-22-
7/3/90
record. He said the 1988 ErR was not even referred to in this
reclamation plan. No it wasn't, nor did we think it relevant.
He's saying that there's no showing how the staff arrived at
a negative declaration. An examination of the file would show
a very adequate, a customary, sufficient environmental check-
list gone through by staff, checking off every environmental
aspect that's possible in connection with this plan and all
indicated a negative declaration. He says there's been no
consultation with the Fish and Game Commission. No con-
sultation is required for the purpose of filing a reclamation
plan for approval. But you may be sure that before any
application for a conditional use permit is filed, there will
be consultations with the State Fish and Game Commission. He
says that there must be assurance that the fill is made
properly. Outside of the personal liability of Mr. Rodeffer
and Rodeffer Investments, which alone is compulsory, the
Council will make all the necessary conditions in connection
with the conditional use permit if and when it grants one.
Finally, I should deal with the matter of one condition
suggested for approval of the reclamation plan. As I've
already indicated at the outset of our comments, we agree with
all the conditions suggested by staff. But I would like to
put before you the language of the proposed condition regarding
approval for your - to refresh your memory. And it is that
a $100,000 surety bond or other guarantee acceptable to the
City be deposited with the City within 30 days after approval
of a reclamation plan for the subject property, This guarantee
is to insure that the property owner will proceed in a timely
manner in bringing the property into an acceptable alternative
use after the mining operation has ceased. I'd like to suggest
that it's not an appropriate condition. I'd like to suggest
one for your consideration. The reason I think it is not
appropriate is that this is not a conditional use permit. The
applicant cannot bring the property into an acceptable alterna-
tive use until he has a permit to do so. And that bond can
be required in connection with the conditional use permit
approval, if we ever reach that point. I suggest this con-
dition. What you want, as I understand it, is to bring before
you an application for a conditional use permit and, in
connection with that, to engage a consultant to prepare an
environmental impact report. I would suggest, instead of this
condition, a condition requiring the applicant, as a condition
of approval of the plan, failure to comply with which would
warrant revocation of the plan, that the applicants apply to
the City within 90 days for the City's appointment of an
environmental consultant, picked or selected by the City to
be paid for by the applicant, for the purpose of preparing an
environmental impact report for a conditional use permit. And
that, upon the completion of that environmental impact report,
that the application for a conditional use permit be filed
within 30 days thereafter in order that the Council may impose
whatever operating conditions the Council thinks are necessary
to insure protection of the water supply, protection of the
public, and that the landfill would be conducted in the manner
which the City Council would require. We suggest that, because
to have a bond on'file requiring us to do something over which
we have no control, as distinguished from conditioning our plan
itself on making an application and hiring a consultant, we
think is premature, although ultimately we will not object to
the $100,000 bond at a time when we're permitted to operate,
if and when we are. Thank you. We appreciate very much your
time and your attention.
YOUNG
Thank you, Mr. Watson.
rebuttal tonight.
I'm sorry, sir, you don't have a
HANDEL
Mayor Young, could I just make one comment? Technically
speaking, and I was just reminded of this by the City Attorney,
that we are the appellant here. It actually isn't Rodeffer.
If you look at your ...
-23-
7/3/90
I
I
I
I
I
YOUNG
HANDEL
MILLER
YOUNG
I HANDEL
I
This is not an appeal case tonight.
Yes, it is.
You may have called yourself an appellant, but this is not an
appeal process, so that should end the discussion.
That ends it. I'm sorry.
Let me just raise a point. We did file an appeal under the
Arcadia Municipal Code, with the Planning Commission's
approval, and if you would like I would be more than happy to
reference the exact section that we appealed. But I would like
to just take one exception to Mr. Watson's comments, and that's
on the notice or hearing required. Independent of whatever
the reclamation plan requirements say, CEQA does require a
hearing. Mike, you and I have spoken. Also, if you look at
the Horn vs. County of Ventura case, the neighboring residents
do have a property interest and it's going to be affected,
there is a mandatory requirement for a hearing here. But I
would just like to reference, by the way, your Municipal Code
provisions here that we did file an appeal and I believe the
City Clerk will acknowledge it. A timely appeal was filed of
the Planning Commission.s....
YOUNG
But this is not an appeal hearing.
HANDEL
But we did file an appeal.
YOUNG
I'm not saying you didn't do that. This ...
MILLER
Your appeal's been noted. That's what you called your
document. That was to assure you the right to speak, which
you had anyway. Your use of the word appeal has no meaning
because we would have had a hearing anyway. Because the City
Council is the final decision maker. So, I don't know what
your point is, but it's not really an appellant process and
the Council has the prerogative now, if they want to exercise
it, to move to close the public hearing. If they don't want
to, that's their prerogative also.
I
HANDEL
I think, Mike, you should be aware of the fact that your City
Council is really an appellant body if you look at the way your
procedure is set up.
YOUNG
HANDEL
HARBICHT
CIRAULO
, YOUNG
ROLL CALL
I
YOUNG
HARBICHT
YOUNG
HARBICHT
No. I'm sorry. I will have to excuse you from the podium.
OK. Fine.
MOVE to close the public hearing.
Second.
Any opposition? Roll call, I guess, we'll take on that.
AYES:
Councilmember Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, and Young
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Councilmember Gilb
Gentlemen, any discussion?
Madam Mayor.
Yes.
I think that we've heard an awful lot this evening. Most of
it is irrelevant to what's before us and I think that despite
-24-
7/3/90
the attempts of the Counsel to nit-pick, delay and basically
harass the applicant and the City, we need to look at exactly
what is before us here. Prior to the passage of the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act, people who were mining would simply
mine until they were done mining and then, in many cases, they
would just walk away. Leave a hole in the ground. Leave the
scar on the landscape, The State legislature, recognizing
this problem, said, we need to pass a law that prevents people
from doing that; to make them responsible for repairing the
damage that they've done. And that's the purpose of the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. It prevents operators from
doing their thing and then walking away from the situation.
Basically, the Act requires that the land be repaired, and as
part of that requirement, that whoever is doing mining submit
a plan for how they're going to prepare the land, And that's
what is before us tonight. I think it's important for everyone
to understand that there are significant additional steps
required before this plan is ever implemented. And I think
that's the basic difference we're talking about here is a plan,
versus the implementation of, the plan, A conditional use
permit would be required. All environmental impact report would
be required. Public hearings would be required. And, despite
what some of the people in this audience seem to think, they
do not have a corner on environmental concerns. The City of
Arcadia is very concerned about the environment. Somehow, you
seem to be suggesting that we want to befoul the water in this
area and that we have no concerns about that. We happen to
have 50,000 constituents who are just as concerned as you are.
And I can assure you that when this comes before us for
implementation, that all of those environmental concerns are
going to be addressed. Once again, we are as environmentally
concerned as anyone is and those things will be addressed in
due course. All that's before us this evening is the plan.
Ther'e was a comment made that there was no - one of the things
that was missing from the plan is what the use was - the
proposed use after reclamation. If anyone had read the plan
they would see it says, "it is proposed to utilize the lands
after reclamation for light industrial use developed compatible
with surrounding residential uses and accommodating the
extension of existing equestrian trails." It's right there
in the plan. The plan itself is complete. I think that it
addresses what it is designed to address. I think that we
should pass it. With regard to the last comment regarding the
$100,000 surety bond, I believe the surety bond should be
required. The language might be modified somewhat, because
basically what it's saying is that the guarantee is to insure
that the property owner will proceed in a timely manner. What
we mean by proceed in a timely manner is proceed to the
environmental impact report, the application for a conditional
use permit. The surety bond is to insure that those steps are
initiated and eventually carried through. So I think those
are things that he does have under his control and he should
put up $100,000. And if anyone else would like to comment,
fine.
YOUNG
Mr. Fasching, do you have anything to say?
FASCHING
I think the point Mr. Harbicht made is that we're looking at
the applicant as complying with the law and we're just merely
granting him the right to go ahead with the reclamation plan.
I'm concerned, as the El Monte people are, as well as our own
residents that have voiced in letters and comments to us, of
the environmental impact and the safety guards to this program
and this plan. And I, for one, know that when it comes time
to get to that aspect of the plan you would find our City
Council acting in the interest of the people of El Monte as
well as in the interest of our own citizens and people in
general in assuring that there is no contamination and the
environment is protected. One interesting thing came up with
the gentleman from Glendora with the water department. I
-25-
7/3/90
I
I
I
,
I
I
YOUNG
I CIRAULO
YOUNG
HARBICHT
YOUNG
HARBICHT
excuse myself, I didn't write your name down. The possibility
of this someday maybe being considered or these areas
considered for above-ground storage of water is what I think
you made reference to, or water banks or whatever it is. I
just wondered if that did materialize in the future before the
landfill project, how Rodeffer would feel about that land being
used for that possibility if that were to occur and could
possibly be mentioned as an alternate plan if it did occur.
And I don't know if those people that have the power of
condemnation if they wanted to use the land for water storage
or something. But, other than that, I see no problems with
the applicants,
Mr. Ciraulo?
I have no additional comments to that.
Now, you two gentlemen have spoken about the way I would, also.
Does anyone care to make a motion?
Madam Mayor?
Yes.
I'm going to MOVE we approve the plan as submitted and
including the addendum which was submitted this evening, that
the conditions as outlined in the staff report be part of that
motion, and the findings, and that the $100,000 surety bond
be required and the language be clarified to indicate that that
is to insure timely application for a conditional use permit
and preparation of environmental impact documents.
CIRAULO
Second.
I
YOUNG
Is there any further discussion? May we have a roll call.
ROLL CALL
AYES:
Councilmember Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, and Young
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Councilmember Gilb
,
I
-26-
7/3/90