Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/22/2000 Minutes - Study SessionCITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF INDUSTRY FOR THE PROPOSED INDUSTRY EAST END PROJECT MAY 22, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor O'Connor called the study session to order at 9:03 a.m. in Conference Room A, Diamond Bar City Hall, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. 2. ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Herrera, Huff, Mayor Pro Tem Ansari and Mayor O'Connor. Also present were: Terrence Belanger, City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Teresa Arevalo, Sr. Administrative Assistant; Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk, and Consultants Peter Lewandowski, Environmental Impact Systems and Steve Sasaki, WPA Traffic Engineers. 3. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF INDUSTRY FOR THE PROPOSED INDUSTRY EAST PROJECT. DCM/DeStefano explained that the proposed project encompasses 6.5 - million sq. ft. of buildings (151) on a total of 18.5 million sq. ft. of land (425 acres). The project is about four times the size of the Brea Mall, which is about 1.5 million sq. ft. and about four times larger than Disneyland (100 acres). D.B.'s entire industrial space along Lycoming/Walnut Road is about 100 acres. The buildings will range in size from about 10,000 -sq. ft. to about 800,000 sq. ft. A component of the project at Valley Blvd. and Grand Ave. is designed more for retail purposes (grocery, drug, shopping center, etc.). It is estimated within the EIR that about 7,600 jobs will be created as a result of this project. The project is designed to be serviced by rail and by truck. These are primarily warehouse -type buildings based upon the site plan that has been presented to D.B. It should be pointed out that the City does not know what the specific land uses will be. There is a wide range of uses permitted within Industry's Industrial Zone. Industry cannot tell D.B. because they don't know. The development, market conditions and market demand will ultimately determine what goes there. D.B. is most concerned about the impacts to the City as it relates to traffic and land use compatibility. The immediate concern is that this project is located in the area adjacent to the mobile home park and the Hampton Court condominium complex and there are buildings, some of which will be rail served, that will create some impacts to these residential properties. The project is indicating a connection to Washington St., which is of concern because it is listed in the D.B. General Plan as a Residential Collector to remain as a cul-de-sac. Staff is concerned about the traffic that is proposed to use Washington Street. Beyond the immediate area of land use, concern is the broader area of what the MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION anticipated truck and vehicular trips will do to the intersection of Brea Canyon Rd. and SR 60, and secondarily, Grand Ave. and SR 60. The project would utilize the increased capacity that is being developed at the Long Beach and Los Angeles Ports. More and more cargo is arriving at those docks, the cargo is going to L.A. and then headed east toward the rest of the United States. That truck traffic is coming through the San Gabriel Valley. Thus, a separate effort, the Alameda Corridor East project, is being proposed to upgrade railroad crossings at 55 different intersections throughout the San Gabriel Valley. One of the intersections identified for improvement is the Brea Canyon Rd. and Santa Fe Railroad Crossing. In D.B., it is being proposed as an under crossing. The area on Brea Canyon Rd. that would require modifications is about one-quarter mile (1400 feet). With respect to traffic impacts to D.B., staffs concern is that because this is a very large project, it will generate a significant number of truck trips. The concern is that the remaining capacity in the roadway, particularly at the freeway intersection, will be occupied by a project of this size and scale. What that will require is that physical improvements be made to the existing roadways_within D.B. and some of those improvements have an impact upon residential and business properties. Steve Sasaki stated that, with respect to traffic, the EIR looked at a number of intersections including several in D.B., which is what his review of the EIR focused upon. The EIR identifies mitigations or intersection improvements to the level where they identify all of the project and other impacts being mitigated or brought back to a Level of Service D. What that translates to are some very significant road widenings. Within staff's report quick sketches were provided to illustrate the proposed improvements with respect to D.B. intersections and what types of improvements are needed in order to provide acceptable operating conditions. The illustration shows the existing lanes closest to the intersection and then puts boxes around what is being added to each of those intersection approaches. As an example, the bridge that goes over the freeway on Grand Ave. is proposed to add five lanes, which is a major undertaking. Just east of the freeway ramps coming toward D.B., the number of added lanes total six. At the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave. proceeding toward Chino Hills, three added lanes are proposed for one side of Grand Ave. The EIR indicates that buildings in that area will need to be acquired and demolished. What does that mean to the City of Diamond Bar? Essentially, there were no specific costs or designs for these improvements included in the EIR. However, based upon his experience, it would be safe to say that the costs of the improvements would translate to 10's of millions of dollars. The project makes up a significant percentage of the share but they also identify other agencies as providing their share of these costs on an intersection by intersection basis. (See Table 25 of the EIR) MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DCM/DeStefano pointed out that the analysis, in terms of the identified impact of some of these intersections and the share in allocation resources needed to improve those intersections, is based upon a forecast of the year 2020 condition, which takes into account the current situation, the proposed project and any known proposed projects in the immediate area that may have a similar impact upon those intersections. As an example, it would incorporate a building within the Gateway Corporate Center that D.B. has in play that would be occupied by the year 2020, so it is a cumulative analysis of all oY those impacts. Mr. Sasaki stated that the impact is cumulative of their project as well as other projects. What happens sometimes is that as certain thresholds are reached within the defined roadway or existing roadway, the costs are more minimized if you already own the right-of-way. Once you begin to expand beyond the right-of-way i.e. taking of buildings, acquiring right-of-way, which requires a taking of property and/or relocation of businesses, the cost can go up exponentially. Adding a little more traffic could translate to a disproportionate increase in cost. This analysis is reflective of all of the traffic; however, by doubling the project, it may actually increase the cost by five times, so it is not a straight one-for-one. DCM/DeStefano stated that the analysis table was provided by the City of Industry. Mr. Sasaki explained that one of the other important factors revealed through the study was that while it is identified these number of lands and what sort of widening is required, there are indications that a fair share may be provided by the project toward these improvements but there was not such a specific requirement that was stated. At this point, there is not a specific requirement to actually provide these fair shares that are identified in Table 25. There is merely an indication that this is what the share would be if they chose to provide funding toward the improvements. The document identifies that there are significant improvements and very significant mitigations or roadway widenings that are needed, in part due to the project. DCM/DeStefano stated that because this is primarily a truck -oriented project, staff believed that the greater portion of traffic will arrive and depart from the Brea Canyon Rd./SR 60 interchange. Although they can reach the site from Grand Ave. based upon the proposal, staff believed that because traffic is originating from the west ports, the trucks will use Brea Canyon Rd. to get in and out of the site. Mr. Sasaki stated that from a traffic perspective, if these become the mitigations that are identified for these improvements, it may be that a project of a large size may be able to provide contributions and that is with the caveat if they actually provide their fair share portion toward these MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION improvements. It is also recognized that D.B. will be providing a proportionate share as well. The cost could be prohibitive as far as the type of project Industry is trying to implement. Therefore, it could serve to make a project unfeasible because the improvement costs to build these types of improvements would be too great for a smaller project such as smaller projects in D.B. M/O'Connor said that when she read the EIR, she, got the impression that traffic would come in off of Grand Ave. Mr. Sasaki replied that Industry assigned about 20% of the industrial -related traffic to Washington specifically, so there was a significant amount of traffic projected to use Brea Canyon as well. C/Herrera asked if the suggestion for the five additional lanes for the Grand Ave. bridge would involve only the City of Industry side in the Honda Dealership area. Mr. Sasaki responded that the report does not specify how the improvements will be done, which is one of the details staff would like to see. _ DCM/DeStefano stated that, in some cases, the report hints at the impact but it is not specific enough. For example, when it speaks to the Grand Ave. widening, it talks about the necessary removal of parking from Burger King and the Honda Dealership but it does not say whether it is three feet of parking or more than that and it does not indicate what impact it might have on the operation of the businesses. It would be easier to take three feet, for example, from the Burger King than it would be to take three feet from the Honda Dealership. This is an issue that staff has had with the report because the impacts are not articulated in enough detail. The same thing occurs at Brea Canyon Rd./Golden Springs Dr. and the SR 60 where there is a discussion about the need to increase right-of-way and the report does not get into the details sufficiently to understand what impact it may have to business. In response to C/Herrera, Mr. Sasaki indicated that, with respect to Grand Ave. and D.B. Blvd., there are no specific details, although the report references the taking of businesses. Peter Lewandowski referred to the staff report handout, which provides an overview of the project. The EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Industry has released the document and has established a 45 -day comment period ending June 5. Comments must be submitted in written form to Industry within that comment period. The importance of comments are twofold: In an objective setting, the intent is to insure that the document fully addresses the impacts and that MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION there is informed decision-making that takes place. That may or may not be the consequence in this instance. The second major importance of the comment period is that in the event that litigation takes place dealing with the impact in the environmental process, the only issues that can be raised in that litigation deal with any comments that may have been raised. So, speak now or forever hold your peace. If this project moves forward in a different legal forum, the only challenges that could be made would be based upon comments that are submitted on the document. Therefore, the June 5 date is critical. Comments can be submitted after that time but Industry has no obligation to prepare a written response to those comments. The second item contained in the staff report is a project description. This is a 6 million -sq. ft. industrial use project. The document is represented to be what is called a Program Environmental Report, which basically says that they do not really know a lot about the project but they are going to create a large or generalized analysis and hope to cover everything and if further projects come along that they didn't consider, they will conduct a further environmental review. Those same statements were made relative to the Wohl and Plantation projects. He understood that Industry has not provided D. B. with notice as future projects come along. Consider the possibility that Industry will conduct further environmental review and if that occurs, it may occur outside of a public forum in which there might be opportunities to submit additional comments. Once the Program EIR is adopted, the barn door stands open and any technical issues might have to do with the color of the buildings more than functionality or the appropriateness of the land use. He pointed out that although it is a Program EIR, starting in June, 2000, Industry intends to commence construction of a 775,000 sq. ft. rail -accessible industrial use Phase I which is located generally at the intersection of Cheryl Ln. and Brea Canyon Rd. The specific location is not specified. The document says that the applicant deserves the right to pick and chose, move and shift. No construction can start on the site until the City has completed the environmental process. The environmental process starts with the 45 -day period ending June 5. The City is obligated to provide written responses. Once those responses are formulated, the Industry City Council can certify the EIR, approve any other discretionary actions such as a Tentative Map or any Conditional Use Permits and then construction could commence at that time. June seems a bit optimistic since the comment period ends the beginning of June. But it does point out the leniency with which the first phase will commence. The document also points out that Industry will mass -grade the entire 400 -acre site at one time over a twelve month period, again starting in June, and that all of the associated infrastructure including the extension of Washington St. all the way through to Grand Ave. (Street "A") will be part of the initial phase infrastructure improvementsand infrastructure improvements might take two years to complete. MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DCM/DeStefano stated that other than the necessary up front costs, it would not be unusual for a developer to grade the entire property because that affords them the opportunity to quickly build buildings based upon the market conditions. Mr. Lewandowski stated that the next section of the staff report deals with environmental impacts. Relative to land use there are three bullets: the EIR basically says that Industry is provided carte blanche to do whatever it wants on the site, but there are indications that two major industrial buildings ranging from 400,000 to 500,000 sq. ft. (Building #22 & #23 closest to Alder Lane) are scheduled to be constructed up to 60 feet from the property line. DCM/DeStefano stated that Building #19 is a rail service building and the EIR schematic talks about spur lines that would come off of the main line to the individual buildings and could be up to the property line. D.B.'s industrial setback would likely be less than 60 feet because this City's buildings would be smaller. The setback is generally based on the height of the building. Although there is no detail in the EIR, the Industry buildings are probably 30 to 45 feet high and most will look like two story building that currently exist on Brea Canyon Rd. or off of Grand Ave. Mr. Lewandowski said that those are reasonable assumptions. However, the document did not have reasonable indications relative to the height of the buildings. Theoretically, they could be taller but practicality suggests that they will be similar in appearance to what currently exists. The 60 -ft. reference (setback) is the building location and it does not specifically indicate outdoor activities such as storage, loading/unloading, spraying activities, etc. which could theoretically occur up to the property line separating the two adjoining uses. There is no specific indication as to how far the rail line is set back from those existing homes and theoretically, they could abut up to the existing property lines. The industrial buildings range in size from 6,000 -sq. ft. to 870,000 -sq. ft. but there is no requirement that buildings of smaller or large size cannot be constructed on the site. There is no limitation concerning the outdoor activities such that uses could occur 24 hours a day and those uses could include outdoor activities involving hazardous, flammable, corrosive or explosive materials. No performance standard is specified relative to the operational characteristics of those uses so there could be noise, fumes, air and other types of environmental conditions originating from those uses. He pointed out that Steve Sasaki earlier spoke to the Traffic and Circulation portion of the document. It is important to acknowledge that the EIR does not tell us what the impacts are. It only makes broad representation as to "we need some more land" and it will take some effort to determine whether that would be accommodated through re -striping activities or whether additional right-of-way would be necessary. He said that all we can do is to learn what the EIR tells us and what our own experience might suggest. It is important to point out that MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Industry can move forward with this project absent these details. According to the document, Industry could say they tried their best and D.B. is non- responsive. We told them about it and they should have done it but they didn't so we, as the land use entitled agency, will move forward with the project. What the implications are of not improving the streets as identified is the deterioration in the level of service in the existing traffic. The consequences are relative to quality of life and circulation issues within D.B. The first intersection is Grand Ave./SR 60 ramp. According to his note, Mobil Oil references the loss of 6,000 -sq. ft. at the location. Between Golden Springs Dr. and SR 60, there are no City businesses. There is a golf course and a parking lot, so the 6,000 -sq. ft. has to be the Mobil Station on the northeast corner. The EIR suggests that that building may have to be demolished in order to accommodate the right-of-way improvements. C/Huff asked if the document speaks to the worst case scenario mitigation possibilities. Mr. Lewandowski stated that if they would try to do a reasonable representation and state the impacts, it does not provide any detail and therefore, he believed it was a mix of the two. The document tries to do a fair job relative to assessing off-site impacts but it in itself acknowledges studies have not been done and it doesn't know whether re -striping and narrowing specific lanes could serve as a solution or whether additional right-of-way is required. It does specify that those decisions would occur at some later unspecified time. In response to WO'Connor, Mr. Lewandowski explained that the document makes some reference to the relocation of affected businesses. Whether displacement means relocating somewhere else, the document does indicate that relocation is not feasible or likely in the immediate area. DCM/DeStefano said that relocation is unlikely in the immediate area because of a lack of land for those purposes. Mr. Lewandowski indicated that at the D. B. Blvd. and Grand Ave. area, there are lots and lots of street improvements indicated, some of which are a result of other activities, some of which are predicated by the project and involve major improvements. The document points out that at least two banks would lose their drive-through areas. In all likelihood, the entire Vineyard Center would have to come out or be shaved way back such that only a portion of the useful right-of-way remains. He responded to CM/Belanger that the study does not in any way utilize D.B.'s General Plan. In reply to M/O'Connor, Mr. Lewandowski indicated that the specific area of the widening is not detailed so that one of the questions that D.B. has to ask is where is the commencement of the widening and where is the termination MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION of the widening. The library and the fire station are far removed from the intersection but they could definitely be impacted. In order to minimize the widening, the median might be removed. In response to C/Huff, Mr. Lewandowski stated that most of the increased traffic would be people traveling to and from their work and related trips. The D.B. General Plan is very specific relative to allowable truck access roads and most trucks are prohibited on these roadways. If you are already at Level of Service D (at capacity) you could look at alternative routes or reorienting the project to try to redirect the traffic impacts. C/Huff wondered if Steve Sasaki had looked at ways that D.B. could encourage traffic to get off the freeway and travel in an opposite direction of D.B. There may be other strategies that D.B. can incorporate to drive the traffic toward Industry so that they are not coming through what is already a dysfunctional area. In reply to MPT/Ansari, Mr. Lewandowski indicated that Industry freeway improvements, such as the CalTrans SR 57/60 -interchange project and arterial improvements, are part of the analytical process that one goes _ through. "CalTrans is a subject where you might identify what your proportional share is, but I'm not sure that CalTrans is the mechanism with which to receive those funds." He speculated that no funds would be provided to CalTrans. CalTrans would have the authority to ask for those funds but in his experience, CalTrans does not make such requests. DCM/DeStefano stated that the EIR indicates that there are no impacts to the freeways, which is likely distinctly different from the on and off ramps because the document talks in other areas about the need to modify or add capacity in other ways to the on and off ramps at Grand Ave. Mr. Lewandowski said that, with respect to Brea Canyon Rd. and Lycoming Ave., it appears that some additional parking would be shaved off of the Shea Business Center but there would not be a major impact to that area. The Discovery World Learning Center might be more significantly impacted because that school is relatively close to the right -0f --way. ARCO would lose certain areas including the pump areas close to the roadway. There is a vacant lot posted "Farmer Boy" which is a pending project in the City and not having seen a site plan, it is difficult to know what the impact might be but frontage and theoretically some of the parking associated with that use would be lost. The Adelphia building is within six ft. of the sidewalk area. The identified improvement need for this area is possibly 10 ft., so it is possible that there could be a significant impact upon that business. At minimum, the right-of-way would extend all the way up to the building making pedestrian traffic more difficult. Relative to Brea Canyon Rd. and SR 60 westbound ramps, it appears as if the In -and -Out Burger would go, Mobil MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Oil's large pole sign would have to be relocated, and there would be some impact to exit the station - at minimum the loss of the pump areas closes to Brea Canyon Rd. Relative to Brea Canyon Rd. and Golden Springs Dr., MacDonald's would lose its drive-through window. Also, the Chevron Station would be impacted due to the loss of its closest pumps. Impacts upon the remaining intersections appear to be accommodated within the existing right- of-way or the joint uses are setback so that Brea Canyon Rd./Washington St. and,Brea Canyon Rd./Pathfinder Rd. would not be significantly impacted. Washington St. is designated as a residential street. The extension of Washington into the project site would result in a reclassification of that roadway. Reclassification of that roadway, in his opinion, would necessitate the City initiating a General Plan amendment amending its Circulation Element to change Washington from a Residential Collector to Collector or some such designation. Also, relative to the various street improvements, the roadways are classified by their functionality. Many of these arterials, which will go from two lanes to five lanes, may also need to be re-classified such that in addition to the re -designation of Washington, some of the other affected streets such as Grand Ave., Brea Canyon Rd. and its various intersections might also need to be re -designated. He further stated that the recommendations resulting from the EIR as stated in the staff report, points out that Industry is the land use authority. D.B. cannot stop Industry from approving the project, approving the Tentative Map, issuing Use Permits for the various activities. He would defer to legal counsel whether Industry has the authority to push Street "A" into Washington Street without D.B.'s approval. In all likelihood, Washington St. is improved to D.B.-incorporated boundaries, so Industry will build on the other side of it and Washington St. could become the Collector street identified in the EIR without necessitating any actions on the part of D. B. The project is predicated by executed disposition and development agreement. What the document specifies is that Industry anticipates revenues of $5 million a year if the project is approved. At the end of the lease, the estimated value of the improvements are $1.2 billion that Industry stands to gain should this project be approved and the lease runs its term. Thus, there certainly are economic incentives to Industry to approve this project. This appears to be a done deal. He re- stated the five recommendations contained in staffs report: Authorize the City Manager to submit written comments on the DEIR to the Lead Agency within the specified comment period, including recommendations concerning possible changes to the proposed project to reduce or eliminate impacts upon Diamond Bar, its residents, and businesses; Authorize the City Manager to work with legal counsel to formulate written comments on the DEIR in order to ensure compliance with CEQA and to retain future options and opportunities for the City; MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Authorize the City Manager to commence a constructive dialogue with representatives of Industry to mitigate the potential impacts associated with the proposed project. Encourage community residents to submit written comments to Industry prior to the close of the comment period on June 5, 2000; and Return to the Council at an appropriate future date with an update concerning the status of the Industry East project. DCM/DeStefano stated that the project could be re -oriented to reduce some of its impacts. The property is zoned industrial. Industry's purpose is to provide property for industrial purposes. So the property was going to be developed for industrial uses at some point in the future and the future is here. From staff's perspective, we understand that it is industrially -oriented but we believe that there could be some modifications made that would lessen its impacts to D.B. or lessen its impacts to key intersections in D.B. As an example, as a staff, we do not see the need for the connection of Washington St. Washington, on the Industry side, could be turned into a cul-de-sac. Further, staff would tend to believe that the undercrossing that Industry is proposing between Building #19 and Building #20 should be located further to the northeast near Libbey Glass to push the project and its truck emphasis further away from the Brea Canyon Rd. freeway intersection. Staff would further determine that this road where the under crossing is now proposed be cul-de-sac'd on the Brea Canyon Rd. side. The intent is to push more of the vehicular and truck traffic to Grand Ave. The purpose is that Grand has more capacity to absorb those impacts with more opportunity at the freeway interchange - not meaning that Honda is taken, but there is a lot of room on the other side of the freeway where freeway widenings could occur to accommodate a reoriented project. In addition, the undercrossing that is proposed on Brea Canyon Rd. should be examined in terms of possibly relocating it to possibly the Lemon Ave. crossing. The idea is that while the project will create impacts and opportunities no matter where it goes, that Industry's EIR shows more delay and more cars being stopped at Lemon Ave. than it does at Brea Canyon Rd. If that is the case, then possibly putting the undercrossing at Lemon may be beneficial in two ways: That it is less disruption to D.B. businesses and residences, but it also then means that the traffic coming off of the freeway instead of turning on Brea Canyon Rd. to the site would go to the undercrossing to avoid the freeway and then come in through the industrial park that is already in existence in Industry. Finally, more specifically, while this is a site plan conceptual programmed EIR, with that schematic concept, there is nothing that specifically says that Buildings 22 and 23 can't be reoriented more like Building 19, the idea being that less of the building is immediately MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION adjacent to the residential properties. The larger building (#22) could be moved 90 degrees and the small building (#23) could be reoriented to lessen the truck bay doors and the impacts to adjacent residential. Council question and discussion period: M/O'Connor asked if there is a fence at the end of Washington Street and whether it is on D.B. property or Industry property. If the fence is on D.B. property, could the City be forced to remove the fence? Could the City make the end of Washington St. a cul-de-sac like it did with the end of Sunset Crossing Rd? DCM/DeStefano responded that there is a fence but he did not know on whose property the fence sits. Unless for some legal reason, the City is required to take the fence down, D.B. shows Washington St. as a cul-de-sac. He indicated that the street is about 110 to 120 ft. wide. M/O'Connor asked if Industry would have to take D.B. to court to change Washington St. if it was made into a cul-de-sac? CM/Belanger explained that Washington St. is not an existing roadway that is being closed down. The roadway does not exist. It is not connected to Grand Ave. If an existing roadway was closed down, Industry might have a case. C/Herrera asked if the comments prepared prior to June 5th in response to the DEIR will be in the nature of questions, concerns or adverse impacts as the City of D.B. sees them in order to be used at some future time. Mr. Lewandowski said that C/Herrera raised a question that would need to be answered by legal counsel. Typically, comments are drafted to elicit responses, to identify issues and points of concern and to suggest that there may be alternative mitigation measures or project alternatives that need to be considered and to point out what the person commenting may believe to be technical and procedural defects with the information presented in the EIR. The first intent is to allow the project decision -makers (City of Industry City Council) to be able to make an informed decision concerning the impacts of the project. The secondary intent is to preserve and to retain further opportunities for a legal challenge should constructive dialogue prove ineffective. C/Herrera asked if part of the comment would be the economic loss D.B. will experience with the displacement of businesses. Mr. Lewandowski responded that there are no limitations on the comments that can be raised. Typically, in environmental parlance, economic MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION considerations are given a back seat to environmental concerns. You can raise economic issues but only to the extent that you can say anything you wish. But under CEQA, economic considerations only manifest as worthwhile comments if they translate into some physical change. Environmental is primary and economic is secondary. WO'Connor asked if Industry is required to notify businesses and residents of this pending project. Mr. Lewandowski responded that under CEQA, the only obligation is to provide a published notice in a newspaper of general circulation. Under Industry's own Municipal Code, they may have other noticing requirements concerning adjoining property owners. DCM/DeStefano stated that Industry published the notice. He believed that Industry has a 300 -ft. public hearing notice requirement but whether that extends outside of their boundaries under their own rules is what we don't know. In response to C/Huff, Mr. Lewandowski explained that he saw no reference in the document to the impact of their project on the Alameda Corridor East. DCM/DeStefano said that the Industry EIR does not reference the Alameda Corridor East project and it should because it is part of the cumulative impact, not in the case of buildings being constructed and traffic being generated, but in the case of traffic and trips on Brea Canyon Rd. specifically. The Alameda Corridor East project talks about some driveway closures, etc. In particular, the main entry into the Metrolink station would be relocated, according to their drawings. No document discusses an expansion or relocation of the Metrolink station. He believed it could be assumed that the Metrolink station's parking area could be expanded, because as a part of the grading effort for the Majestic project, it would be likely that the adjacent area would be graded flat as well. C/Huff pointed out that there is already overflow parking from the Metrolink station to Washington St. In addition, Brea Canyon Rd./SR 60 area looks to be greatly impacted by this project. He wondered if the analysis could include an impact study of moving the Metrolink station up by Grand Ave., which has higher capacity, and seeing what that would do as far as reducing automobile impact in its current area. In response to MPT/Ansari, C/Huff stated that he and CM/Belanger saw the schematic in January, 2000. The traffic analysis was not completed and they had no indication of Washington St. going through even though they asked if it could go through. D.B. indicated that it was not consistent with the General Plan. While it is not impossible, it would be very highly unlikely and MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION improbable. Over the last couple of years, Industry has made a concerted effort not to get caught in a situation like they did with the MRF where they came up with something very obnoxious and they received a lot of opposition from neighboring cities. To that end, Industry has worked with the Tres Hermanos Conservation Authority because they are the largest landowner in the City of D.B. and we can hurt them in other ways, which they recognize. For years, there were rumors of an industrial project to be developed on their property and we did not know what the impact would be. In working with Industry, we have to keep in mind that they are primarily a business. What D.B. has to do at this point is to try and make the best sense out of this that allows them the use and reduces the negative impacts to our neighborhood. He felt that D.B. needs to discuss this with Industry to share with them some of the key areas of concern that we have. We have been touting the number of jobs that we have created in D.B. in the Gateway Corporate Center. This project creates a lot more jobs in close proximity, some of which are very good paying jobs. So there are positive impacts - we're focusing on the negative impacts and we should, because that's what we feel. MPT/Ansari said this is what D.B. has to respond to by June 5 because if we don't respond by June 5, we'll be left out in left field. We need to schedule a town hall meeting on this so that the people in the community know what's going on. Syed A. Qaisar, 631 Alder Lane, said he is concerned about the quality of life of D.B. residents. City of Industry has been totally oblivious to this issue. What they are focused on is $1.2 billion. MPT/Ansari said that D.B. needs to get letters from residents. They have to be part of the June 5 response. They have to know and have the same input that the Council has received today. C/Herrera suggested that the Council meet again soon, allow staff to begin working on the response and schedule a third meeting on June 1 to review the comments before they are submitted. MPT/Ansari said that when D.B. was fighting the MRF, many letters came in from the residents of the community that became part of that document. She felt that Council needs more feedback from people in the community and she would like that to be a part of the June 5 response. DCM/DeStefano said that the issue staff faces is the very limited number of days and hours to finalize a response. He suggested that the Council focus on the June a date and give some direction to staff as to the level of response that you would like staff to provide. Within the time period that is left, there may not be enough time to provide comments, have Council review the comments and then correct the comments. It may be more a MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION matter of providing staff with the guidance that is needed so that the focus can be toward the June 5 deadline. MPT/Ansari felt Council should follow the comments recommended by the consultant. C/Huff said that written comments have to be made in order keep the door open, which gives D.B. the ability to litigate if it cannot negotiate. So we have to have a response and it has to be pretty comprehensive. C/Huff moved, C/Herrera to recommend the five actions recommended in the Staff Report dated May 22, 2000 and convene a second Council meeting to approve staffs responses. Karen Powell, 155 E. Jefferson Avenue, Pomona, said that when she tried to reason with the City of Industry not to demolish Currier Ranch, it didn't happen. They have made up their minds that they are going to do what they are going to do. The only thing that stopped bulldozers in her case was to file a lawsuit. She believed that reason will not prevail and that the City's only hope is legal action. The environmental concerns are the issues that will be heard in a court of law. Industry has their agenda and unless you can fight them on environmental issues and concerns, she believed they would proceed with their project because they have the lawyers and the money. The Currier Ranch meets state and federal guidelines as an historical landmark. The outbuildings would have been bulldozed and the main house would have been relocated somewhere inside a chain link fence if she had not filed a lawsuit to stop them. M/O'Connor called for the vote. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Chang, Herrera, Huff, MPT/Ansari, M/O'Connor NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Brian Bufkin, 21307 Cottonwood Lane, said that yesterday he circulated a petition to keep Washington St. as a cul-de-sac. In one day, he obtained 91 signatures and asked if the petition would be of use to the Council. M/O'Connor felt that the Petition would be helpful to D.B. and suggested that he also forward a copy to the City of Industry as part of his response to the EIR. June 51h is the deadline to respond to the EIR. Any change to Washington St. would require an amendment to the City's General Plan. Therefore, it is unlikely that a change will occur. MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Linda Ladner, 21217 Washington St. #47, said that her walls are thin and any traffic coming through the area will create a big impact to the residences in the area. There are school bus pickup points and many children in the area. In addition, the Metrolink traffic backs up all the way along Washington St. to the mobile home park because there is insufficient parking at the station. Her main concern is the noise and air pollution that will be created by this project. She asked why the entrance isn't being routed to Valley Blvd. or Grand Ave. instead of Washington St. There are cement - barriers at the end of Washington St. M/O'Connor stated that Washington does not allow truck traffic. When the Hampton Court residents write their response letters, they may wish to address their property value concerns. Raymond Shutay, 619 Alder Ln., stated that since Industry's property borders the freeway, has it been considered that Industry build its own exit ramp and roadway into their property off of the SR 60 much like the Crossroads exit by the 605 freeway. Mr. Lewandowski said he does not believe that possibility was addressed in the EIR. However, it would be a worthwhile comment to make in a response. Mr. Shutay said that it would have considerable impact on how much traffic would be going to Grand Ave. and Brea Canyon Rd. Mr. Bufkin said that some of the plant -wide paging systems are quite loud and can be heard from a considerable distance. The adjacent residents (Hampton Court) would want some assurance that these systems would not shatter the quality of life as well as some assurance that their upstairs bedrooms would not be flooded with light every night. CM/Belanger stated that individual property owners need to keep themselves apprized of Industry's schedule and articulate their concerns before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Industry at the time that these buildings are approved, because it is at that point that conditions are built into the CUP (Conditional Use Permit) that would limit light, noise and things of that nature. DCM/DeStefano stated that at this point, the EIR talks about the rough outline of a project. In terms of development standards, setbacks, _ performance standards, noise, odor, glare, etc., those would be mitigated through the City of Industry's development standards. All of us have to remain diligent with respect to the specific project to insure that those development and performance standards are built into the project to specifically mitigate any impact to the adjacent property. MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CM/Belanger said that the best way to do that is to ask that your name be included on their City Council and Redevelopment Agency agendas and minutes. In response to M/O'Connor, Mr. Lewandowski explained that the EIR contains minimal discussion of the parking. Each use would have to be individually reviewed by Industry once a specific development application is submitted. Industry would then look at each parcel's specific application to determine compliance with its own (Industry's) requirements and each parcel would have to provide sufficient on-site parking. DCM/DeStefano said that it will depend on who the specific user winds up being, and whether it is manufacturing or warehousing which will determine the ultimate ratio of truck versus automobile parking and will be a detail discussed at the individual site plan review stage. It is not something that is discussed in a broad- based EIR. In response to Clyde Hennessee, DCM/DeStefano stated that the City of Industry has a couple of different grades of commercial property but this has been zoned for many, many years as their broad-based industrial property. There are a wide variety of land uses that are permitted within this zone and they will ultimately make their project decision one unit at a time when they know what the development is proposed to be. Mr. Lewandowski indicated to Clyde Hennessee that the zone could range in use from a smelter and slaughterhouse to distribution facility. MPT/Ansari suggested that a representative of D.B. attend all of the Industry City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings related to this project. MPT/Ansari moved that a staff member attend every City of Industry City Council and Redevelopment Agency meeting related to this project. Motion died for lack of a second. C/Herrera did not believe a motion was required because staff senses Council's concern and all it requires is Council direction. MPT/Ansari reiterated her concern about getting the word out to the residents of D.B. that this project is forthcoming. C/Herrera said that representatives of the two residential groups that are most affected have been notified. Perhaps the City could notify the businesses along Grand Ave. to make them aware of the proposed project, the possible widening of the street and potential impact to their businesses. MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MIO'Connor said that Golden Springs Dr. and Brea Canyon businesses should also be included. C/Herrera said that her request for a follow-up meeting prior to June 5 is for Council to give more definitive and final direction before the comments are submitted. Mr. Lewandowski stated that the approach to the comments should be to help understand what the impacts of the project are and obtain clarification if clarification is necessary to identify issues that may not have been fully fleshed out. So the first goal of the comments is to learn about the impacts and to better understand the project. The second goal of the comments is that once those impacts are understood, to suggest alternatives which might be conditions of approval, redesign, alternative site configurations and so forth. CM/Belanger indicated to MPT/Ansari that, as always, the City walks a fine line between information and organizing. Providing a notice of the fact that the EIR exists is one way to do it. The gentleman who walked around his neighborhood and obtained 91 signatures could have said to the people he spoke with to get their names on a mailing list with the City of Industry. Ultimately, the property owners' interests are just that. If your property is immediately affected, you have to deal with it as a property owner. There is also the overall City's interest that deals with impacts on City property, all of which you all own. Martha Bruske liked the idea of a town hall meeting as soon as possible. She also thought it would be good for the City to send a letter to every residence as soon as possible telling them as much as possible about the situation. Council concurred to schedule its next meeting for Tuesday, May 30 at 6:30 p.m., location to be determined. The meeting is open to the public. Sally Collard asked how Industry is able to commence grading in June. CM/Belanger responded that this is within the City of Industry's authoritative jurisdiction. It is their Development Code by which the project is being built. If the project were being built in D.B., they would come to us for the grading permit. The project is being built in City of Industry so they go to the City of Industry for their grading permit. He did not know if they are close to being able to grade. Mr. Lewandowski said that the question is whether the issuance of a grading permit is a discretionary action subject to CEQA, or is it a ministerial action, such as the issuance of a building permit, wherein CEQA does not apply.