Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/30/2000 Minutes - Special MeetingCITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF INDUSTRY FOR THE PROPOSED INDUSTRY EAST PROJECT Heritage Park Community Center MAY 30, 2000 1. CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER: Mayor O'Connor called the special meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. in the Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765. 2. ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Herrera, Huff, Mayor Pro Tem Ansari and Mayor O'Connor. C/Huff left the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Also present were: Terrence Belanger, City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works; Lynda Burgess, City Clerk, and City of Diamond Bar 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 - The Industry East Development Project, as currently proposed by the developer Industry Land LLC, is a 425 acre industrial project, consisting of approximately 6,600,000 million square feet of primarily industrial uses. The site is generally located adjacent to the City of Diamond Bar. The project proposes the development of 31 buildings ranging in size from 3,500 to 870,000 square feet in size. Approximately 49% of the project is designed to be served by rail. Access to the project is proposed from Washington Street, Brea Canyon Road and Grand Avenue. Significant new public roadways and infrastructure will be necessary to support the proposed industrial park. DCM/DeStefano presented an overview of the proposed project. City consultant Peter Lewandowski discussed the land use elements of the Environmental Impact Report and its implications. City consultant Steve Sasaki talked about the traffic impacts related to the EI R document. M/O'Connor acknowledged the presence of Walnut City Council Member Tom Sykes. Jim Lewis 21333 Cottonwood Lane (Hampton Courts thanked Council and the consultants for their attention to this matter. He asked what weight the D.B. response carries with the City of Industry. What recourse does D.B. have if the City is ignored by the City of Industry? How are levels of significance determined with regard to traffic and noise? Can they be modified and by whom? He and others want to know what kind of commitment the City Council has to this matter. Ed Burdsall, 789 Lincoln Ave., supported opposition to the project. His biggest concern as a parent was to keep Washington Ave. closed off as it is now and what can D.B. do to stop the street from being opened up. MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Tom Pepper, 21217 E. Washington, Space 113, said that there is no truck traffic or Washington St. at this time. According to the EIR, there will be 12,222 truck trips per day on Washington St. The traffic increase from 3,000 to 16,298 cars is an increase of 500%, not 31 %. In order to get to the meeting, he had to go through five traffic signals just to get through Brea Canyon at the freeway. With all of the increased traffic to the project, if Washington St. is opened up, the residents will not be able to get in and out of their homes. He asked if Council is going to stand behind the proposal that Washington St. remain a cul- de-sac? Since this is a City of Industry project and D.B. does not benefit from it, at what point can Industry buy the City Council out? He is retired from the trucking industry. Two- thirds of the project being proposed is warehousing, which is a 24-hour operation and presents a great deal of noise. There are no standards for emissions controls on diesel trucks. Further, he felt that the 4% decibel noise increase is understated. Trucks are a lot noisier than 4%. He lost a good portion of his hearing in his left ear because of driving a truck for 28 years. Kathy Mayers, 21273 Cottonwood Lane (Hampton Court), expressed concern about health issues that are a instant concern to her large complex, especially with the proposed extension of Washington St. There are two basic concerns with 50,000 additional trips per day - 1) diesel fumes, which have been proven to cause pretty severe medical conditions linked to cancer, asthma, emphysema, etc. OSHA has some stringent guidelines for workers that are around diesel fumes. She was particularly concerned because if --- Washington St. is extended, her family and others will be well within what OSHA woulc consider a "protected employee" status because of her proximity to diesel traffic and 2) - increased rail, which also brings increased diesel fumes. There is no mention about how much impact this type of traffic will have on the surrounding area. In addition, she had a concern about overall air quality. The Draft EIR talks about the construction phase causing significant problems. However, after construction, there will be low air quality because of rail and truck diesel fumes and 5,000 extra cars that will go through D.B. from this project. She was also concerned about evacuation in the event of a problem inside the project. Further, she was concerned about increased traffic and vehicular accidents and about the children who are dropped off by school bus at the end of the street, and the children who walk and play near the streets. She asked how D.B. would address these issues. Steve McCreight, 671 Alder Lane (Hampton Court), expressed concern about Washington St. and hoped that it will not be opened up. In addition, he was concerned about the noise level of the project as well as the nighttime running of the trucks. When he moved into his home, he was warned about the railroad and the high tension wires but he was not told anything about the land use possibilities for the property adjacent to his residence. He was told that the land belonged to CalPoly and he presumed that there would be a pasture there forever. If Industry puts something in the area, it should be specific and D.B. residents should have the right to know what is being built in advance, so if the residents choose to move they have the option of knowing what they are moving from and why. He was also concerned about school bus pickups. There already is a significant amount of traffic or� Washington St. because of the Metrolink. In response to Mr. Lewis's concern about D.B.'s recourse, Peter Lewandowski said that the answer, like the document, is somewhat of an enigma. The intent of the environmental MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING process is to allow public agencies and the affected public to submit comments to the lead agency. Clearly, the intent of the environmental process is to help the City Council of the City of Industry make an informed decision. To the extent that comments provide information that clarifies, adds or raises issues that were not addressed, the process should have that purpose. Whether comments will curtail Industry's decision to approve or not approve or conditionally approve the project would be referred to the City Council of the City of Industry. They will undertake their own deliberations on the project and actions that they believe to be in Industry's best interest, which may or may not correspond to the, benefit of D.B. He believed the comments would have some impact. Whether they will dissuade or persuade the City of Industry to act in some fashion other than they would intend to act remains to be seen. The comments play an important role in the overall process. In the event that there is disagreement, agencies have other recourse in terms of how they resolve their disputes. One mechanism clearly indicated in CEQA is that agencies and the public have an opportunity to challenge the actions of a local agency to judicial action. The only arguments that can be made in a judicial action are based upon issues, which are raised during the comment period. M/O'Connor asked if it is important for D.B. to respond to each line item separately for legal purposes. - Mr. Lewandowski said that it is difficult to know what the courts may deem important. Therefore,'it may be more worthwhile to take an overall approach. Regarding how levels of significance are determined, how they can be modified and by whom, Mr. Lewandowski responded CEQA is important because it establishes a procedural obligation. In addition, there are terms in CEQA that have more meaning than other terms. One of the terms that has clear meaning is the word "significance" which is used in many ways. "Significance" is first used by the agency who is the recipient of a permit application to make a determination who needs to be provided an EIR, should a Negative Declaration be done, or should an exemption be found for a particular activity. In this case, the City of Industry determined that there seems to be sufficient information to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. The second use of "significant' is a redefinition of the term. Once an EIR is prepared, the agency again finds the word "significant" in a more quantifiable fashion and it conducts its scientific analysis and then compares the findings of that analysis versus the yardstick that it has established. If the impact exceeds the yardstick, the impact becomes significant, which means that the agency is then bound by statutes and regulations to prepare mitigation measures or conditions of approval that might lower the impact below that threshold. It also mandates that the agency consider project alternatives, which might avoid the impact. For example, if the EIR concluded that because of the certain number of trips projected, one of the alternatives that CEQA might suggest is that the number of trips be reduced below that threshold/yardstick, which is created so that the impact is concluded to be less than significant. There is a lot of debate within the environmental community as to whether CEQA is very clear in terms of the definition of "significance" and there is no value judgement as to whether that is important or not. But when a document is prepared that determines that an impact crosses that threshold and becomes significant, and despite the best efforts of the agency, if the arm cannot be reduced below that threshold level despite the best efforts of the agency, at the MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING end of the day, a determination that the impact is significant and unmitigable o; unavoidable, and that the impacts of the action, notwithstanding the best efforts of the agency, remain above that threshold. CEQA is not written in a fashion that then says that as a result the project cannot be approved. CEQA allows the agencies to do their own balancing act. If the impact remains significant, an agency can still approve a project to what is called a "statement of overriding considerations," which says that as an agency, we did everything we can to mitigate the impacts of the project, we acknowledge that the impacts still remain significant, but we are going to do an overriding consideration in essence stating that we believe the benefits of the project outweigh its environmental implications. The agency can then approve a project notwithstanding the significance of the resulting impacts. Is the City of D.B. a responsible agency? If D.B. is a responsible agency, it has to act in accordance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and either rely upon the information contained in this EIR or conduct its own environmental review, which might be a subsequent EIR or a lesser action. The unanswered question is, can the City of Industry accept, on behalf of the residents of D.B., the continuing existence of impacts upon D.B. Clearly, Industry can act in terms of how it believes it should act in terms of its own residents and businesses and do a statement of overriding considerations, accepting on behalf of those residents and businesses, the continuing existence of a significant impact. Whether Industry can accept on behalf of D.B., its residents and business communities an overriding consideration with respect to the residents along Washington St. putting up with extra traffic and noise becomes a question that has to be -- addressed in another forum. Regarding Mrs. Mayers's concern regarding evacuation, CM/Belanger stated that the L.A. County Fire Department has responsibilities when it reviews plans of this type in determining whether there are enough points of ingress and egress to accommodate the movement of individuals in the event that there is a natural disaster or some other kind of disaster, which affects one or more of the ingress points into this particular industrial park. Without Washington St., there are at least four or five separate points of ingress and egress. CM/Belanger responded to M/O'Connor that the fire department couldn't force D.B. to open Washington St. M/O'Connor asked if the concern for the safety of school children at bus stop areas on Washington St. has a bearing on D.B.'s response to the EIR. CM/Belanger indicated that this has an effect on the City of D.B.'s response. He advised community members that it is very important that any impacts that are perceived to be personal issues to individual residents, their families or their properties need to be articulated individually by the residents. If the residents do not follow through, they do not have a future action. The City's response covers only public impacts on public property and to a certain extent more indirectly, impacts that affect the public in a general way. Homeowners associations can respond on behalf of the homeowners association but homeowners association is an artificial entity. It is flesh and blood human beings that have the most impact. MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING M/O'Connor stressed that all letters need to be addressed to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director, City of Industry with copies to all related responsive agencies. CM/Belanger stated that, for example, if individuals have a problem with air quality, they would want to send a copy of their letter to the Air Quality Management District (AQMD). With respect to a speakers concern regarding Metrolink traffic and diesel trucks running at night, CM/Belanger referred audience members to a chart outlined in red indicating a project that has been proposed by the Alameda Corridor East Authority, which would grade separate Brea Canyon Rd. and the rail line. This means that at either end of the red, the roadway would be excavated and Brea Canyon Rd. would go underneath the railroad tracks. In addition, Washington St. would be lowered at the red line terminus to meet Brea Canyon Rd. In this event, it is unlikely that Washington St. would continue to be used for Metrolink parking. Part of D.B.'s response to the EIR will be that the City of Industry allow parking on Brea Canyon Rd. as well as increase parking at the Metrolink Station as it currently exists as a way to mitigate some of the impacts that currently exist on Washington St. With respect to Washington St., if it does not go through, there will be no impact of diesel trucks on that street at night. One of the alternatives that D.B. will suggest to the City of Industry is that the three end buildings (#17, #19 and #22) be reoriented and setback further than currently indicated, and that the uses placed in those buildings are the least intensive uses that one could imagine in this industrial park. Buildings 17, 19 and 22 are most proximate to the Washington St. homeowners. One of the thoughts as this project goes is that the maximum amount of separation possible be undertaken with the least amount of noise and other types of impacts offended with those facilities also be demanded. In essence, those three buildings would be used as a buffer from the balance of the site. Robert Sayre, 667 Alder Lane (Hampton Court) said that the field that he views from his garage would be totally destroyed by this project. In his estimation, the City of D.B. will also be destroyed by this project with traffic, pollution and noise. He asked Council to do everything in their power to prevent Washington St. from ever being opened. Linda Ladner, 21217 Washington St., wanted to be friendly to the City of Industry but she did not want to breathe their filth and did not want to listen to the noise. She preferred that Washington St. remain closed. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., said that there are no statements contained in the DEIR that would lead the City (D.B.) to believe that Industry commits to avoidance of impacts upon D.B., will fully compensate the City for impacts upon this community that are attributable to development and redevelopment activities or will delay the project approval or commencement of project construction pending resolution and mitigating of impacts upon the City. He felt that the only course of action for D.B. is to go to court. What would be decided in court would be debatable. What you will get is leverage in the process. Right now D.B. has no leverage. D.B. needs to stop this process as it is occurring and take it to another level. He was displeased with the idea that the citizens should carry the ball in attempting to change the mind of City of Industry. It is clear that the magnitude of this project is mega -bucks. He didn't care how many letters that citizens write, nothing will be MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING changed. The people who have been notified about this situation represent one fractior of one percent of the total people in D.B. All of D.B. doesn't know about this. D.B. has known about this EIR since April. The people here are probably just hearing about it for the first time and they have three or four days to respond. The Council are the people's representatives and it should take the initiative to communicate to Industry what the feelings of the people are because that's what,the Council is getting paid for. M/O'Connor felt that that was exactly what the Council was doing by responding to the EIR.. Brian Bufkin, 21307 Cottonwood Ln. (Hampton Court), applauded the Mayor on her statement to stand behind the continued closure of Washington St. He added that Majestic Realty and/or the City of Industry may try to bring bargaining chips to the table and provide bartering mitigation in exchange for allowing Washington St. to go through. He did not believe that there is a bartered mitigation in existence that would offset the damage to the residents' quality of life that would result if Washington St. were allowed to be opened to Industry. He pointed out that the new building in close proximity to the Libbey Glass building has sodium vapor lights on the south side that illuminate the entire field between the building and Alder Ln. No effort has been made to contain the light. He has been told that the people on Alder Ln. can hear paging systems throughout the night. The building is Y2 mile away from the complex. If Industry puts a building 60 feet away from the complex it would render the Alder Ln. units uninhabitable. If something like that occurs, what civil -- recourse is available to the homeowners. He asked if the Brea Canyon Rd. underpass is a certainty if the project goes through and when is construction scheduled to commence. Cathleen Rose, 21345 Cottonwood Ln. (Hampton Court) believed that there are only two points of ingress/egress available to the occupants of Areas B and C, which are: the existing Old Ranch Road, the proposed extension of Cheryl Lane and the proposed connection from somewhere within the project to Grand Ave., whether it is a continuation of Washington or something that originates within the project. She believed that most of the people in the room tonight are from the immediate area of the proposed complex. She suggested that Industry consider additional major points of ingress/egress along Brea Canyon Rd. She presented a petition signed by approximately 2,000 residents who live south .of the southerly borderline of the proposed project. Hampton Court consists of 106 residences; D.B. Mobile Estates - 147 units; 206 single family residences and approximately 250-300 apartments in the immediate area, for a total of approximately 800 units 0 2.5 residents per unit = approximately 2,000 residents. For the most part, the people present tonight represent those 2,000 residents. Section A would likely have the greatest impact on the residents of Walnut. She asked Council to consider yet another alternative to what is being proposed which is illustrated by an aerial and map she presented to MPT/Ansari and Peter Lewandowski. The Business Parkway is designed to accommodate three -axle trucks. She believed that the City of Industry should have considered capturing enough land through Currier Rd. to widen the road and extend this__ access point to their proposed project via the Fairway off -ramp (north on Fairway and easi on Business Parkway). She asked staff to comment on whether or not this would be a logical alternative. MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING M/O'Connor disagreed with Wilbur Smith's comments regarding the fact that the citizens have to cant' the ball. She did not believe that the citizens are carrying the ball. They are one aspect of what needs to be done. Council is doing what it needs to do to follow the process. She believed that individual letters do make a difference as she had been involved in activities in the past where thousands of letters were written made a difference. She strongly urged everyone to write letters and to turn in their petitions. The City has taken the lead in this issue and will continue to work for the community. Regarding Brian Bufkin's comment about a bartered negotiation, who knows what will occur in that regard. Regardless, Council will keep the best interest of the residents in the forefront in the event of any negotiation. The City will recommend that Majestic re -orient the project in its response to the EIR. Whether they follow through is up for debate at this point. DCM/DeStefano responded to Brian Bufkin's concern about the sodium vapor lights on the City of Industry building, that in the City of Diamond Bar, such lighting would not be permitted. Light and light spillage must be confined to the property upon which the lights are located. He said that he cannot speak to the City of Industry's standards. However, in terms of reducing light impacts, Industry can do that through performance standards by specifying what types of lighting figures, where they are located and when they are turned on. In addition, the agency could require the planting of trees so that they would grow tall and lush in order to help create barriers from any light spillage. M/O'Connor stated that D.B. is most certainly addressing the lighting issues and nighttime activities. CM/Belanger stated that one approach to responding to an EIR of this kind where a project is taking place in one community and the impacts by and large are affecting the residents of other communities, is to demand that the community creating the impacts require that whatever is built be built to the City of D.B.'s standards where there are considerations of human beings existing. Part of the City's response to the EIR is to demand that the City of Industry, at the very least, use standards that D.B. has developed for its own industrial properties. CM/Belanger indicated to a prior speaker that the plan to build a Brea Canyon Rd. underpass is part of a plan to construct 25 grade -separated crossings. This is not a part of this project. If this project were not built, the Brea Canyon underpass is still an underpass that has been identified by the Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority as being one that is necessary to mitigate surface traffic impacts that are going to occur when Alameda Corridor opens. M/O'Connor stated that the City's consultants have taken statements made by Cathleen Rose regarding alternate ingress/egress points under advisement and will address those statements in the EIR response. MPT/Ansari asked Cathleen Rose how she and other residents found out about the project as early as April. MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Cathleen Rose responded that one of the residents in her complex has a contact in the industrial arena that knew about Majestic's plans, which tipped them off at the end of last year. Taking action on that information, the residents scheduled an appointment with DCM/DeStefano who shared a copy of the City's November 15 letter of response to the notification of the intent to prepare an EIR. The residents built on that very well crafted letter and spread information amongst the residents as best they could. Clyde Hennessee said that anything that happens in the City affects the entire community. This project will affect the quality of life of every individual in D.B. He spoke about the increased traffic congestion and pollution as well as the effect of the trains on D.B. He was pleased that D.B. was able to cul-de-sac his street. Jacqueline Zarate, 848 Dryander Dr., reiterated the health issues previously mentioned by Kathy Mayers. The kids that live on the east side of Brea Canyon Rd. attend school on the west side of Brea Canyon Rd. Increased traffic will make it even more difficult to traverse the area. In addition, the increased noise will place a heavy burden on the residents. She asked for assurance that Lycoming Ave. will not become a back door accesses to the project if Washington St. is not addressed. When an accident occurs in her area, the residents are trapped. She encouraged residents to write their letters. She previously worked for the City of L.A. and has first-hand knowledge that individual letters are extremely worthwhile and important. Jack Newe asked about Sunset Crossing Rd. becoming an access road to the City of Industry, which would bring tremendous amounts of traffic onto D.B. Blvd. He asked if the State had made any commitments or discussed the changes that will be necessary for the freeway commuting system. What about redevelopment? It seems that it won't be necessary because the amount of traffic that will be on D.B. Blvd. and Grand Ave. will prevent access to local businesses. The Industry project will cost D.B. a lot of money because the City will have to be rebuilt to accommodate the situation. Traffic impacts will be unbelievable. He believed that D.B. should support the residents who live in close proximity to Washington St. Jeff Weaver, 21217 Washington St., Sp. 91, said that he was also opposed to extension of Washington St. He asked if ordinances are in place or will be put in place similar to those in Pasadena, Cerritos, Duarte, Bradbury and San Marino which bar the parking of semi -tractor trailer rigs on city streets and limit the size of trucks on city streets. He said that this project will undoubtedly decrease his property value and he will ask for a reduction in his property tax. This will result in a direct loss of income to D.B. Will the City hold Industry liable for the loss of income? Has the City contacted the County regarding the impact on the services provided by the County Sheriff, fire and private ambulance services. The proposed project is a large complex with a lot of employees and a lot of automobiles. As much as people disagree about tunneling under railroad tracks, he believed that something must be done to relieve the impacts to vehicular traffic. He asked if more tracks and lines are planned to handle the additional trains in the area. He thanked Council and staff for the job they have done and for the opportunity to speak this evening. MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Audrey Hamilton, 1429 Copper Mountain Dr., asked why staff is preparing to make an environmental suggestion that Grand Ave. on -ramps be used since there is already a significant amount of congestion in that area. One ramp that the City of Industry has access to is the Walnut (Dr.) on-ramp. Industry could utilize Currier Rd. and Business Pkwy. Jerry Hamilton, 1429 Copper Mountain Dr., said that fortunately, he learned of this project through the Weekly News. No one in his neighborhood knew about this project. That's. why the Council has to stop breaking D.B. into spots. Everyone should be notified. He was hoping that an injunction could be placed against this project so that the whole neighborhood of D.B. could speak against it. Only 1% (of the City's population), or less, know about the project. There used to be a fault line down the center of Industry's property and he was concerned about them building in the area. Adam Oppenstein, 657 Alder Ln. (Hampton Court), agreed with the concerns of the other speakers. He was also concerned about the increase in crime that residents adjacent to the project will be exposed to. The residents on Washington St. are rather secluded and an industrial project of this size will render the mobile home park and town homes much more vulnerable to burglary, intrusion and so forth. He has been a resident of D.B. for the past four years and one of the things he really enjoys about the City is the quality of life. He has written letters to the various cities and he appreciates everything Council is doing with respect to 'responding to the EIR. Jim Hayes believed it is ironic that the children who will be most affected by the air pollution have no say in this matter. His wife visited residents in the mobile home park who were 100% against this. He expressed concern that this may not be a high priority for Council and that, at this late hour, any response will be too little, too late. While this matter is important to the Council, it is a quality of life issue for the residents who live close to this project. A resident asked why responses have to be in by June 5. People in D.B. do not know about this project. Can the response time be extended to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to write letters. Residents do not know who to write letters to and this information and sample letters should be sent to all D.B. residents. Veronica ? lives in D.B. right off of the SR 57. She said the only reason she was present tonight was that she saw the EIR on the Internet. She said she is 100% percent against the project and wanted to know what D.B. is doing to get cooperation from other cities in the area to fight this project. She wanted to know if the June 5 deadline could be extended so that residents have time to review the information and respond accordingly. Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend Dr., is present in full support of the people who are impacted. She felt that the entire City of D.B. is greatly impacted and she agreed with the residents who have said that people in D.B. do not know what is happening. She asked the Council to get a program on Channel 12 that runs frequently and is well done. It would help residents write letters if they had certain facts. For example, how many actual single family residences are there in the City of Industry, how many registered voters, etc. She MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING believed these facts are important because D.B. is a residential community and Industn is a commercial city. Woody Roberts wanted to know who will be responsible for the costs of the project. How will the noise and traffic pollution affect the health of the children. Will D.B. benefit from this project? Are the companies who will move to this complex willing to provide a safe environment for the children? Janet Feusado, Lycoming Ave. and Brea Canyon Rd„ asked what will be constructed in place of the Farmer Boy Restaurant and drive-through, the child care center and the AM/PM Arco that are slated to be razed. She understood that Walnut Valley Trailer had been sold and asked what will occur with that property. In response to health and safety concerns regarding children, M/O'Connor said she was very concerned about the children and the bus stops. She asked staff to add a comment regarding the Washington St. school bus stop in their response to the EIR. She thanked residents for their questions regarding Lycoming Ave. becoming an access road. M/O'Connor indicated, in response to Jack Newe, that Sunset Crossing Rd. is a cul-de-sac and is so stated in the City's General Plan as is Washington St. The Council purposely made Sunset Crossing a cul-de-sac to prevent Industry from using it as a through street -- and she had the same consideration for Washington St. She reminded the audience tha CalTrans will hold a discussion regarding the SR 57/60 interchange on Thursday, June E at the SCAQMD from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. She strongly recommended that concerned residents attend the meeting. In regard to redevelopment, D.B. can thank about 12 of its residents for the loss of redevelopment. As a result, there are no longer redevelopment funds available to improve D.B.'s intersections. CM/Belanger responded to Jack Newe's statement that there are two parcels left in the Gateway Corporate Center. Lot 16 will be developed. Industry has taken. D.B. to task relative to the Gateway Corporate Center because the traffic analysis that was done when the Gateway Corporate Center was opened has been exceeded. Therefore, each new project is required to do a traffic analysis as a part of its project approval. CM/Belanger responded to Jeff Weaver that D.B. has an ordinance prohibiting trucks of 2,000 pounds or more from traveling D.B. streets unless they have a specific destination within the City. In addition, parking of 10,000 Ib. trucks is prohibited in D.B. Recently, the city adopted "No Parking" on Lemon Ave. to prevent truck parking. The EIR addresses environmental issues. Property values are not addressed in the EIR. Further, law enforcement issues are addressed in the EIR. LASO provides law enforcement services to the City of Industry on a contract basis. Industry does not use the Walnut station. The Sheriff will respond to this issue. CM/Belanger indicated that no additional rail tracks are planned in conjunction with the Brea Canyon Rd. underpass. M/O'Connor responded to Mrs. Hamilton that her questions regarding the congestion at the MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Grand Ave. exit will be addressed at the CalTrans meeting on Thursday night. DCM/DeStefano indicated to Mrs. Hamilton that the purpose of suggesting that more emphasis be placed on Grand Ave. is twofold: 1) From a planning standpoint, Grand has more capacity within the roadway to accommodate the kinds of vehicles that are discussed in conjunction with the project. There is more room to increase the roadway to add capacity between the ingress/egress to this project and the freeway system itself, and 2) from a staff perspective, with the quality of life of those folks that might be affected by truck traffic, no one lives on Grand Ave. M/O'Connor said that staff has noted Mrs. Hamilton's concern that the project should utilize Fairway Dr. in their response. In response to Jerry Hamilton's concern about notification, CM/Belanger explained that it would cost the City approximately $5,000 to $6,000 to do a single mailing to the residents of D. B. M/O'Connor indicated that the Council attempted to get the word out via news publications. In response to Jerry Hamilton's question regarding an extension of time to respond to the - EIR, DCM/DeStefano stated that on Monday, May 22, Council held a study session with staff to discuss the status of the project. Council directed staff to establish tonight's meeting. In that time frame, about 1,000 property owners that were most affected by this project were noticed. In addition, all of the newspapers were faxed the public meeting notice that was sent out. Some of the newspapers chose to prepare stories and some did not. As referenced, the staff report and matters related to this issue have been and will continue to be on the City's website. In terms of extending the deadline for comments, it is presently June 5. The City of Industry has utilized the statutory time -line, which is 45 days for a project of this size. It is entirely up to the City of Industry as to whether or not they would extend this time -line. The only thing staff would suggest is that individuals get their comments in by June 5. If one of the comments is that the time -line should be extended, that's okay, but there is no guarantee that Industry will extend the time -line. There is nothing that D.B. can do to extend the date other than to make a request based upon the size and scale of the project and there is no legal recourse which would compel Industry to extend the date. DCM/DeStefano stated that, with respect to Adam Oppenstein's concern regarding an increase in the crime rate as a result of this project, within the EIR there is a discussion about Sheriff and law enforcement services. It is unclear as to how far the City of Industry sent its notice to public safety offices. There is a response from the fire department indicating some of the particulars necessary for a project of this size and suggesting that there might be a need for some sort of fire station of some size or scale yet to be determined in order to deal with the project. There is no response from the Sheriff's Department within the EIR. Staff will include this issue within its comments to the EIR. M/O'Connor asked staff to follow up with the Walnut Sheriff's Station to determine that they are, in fact, preparing a timely response. MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING M/O'Connor asked residents to turn their petitions in to the City of Industry and forward copy to D.B. CM/Belanger stated that staff is addressing issues of air quality and health. Regarding letters to the City of Industry, it is equally important that individuals attend the City of Industry meeting at which this project will be considered. Industry has indicated that they will hold a public hearing on the EIR and project approval. It is important that whatever was said today be repeated to the City of Industry, which is the authoritative body when it comes to this particular project. Individual comments become a part of the public record, which is also important and comments should be articulated with respect to one's own property. D.B. will continue to monitor when the public hearings are scheduled and make certain that the information gets back to the people most concerned. One way that individuals can assure that they receive the notice of public hearing is to make a response to the EIR and in the response issue a request that you be given all copies of any future agendas and minutes from the Industry City Council and their Redevelopment Agency. It does not appear that Industry intends to notify residents within a certain number of feet of this project. In response to a question regarding what D.B. is doing with other cities, M/O'Connor discussed this matter with the Mayor of Walnut about their position. Walnut has worked out a mutual agreement for expansion of Valley Blvd. and Grand Ave. M/O'Connor— mentioned that Walnut may wish to address the issue of hazardous waste materials and they will be responding. M/O'Connor responded to Martha Bruske that there are about 650 residents and approximately 150 voters in the City of Industry. CM/Belanger said he doubts that any resident of the City of Industry will be impacted by this project. It might be more salient to have the demographic information related to the City of D.B. In response to Woody Roberts, M/O'Connor reiterated that D.B. will address the issue of the health and safety of its residents. She stated that there is no guarantee that the traffic will go to Grand Ave. CM/Belanger stated that nothing occurs within D.B. at this point unless and until the City of D.B. does something. Under most human beings' definition of blight, everything that Industry is doing is blighting D.B. and it would have been useful to have a Redevelopment Agency to assist in mitigating the blight that is going to be caused by Industry. The kinds of blighting circumstances will only be mitigated to the extent that D.B. can fund it. In the alternative, the way to resolve this issue is through negotiation or litigation. Part of the purpose for filing a response is to create the kind of leverage that was suggested earlier._ When you write a letter to the City of Industry, just assume you are writing the letter to the Superior Court of the County of L.A. If Industry does not listen to you, the individuals, perhaps the Superior Court will. However, if you (the resident) do not write the first letter, you will not get an opportunity to talk to the court about a second letter. MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING M/O'Connor stated that when letters come into D.B., the Mayor responds on behalf of all Council Members. She noted that a representative of the City of Industry had been present during tonight's meeting. Council questions and discussion period: C/Herrera said that it is probably safe to say that people present at tonight's meeting are not in favor of opening up Washington St. She asked staff if "fair share" could be defined in the City's response as it relates to the EIR. CM/Belanger stated that the EIR has indicated a percentage of impact to D.B. Needless to say, staff does not agree with that percentage and there will be a "but for" analysis. C/Herrera stated that D.B. could counter their statement by indicating that if the project did not exist in D.B., would not need to take out all of the businesses, widen the streets, etc. Now is the time to list every comment possible in case litigation becomes necessary. CM/Belanger indicated to C/Herrera that D.B. does not intend to reclassify its streets to arterial highways. The City's response to the statement that if Industry builds this project, D.B. will have to change its General Plan in order to accommodate them is that the City of D.B. has no interest in amending its General Plan so, in that case, find another way. For Washington St. to be opened up, it would require a General Plan Amendment. There is no way that Industry can force D.B. to amend its General Plan. Conceivably, they could litigate using the theory that Washington St. had been a part of an historical master plan of streets and highways, at which point D.B. would sue them back. Industry did not object at the time D.B. adopted its General Plan and by 1995, Industry was certainly aware of the existence of the closing of Sunset Crossing Rd. and Washington St., which effectively obviated the historical master plan of streets and highways, which showed a connection from Washington St. to Sunset Crossing Rd. We believe that using the argument today that somehow the master plan of streets and highways still has advocacy was lost when Industry chose not to challenge D.B.'s General Plan in 1995. C/Herrera stated that, in the Draft EIR, there is mention of numerous businesses being taken. Will there be a response comment regarding the economic loss to D.B. CM/Belanger stated that such a comment is contained within the Draft Response. C/Herrera asked about suggesting the potential of running the Industry portion of Washington St. perpendicular to their property line until it reaches the freeway or to suggest that Cheryl Ln. be extended to the SR 60. CM/Belanger responded that D.B. can at least suggest those alternatives. C/Herrera stated that it is unfortunate that every D.B. resident is not aware of the project. However, the points that are brought up by the affected residents can be used in a lawsuit. It is critical that points of concern be mentioned to the Industry prior to June 5. D.B. will be very assertive and aggressive in this matter. MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MPT/Ansari said that, in reading through this 175 -page document, she found it interestinc that traffic impacts for prior projects had been underestimated. Every time Industry does a project, they change their interpretation of the CEQA process. Is this allowed under California law? Mr. Lewandowski said he is not qualified to respond to MPT/Ansari's question. Each EIR is an independent document and has to be prepared as a standalone objective analysis. MPT/Ansari said she is concerned that each project could have hazardous materials. Can D.B. pressure Industry to extend the 45 days due to the magnitude of the proposed project? Could Industry use Currier Rd. through Business Pkwy. onto Fairway Dr. and then onto the freeway? She encouraged people to attend Industry's Council Meetings and to be on time because most meetings are very short. Council can write letters; however, the letters that make the difference come from individual homeowners. CM/Belanger stated that the document transmitted to Industry from the City of D.B. will be placed on the City's web site. File copies will be available, which are expected to be voluminous. C/Chang thanked residents for their attendance and concern. This Council remains vigil. Council Members are opposed to the opening of Washington St. He encouraged residents -- to forward their letters to Industry and to spread the word about the project to other D.B residents. He believed that Council is ready to litigate the matter if it becomes necessary in order to protect D.B. and the quality of life of its residents. M/O'Connor said that a prior speaker spoke about the Council not having the same feeling about this project as the Washington St. area residents. She assured residents that every Council Member shares the same feelings and concerns as the residents and will continue to do whatever possible to address the potential impacts of this project. The EIR document refers to BKK Landfill as a potential site for solid waste disposal site. However, the facility has been closed for approximately two years. In addition, the document refers to SPADRA, which closed in April, 2000. She asked staff to address the issue of how Industry plans to dispose of the solid waste generated by this project. She wanted the matter of enforcement addressed because she did not want D.B. Sheriff's time spent patrolling problems generated by Industry. She also had real concerns about how the rail spurs will be used. How will Industry businesses get the train cars on and off of the tracks and into the spurs and how long will the tracks be blocked as a result. Jim Hayes reiterated his concern that he does not see a spearhead or strategy to help the residents organize. Words are fine. Council Members are speaking words but not coming up with a strategy to mobilize the community. M/O'Connor suggested that a subcommittee be assigned to assist the residents. Sh( asked that this matter be agendized for the next Council meeting. CM/Belanger clarified that an Advisory Committee could be established to advise Council because Council cannot engage in grass roots lobbying. MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Jack Istik believed that D.B. will never have a meeting and that there has never been a meeting without a representative of the City of Industry being present. Industry has never lost a bill that they wanted passed through the State Legislature. He thanked CM/Belanger for mentioning the connection of Washington St. and Sunset Crossing Rd.. When he and his family moved into their house close the YMCA, the property to the west was unincorporated L.A. County, as was D.B., and it was zoned residential, as was D.B. Industry purchased the property and incorporated it into their city, and then they re -zoned it from residential to industrial. He believed that this makes a good case for not continuing the road since there is a change in circumstance that Industry occasioned on their own. He was pleased that City engaged Mr. Lewandowski, who did a great job on the MRF project. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/O'Connor adjourned the Study Session at 10:15 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor LYNbA BURGESS, City Clerk