Loading...
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