CC - 03-09-82APPROVED
CITY OF ROSEi9I AD
DATE -
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 9, 1982 AT 7:00 P.M.
The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called
to order by Mayor Imperial at 7:30 p, m., in the Rosemead High
School Auditorium, 9063 E. Mission Drive, Rosemead, California.
The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Cichy.
The Invocation was delivered by Rev. Richard Acosta.
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Councilman Cichy, Tury, Taylor and Mayor Imperial
Absent: None
I. PUBLIC HEARING ON DESIGN REVIEW 81-6 AND THE ACCOMPANYING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, presented the staff report
and stated that the purpose of this Public Hearing is to consider
the design review 81-6 and the accompanying environmental. impact
report, and more specifically this is a proposed cogenerator fa-
cility that will serve California Federal's main computer building.
He stated that after conducting two public hearings, the Planning
Commission by a 4 to 1 vote approved the above project. Subsequently
two factors have occurred, 1st an appeal to the City Council of the
Planning Commission's decision has been filed, and secondly, the
City Council has ordered the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report. For the preparation of that report the Council solicited
proposals and retained the firm of Atlantis Scientific to prepare
the documents. He commented that there were representatives of
Atlantis Scientific present and he introduced Mr. Moore who would
present a brief summary to the Council on the report.
Mayor Imperial requested the cooperation of the audience in
maintaining an orderly meeting.
Jamison Moore, President of Atlantis Scientic Company, expressed
appreciation for being selected to prepare this report, and commented
on the credibility of the firm. He introduced the three key indivi-
duals that worked on this EIR, and they are: Dr. Marshall Long,
Accoustical Specialist, Dr. Alan Joncich, Air Quality Investigator,
and Dr. Roy Charles McDonald, Project Manager. Mr. Moore stated
that they would be available to answer any questions regarding the
EIR.
Mayor Imperial stated that the Public Hearing was now open and
inquired if there was any one who would care to testify and that they
stand and be sworn in.
The City Clerk swore in all the people standing wishing to
testify on the subject matter.
Peter Benzian, Attorney, representing California Federal Loan
Association, 555 S. Flower St., Los Angeles, made his presentation
and referred to an article in the Mid-Valley News of April 15 or 22,
1981 which was regarding the commencement of construction of the
service center complex at 1515 Walnut Grove Avenue.
Mr. George Rutland, Executive Vice President of Cal Fed, 5670
Wilshire Blvd., explained reasons why the Cogeneration Facility is
necessary. He stated that if the cogeneration equipment were not
utilized the complex would still require heating, air conditioning
and emergency electrical equipment. He also stated that if this
appeal were granted the impact would be substantial on California
Federal by making substantial modifications to all the mechanical
systems for heating and cooling, completely redesign the entire
electric distribution system, cancel equipment orders, order new
equipment with substantial lead time for delivery, modify the
switching gear with the attendent cost of modification, and delay
occupancy for six months, incurring 6amages.in excess of - CM-379-82
$5,000,000. Paae 41
Carl Martineaux, Jr., President of Consulting Engineering
Firm, 701 Welch Road, Palo Alto, stated that his firm prepared
the initial feasibility study which lead to the development of
the proposed project. He described,by use of the diagrams pre-
sent, essentially how the cogeneration equipment in the proposed
facility operates and then he discussed some,of the major benefits
of cogeneration.
James Frances, 3321 Monte Vista Avenue, Davis, California,
Chief Engineer of U.C. Davis's Central Plant facility and Cogener-
ation facility, spoke as a private person not representing the
University. He commented on the proximity of the cogeneration
plant to six dormatories which .i;s`about 125 feet and about 100
yards from a large dairy herd, with no problems to the students
or the cows.
Albert C. Martin, partner of the architectural firm for Cal
Fed on this project, reviewed the set-backs of the service build-
ing where the cogeration equipment is housed. On the south there
is about 90 to 100 feet to Narramore, on the west which is adja-
cent to a single family.residential district there is 200 feet to
the service building and'310 feet to the main body of this four
story Cal Fed facility, on the north there is around 70 feet.next
to TICOR. He also commented on the other cogeneration facilities
which are being placed within a complex, such as Children's Hos-
pital and Cedar of Sinai Hospital.
Jack Purcell, 21408 Devonshire Street, Chatsworth, President
of the Accoustical Engineering Corporation, discussed the noise
level of the project and the different methods to be used on the
project to keep.the.noise level lower than the noise criterion of
Los Angeles County.
Peter Benzian, Attorney, stated that he felt that the most
important issue was air emissions and he did not feel that there
would be any violations and according to the testimony of the
two principal officials of the State, Jeb Stuart, Executive Di-
rector of the South Coast Air..Quality Management District, stated
that the proposed NOX emissions on this facility assuming maximum
operation of all of the engine generators was 1/6 of that of the
State Standard, and Mary Nichols, Chairperson of the California
Air Resources Board, also,testified that concern over air emissions
should not cause this Council to reject Cal Fed's proposed project.
He, also, commented on three cogeneration facilities closer than
this facility is to residential communities here, and each of those
facilities has NOX emissions higher than those proposed by Cal Fed's
facility, and none of these facilities have received any complaints
from citizens of those communities with respect to the air emissions
issue or noise. He requested that the letter received from the Vice-
Mayor of San Dimas be included in the records. He indicated to the
Council that Cal Fed has committed to do in order to allay any con-
cern about the.issue of air emissions or noise, He read: that
Cal Fed shall contract with the Emissions Control Systems, Inc., or
comparable firm to provide monitoring of the emissions of the cogen-
eration facility under various climatic conditions at various loca-
tions to be specified by the City of Rosemead Planning Department
in the proximity of the cogeneration facility to determine whether
the emissions from the cogeneration facility are violating the Cal-
ifornia Nitrigen Dioxide one hour standard, copies of the written
results shall be provided to the City of Rosemead Planning Depart-
ment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District can be
available for public review. If such reports demonstrate that vio-
lations are occuring California Federal shall promptly submit a
proposal to remedy the situation, and such proposals shall be reviewed,
approved and modified or rejected by the City of Rosemead under its
design review ordinance, and California Federal shall restrict the
operation of the engine generators in the cogeneration facility in
periods of so called stage one and stage two episodes for photo-
chemical oxidents or carbon monoxide in zone #11 in the South Coast
Air Basin as established and announced by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District as follows. Stage one episodes not more than 2
engine generators and stage two episodes operation of not more than
l engine generator. The only reason those restrictions would not
be followed, would be if Southern California Edison could not supply
sufficient electrical power to meet the requirements of,Cal Feds,Complex.
CM 3-9-82
Page #2
Mr. Benzian continued with his statement. He stated that Cal Fed
would not operate more than two cooling towers between the hours
of 11:00 p. m. and 6:00 a. m. and Cal Fed shall not sell any elec-
trical power to Southern California Edison except to the extent
that such sales are required by State or Federal Law.
Mayor Imperial thanked Mr. Benzian for his presentation, and
he declared a 15 minute recess.
Mayor Imperial called the Meeting back to order. He also
stated that the auditorium will remain open until the meeting
has finished. He asked the Attorney of the opposing side to
come forward.
Roy Abelson, Attorney, representing the appellants who filed
the appeal on the Design Review, made his presentation and stated
that everything that were in the flyers were based upon fact and
the statements from Cal Fed, and he felt that Cal Fed had taken
some liberty with the truth in their flyers. He stated that he
felt that the Council has spent a lot of time on this issue and
he does not want to spend a lot of time talking about the things
that he mentioned in his 18 page letter commenting on the EIR.
The basic issues are that Judge Weil ordered the City comply with
the provisions of CEQA which means that it has to be taken into
consideration what effect that this project will have on the en-
vironment. It is the Council responsibility to make the decision
as to what effect it would have the people who live in Rosemead
and San Gabriel, and not what effect they may have on.projects in
San Dimas, Sacramento or any where else. Judge Weil required that
you comply with CEQA, and CEQA requires that you consider the ef-
fect on the environment. The CALVA bill applies to standards
that the South Coast Air Quality Management District has to be
concerned with, and does not apply to CEQA. Judge Weil ruled
that the CALVO bill does not apply, the Council has to be concerned
CEQA and they have to apply the standards set forth by that act.
Judge Weil agreed that Cal Fed was in the right zone, C-3, neverthe-
less the Council has to determine what effect it is going to have
on other people that may not be in a commercial zone. He stated
that the standard that the Council is to apply is to take the appli-
cation and proposal by Cal Fed and require them to demonstrate that
there project has no substantial adverse effect on the local environ-
ment.. He added that the EIR which has been filed demonstrates that
Cal Fed cannot meet that standard and that this application by Cal
Fed should therefore be denied.
Raul Garcia, 2606 N. Willard, Member of the Board of Education,
Garvey Elementary School District, and spoke on their behalf that
the District had concerns over the possible pollution and congestion
near the schools.
Raymond Giandimenico, 3870; Rosemead Blvd., spoke in favor of
the project and of the good it would do for the City of Rosemead.
Robert Kahey, 4405 Rosemead Blvd., spoke in opposition of the
cogeneration facility and he felt that the NOX standards would be
violated according to what he read in the EIR.
Brad Ogel, 2512 N. Pine Street, stated that he was a Cal Fed
employee and was proud of it, and felt it was the Council it was
the responsibility of the Council to make this decision as that
was why the people elected them and that the Council should vote
for the progress that would be brought in with the cogeneration
facility.
S. C. Ettinger, 8649 Landisview Lane, So. San Gabriel, thanked
the Council for the opportunity to speak and he read a copy of a
report from his brother Dr. Ettinger, which had been incorporated
in the final EIR and he doesn't want this cogeneration facility in
his backyard.
Gene Mailland, 1151 San Gabriel Blvd., Rosemead, teacher and
administrator, background in physics and electronics, spoke in
favor of the cogeneration facility and felt that it was an important
for energy conservation and thereby less pollcti'on',will be produced.
CM 3-9-82
Page #3
11
Peter J. Dilosignor, resident, spoke in opposition.
L. H. Shakel, 7601 E. Columbia Street, a 50 year resident of
Rosemead and is in favor of the cogeneration facility, and felt
it was a decided improvement for the area.
Hans Holtz, 8247 Sleeker Street, So. San Gabriel, didn't
feel the necessity of the cogeneration facility since Southern
California Edison Company can supply the electricity to them,
and felt that there are too many elementary schools surrounding
them, and it would be detriment to the children that attend.
Lonnie Burns, 710 E. Mabel, Monterey Park, student of Cal
State Long Beach, spoke in favor of the cogeneration facility.
Estelle Holtz, 8247 Bleeker Street, So. San Gabriel, spoke
against the cogeneration plant, and commented on the fact that
the EIR pointed out that it would produce too much'.nitrogen oxide
in the area.
Dave DeGroff, Chamber of Commerce President, spoke on behalf
of the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce and stated that they were in
favor of the cogeneration facility and the reasons are in the let-
ter that was sent to the Council.
Farrell Holtz, 8247 Bleeker Street, So. San Gabriel, stated
that if the cogeration facility would be allowed the teenage acti-
vities would have to be cut down because the smog alert days would
be increased, and he felt that the concerns should be about the
people more than the money that could be saved by Cal Fed.
Sherry Harden, California State Energy Commission, commented
on the many cogeneration facilities that are currently being oper-
ated in California without detrimental effect, and is a preferred
resource for energy conservation.
David'FeTdth6use,8756 Mission Drive, President.of the Ecology
Club at Rosemead High School, stated that he hoped that the Council
would consider everything that is being said and that his future
and his friends future is at stake.
The Council recessed for ten minutes and reconvened at 11:05
p. M.
Mark Temple, 8629 E. Fern Avenue, technician for a large aero-
space corporation, stated that he deals emissions of the hydrogen floride
lazar and these emissions are corrosive enough to etch glass and stain-
less steel but are passed through a scrubbing system and that changes
them to harmless emissions into the atmosphere. He stated that he
knows about changing pollutents into something harmless. Cal Fed is
taking the responsibility for their own power and not passing of on
a power plant in some other city. They are also taking the responsi-
bility of making it as unobtrusive as possible, and he thinks they
are going a good job and he is in favor of the project.
Bob Bruesch, 3126 Isabel Avenue, stated that he was opposed
to the cogeneration facility, and he felt that the major issue was
land-use, commercial area surrounded by residential property.
Dick Sterns, businessman for 15 years at 8702 E. Valley Blvd.,
and is in favor of the cogeneration facility, and suggested that
the Council look beyond the election that is coming up.
Michael Hughes, 9463 Steele St., stated that he was opposed to
the cogeneration facility being built in this City, and he felt that
there was misrepresentation taking place by Cal Fed.
Arthur Werner, 8813 Boyton Street, 25 year resident, spoke in
favor of the cogeneration facility, and felt that it would be the
right thing for the City of Rosemead.
Marcos Aspeitia, 8441 Sarah Street, So. San Gabriel, commented
that where he lives the pollutents would blow directly on his pro-
perty.
CM 3-9-82
Page #4
•
Nate Lopez, 8433 Sarah Street,
affected by the cogeneration plant.
generation plant, but in the right
He hoped that the Council would not
•
stated that he would be very
He stated that he is for co-
area. Not in a residential area.
allow this plant in his backyard.
Ruth Albert, 8744 Scott Street, spoke against the cogeneration
facility.
Ron Pierce, 8759 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, spoke against the
cogeneration facility because he was told that certain chemicals
that would.be emitted from this power plant would be acid rain
and acid rain is corrosive to the environment.
Rex Caseres, 9513 E. Guess Street, commented that he had
spoken to Jim Butler, Vice President of Cal Fed and had asked
him if Cal Fed had any alternative plans and he had answered
that they had not made any alternate plans because in view of
the findings in the EIR the.Council will see fit to vote their
way. He hoped:that the Council was a conscientious governing body.
Holly Knapp, 8367 E. Whitmore Street, spoke in opposition of
the cogeneration facility for herself and some of her neighbors,
and commented on a portion of a letter that was written on July
24, 1981 from James R. Butler to the City Engineer of the City of
Rosemead, "in order for us to maintain our schedule, we request
that we be issued a building permit covering this portion of the
work. In the event that corrections are legally required to the
plans submitted California Federal Savings will hold the City of
Rosemead harmless to any corrections or changes that are required."
She felt that this is a moral issue, and she stated that the Council
was elected by the people not big business, and urged a unanimous
"no" vote.
John Enbiki, 7616 E. Marsha Avenue, So. San Gabriel, spoke
in opposition to the cogeneration facility, and felt that it would
not be good for the citizens in that area.
Tina Mairlot, 3026 Rosemead Place, commented on the people
that were collecting signatures on the petitions for Cal Fed and
the fact that they were not knowledgable on what they were even
collecting them for. She felt that there should be more investi-
gation taking place before anything like this put up even if there
needs to be another hearing for that.
Brenda Dumpit, resident of Rosemead, apologized to the council
for her previous conduct, and she felt that for the health of her
children she would not want to have this facility built so close to
her property.
Gene.L. Alcantera, 5789 Burton Avenue, spoke against the cogen-
eration facility and suggested that there might be an alternative
use for the plant, such as solar energy or some other better source.
Marc Schwartz, 1638 N. Delta Street,So. San Gabriel, stated
that his property was directly adjacent to the Cal Fed Project.
He stated that he would like to be a good neighbor to Cal Fed and
he is not opposed to their commuter facility nor opposed to the
taxes that they may be paying nor to the jobs that they may be
offering or landscaping or parking lot. He is only opposed'to the
construction of their cogeneration power plant 194 feet from his
property line. He requested a "no" vote from the Council.
Mayor Imperial stated since there were no other comments from
the audience, he would allow Mr. Benzian for Cal Fed and Mr. Abelson
for Marc Schwartz's group a five minute rebuttal period.
Mr. Peter Benzian, Attorney, commented that since so much had
been said about the petition gathering efforts, he presented these
signatures to be placed in the record together with a letter from
Facts Incorporated.
CM 3-9-82
Page #5
• 0
Mr. Peter Benzian stated although he had just presented
those petitions containing 1430 signatures of people supporting
the project and the cogeneration facility, he did not consider
the matter before the Council to be one of popularity--to weigh
on one hand the votes in favor or it or the votes against it.
Rather we submit that the matter has to be decided on the facts.
The matter before the Council is not the approval of the Design
Review for the Cogeneration Facility, rather the matter before
the Council is the Appeal from the Planning Commission's approval
of Cal Fed's design review application. He felt that the facts
clearly warrant and demand a denial of the Appeal.
Roy Abelson stated that he agreed with Mr. Benzian that this
is not a popularity contest. All he asked was to read the EIR and
vote your conscience.
.Mayor Imperial closed the participation portion of the Public
Hearing.
mayorimperial inquired if Dr. McDonald had any points that
he would like to make.
Dr. Roy McDonald stated that he would be pleased to answer
any questions that the Council might have in terms of clarification
of the EIR.
Councilman Tury stated that much had been stated about the
statement that the aii.,qualty emissions would exceed the State
standards several times a year, and inquired of Dr.-McDonald for
a response to that statement.
Dr. Roy McDonald stated that the EIR states based upon our
modeling that there is a high probability that the State NOX
standard would be violated. He also statedi.that the EIR qualified
that based upon the modeling they would not be able to specify the
number of days, the number of incidents, but just that it would
occur (a violation) during the year.
Councilman Cichy commented on the written agreement that Mr.
Benzian had stated that Cal Fed would be willing to abide by in
stage #1 and Stage•#2 Alerts. It stated that they would operate not
more that two engine generators in Stage #1 and not more than one
engine generator in Stage #2 Alert, and that they would employ
Emission Control Systems, Inc., or some other competent firm to
provide the monitoring for that. Councilman Cichy inquired of
Dr. McDonald if he had in the assessment of that did they consider
the shutting down of different generators at a time and how that
would effect the air quality during those stages of alerts.
Dr. McDonald turned the question over to Dr. Alan Joncich.
Dr. Alan Joncich stated that the statement in the EIR that said
there is a reasonable probability that the nitrogen dioxide standard
could be exceeded once per year, State Standard, that was based upon
the assumption that all four generators are operating. The impact
is proportionate to the number of engine generators operating, so
that if they cut down the number of generators to two, you can take
the impact in terms of the concentration and divided it.by two and
if you cut it down to one you divide the estimated concentration
down to one engine. If the air quality during one of these stage
alerts was very close to the air quality standard assuming no engines
are operating it is entirely feasible that even one engine could
cause a violation of the standard. However, that is a very extreme
case. This implies that without an engine operating that we are very
close to the standard and that somehow we are not going over the
standard in which case a single engine could cause a violation. This
is rather unlikely.
Councilman Taylor commented on restrictions of automobile use
by employees of the main computer center and §tated.that:this EIR,
is..claimed to:pertain.to'.only_the iplant facilities and inquired why
were the other items 'were included in the EIR.
CM 3-9-82
Page #6
• 0
Dr. Joncich stated that when they first began the project
he had called Brian Farris of the Air Quality Management District
and discussed the project and what was considered factors they
need in judging the facility. Part of that context is to describe
the situation within the immediate environs and in this particular
case there are certain residential and commercial uses. It was
done to try to describe the emissions situation in that area and
it was done in the EIR in form of graphs based upon some projections
of earlier data. The facility represents a major source of vehicles
therefore the estimate was made of these emissions.
Councilman Taylor inquired that as long as.that information
was included then why did you not calculate the total emissions
and pollutions emitted for all vehicles and the power plant in
combined form for total numbers.
Dr. Joncich stated that a revision along that line would be
entirely appropriate, and he could not say why it wasn't put in
that format.
Councilman Taylor inquired what is a new source of pollution.
What are the figures used. 150 pounds?
Dr. Joncich stated that the figure of 150 pounds which is in
the new source review rule does not apply to mobile emmisions. It
applies strictly to the emissions from the stationary source.
Councilman Taylor stated then according to the language used
by CEQA the emissions of the vehicles could be used in the Council's
descretionary decision on what is decided.
Dr. Joncich stated that the Council has the,descretionary
power.
Councilman Taylor stated then all the pollutants could be
added for the different effects. He felt that the pollutants
from the plant and the automobiles comes to over 530 pounds per
day.
Dr. Joncich stated that this is an EIR of a cogeneration
facility and therefore it is focused document according to CEQA
as amended to that measure, however, that measure must always be
placed in a complete context.
Councilman Taylor stated that in other words there is no justi-
fication to consider the combined pollutants coming off that project
within 200 feet, coming off the parking structure and the plant,
even though the emissions combined with the same type of pollutants
and they go over 150 pounds.
Dr. Joncich stated that the point is that the emissions from
the automobiles that are summarized in the EIR are emissions that
are distributed over several miles. These are emissions that are
dispursed over many square miles. Talking about concentrations
and not about pounds are the important thing. The concentrations
are such that there is no basis for saying these emissions will
cause a violation of air quality standards.
Councilman Tury stated that he concurred with Councilman Taylor
regarding the CEQA guidelines which states that a public agency func-
tioning as a lead agency shall have the responsibility considering
the effects individual and collective on all activities involved
in that project. He would have assumed that would have included
traffic in and out of the project.
Councilman Tury inquired about the hearing that was held by
Senator Montoya where Mr. Jeb Stuart, Executive Director of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District, testified that none
of the States Air Quality Standards would be violated by Cal Fed's
facility. He had testified that as far as NOX emissions that they
would be no greater than 1/6 of the State's standards. How do you
explain the great difference in what you state and what they state:
CM 3-9-82
Page #7
Dr. McDonald requested Dr. Joncich to comment on the different
model that was use by the South Coast Air Quality,-.the ISC, and the
Briggs Methodology that Atlantis used.
Dr. Joncich stated that they had focused much attention on
inter-action of the pollution with the wake effect of the building.
This apparently had not been done before. The Air Quality Manage-
ment District was compelled by legal reasons to use what is called
the guideline model. This is a model which the environmental agency
has approved. There is only one such model that tries to treat the
down-wash from buildings and that is the ISC model. In view of the
possibility of a wake effect they use that model in a very restric-
tive way. They both give the same kinds of answers, but the rest
is a matter of judgement, whether once a year the standard could
be violated. No one can prove that it will be violated or that it
will not be violated during the year. The EIR took the maximul
point of view as long as there was a possibility that it could
occur, therefore a red flag should sent up the pole. Therefore,
to propose mitigation measures, which we did. Mr. Stuart made
his personal judgement that violation once a year was not likely.
Councilman Taylor inquired what the possibility of an EIR
being prepared on the whole project would be, since each portion
is just under the requirements of law and the total effect not
being presented at one time.
Councilman Taylor commented on the newsrelease of April 15
or 22, 1981 in the Mid-Valley News.
Mr. Benzian stated that it was an article that was reporting
on the groundbreaking ceremony that occured on April 13, 1981.
Councilman Taylor stated that on February 24, 1981 the RRA
had a meeting with a presentation by Mr. Butler and Cal Fed staff
members. It had been stated that the RRA had approved cogeneration-
at that time, but after reviewing the minutes there was nothing of
that kind stated. After reading the verbatim minutes, this was the
statement that was given by Jim Butler: "We can say this, this is
the computer terminal. This is the dominent portion of the build-
ing-if anyone were to go before we started phase #2 we would move
out another department that are people intensified compared to com-
puter because the cost of the putting the computer center is astro-
nomical compared to just a spec office building where we can just
load in people. The wiring and electrical and air conditioning and
stand by emergency generators and haylon systems and all the things
that go into the computer all this we: are not moving. I can abso-
lutely guarantee you this." That was the only reference made in the
meeting, emergency generators, cogenerators were not even mentioned.
Yet, it is inferred that we have approved that plan on February 24th,
subsequently the Planning Commission had their meeting on March 3,
1981 and at that time a letter was transmitted to the Planning_Com-
mission. The point being it was not even discussed,,'.The%.City.Attorney
and Peter Benzian stated that the City could not use the'CEQA guidelines
because the project was exempt. Judge Weil's order states that in con-
nection of the reconsideration of the design review of the City shall
conduct an environmental assessment pursuant to the CEQA and the State
and City guidelines to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an
Environmental Impact Report as those terms are used in the California
Environmental Act should be prepared in connection with the City's
design review. If the City determines that a Negative Declaration
or an Environmental Impact Report is required it shall then comply
with the applicable provisions of CEQA and the State and City guide-
lines issued to implement it. The City of Rosemead shall not issue
any building permits to Cal Fed with respect to the above described
portions of the Cal Fed project unless and until the City has complied
with this writ.and all other applicable law. Nothing contained herein
shall preclude the City from issuing building permits with respect to
anyother portion of Cal Fed project.presently under construction.
Nothing contained herein shall preclude the City from exercising its
descretion in the manner authorized by law with respect to design re-
view of the Cal Fed project pursuant....
CM 3-9-82
Page #8
Councilman Taylor commented that the work on the foundation
had started about June 18 or 19, 1981 and the application was
made on July 2nd, and on July 23rd, Mr. Carmona o.k.'s the re-
lease for the foundation permit only. Permit was issued on the
27th of July, and the inspector noted that 'no approved plans'.
Councilman Taylor inquired of Mr. Carmona when did Cal Fed
submit actual list of equipment going into the plant.
Mr. Carmona stated that as far as specific equipment that
did not take place until after July, 1981.
Councilman Taylor inquired if at the March 2, 1981,Design
Review Meeting, the Planning Commissioners or Mr'. Carmona have
any information on,physical information on paper,on what was to
be in the building?
Mr. Carmona stated that he would have to check his records.
Mayor Imperial requested a five minute recess to allow this.
The Council reconvened.
Councilman Taylor stated that Mr. Carmona had the staff
report that was used at the March 2, 1981 meeting and requested..
that Mr. Carmona comment on the information that was given to
him to evaluate the mechanical equipment in the plant building.
Mr. Carmona stated that there was none.
Councilman Taylor inquired when he first received the plans
for that building, what was the original heating and cooling con-
cept of the building?
Mr. Carmona stated that when he first observed the plans was
about a year prior when he was looking at the zone change in 1979,
and looked at the concept plans. It was merely for his own infor-
mation at that time. The first time he saw the cogeneration fac-
ility as proposed was in January or February of 1981.
Mr. Carmona stated that the Planning Commission was reviewing
two items at that March 2nd meeting, one a parking variance and the
other a design review. Under local zoning regulations, the Zone
Variance was a Public Hearing a discretionary action that was sub-
ject to CEQA. However, the design review, as stated in our Code,
is not a Public Hearing. It may be viewed as a non-discretionary
item. Since then from Judge Weil's order it should have been treated
as a discretionary item.regardless of what the local ordinance said.
On March 2nd the Design Review was treated as a review of placement
both architectural features, landscaping as such, and the main focus
of that hearing was relating to the parking variance. He did not
notice anything unusual in the Design Review relating to the project
as a whole. He did check into the cogeneration prior to that and
is on record as far as cogeneration.
Councilman Taylor stated that he had the newsrelease that he
had commented on previously and Beth Wyckoff had stated that it
was Mr. Callahan who had given her that newsrelease to be published.
So it was Mr. Callahan of Cal Fed.
Mr. Benzian stated that Mr. Callahan, public relations for Cal
Fed, gave the information that covered that ground-breaking luncheon
but the item was not a newsrelease issued by Cal Fed it was a story
that appeared in the Mid-Valley News.
Mr. Benzian stated that the plans submitted by Cal Fed in
February of 1981,both to the RRA and the Planning Director, and
Planning Commission to consider both parking variance and design
review of the facility included detailed site plans of the entire
project which included the cogeneration facility. He also stated
that Part XIX of the Municipal Code does not require submission by
the applicant of detailed information concerning all mechanical
equipment to be installed in any building. There is one provision
CM 3-9-82
Page #9
• 0
of the design review ordinance that is framed in the permissive.
Subsection I of 9119.3 which states such other architectural and
engineering data as may be required to permit necessary findings
that the provisions of this article are being complied with.which
may include the following: photographs from the site of adjoining
structures detailed drawings of decorative elements sample of ex-
terior materials and colors, sectional studies to explain the
character of the design and all mechanical equipment and method
of screening from view. That clearly did not require Cal Fed to
submit detailed plans with respect to every piece of equipment
either in the cogeneration facility or in the main building.
Councilman Taylor stated that every single piece of equipment
need not be itemized, but the concept such as the schematic of the
equipment that was shown here tonight could have been included with
the plans.
Mr. Benzian stated that no such plans were in existence in
March of, 1981 or June or July of 1981.
Councilman Taylor inquired when Cal Fed research this type of
information.
Mr. Benzian stated that the researching started in January
of 1981 when the decision was made to employ cogeneration equipment.
He stated that in every plan that has been submitted to the City the
Central Plant has been on the drawings and they have submitted every
drawing that has been requested by the City.
Councilman Taylor stated that it confused him to think that
there were transcribed verbatim minutes where nothing was stated
about cogeneration the night before and then the next day plans
and such were submitted to the Planning Department. That is why
he questioned it and it is said that the RRA approved something
that wasn't even mentioned.
.Mr. Benzian,stated that he had never suggested and or anyone
from Cal Fed has ever suggested that the RRA formally approved
specifically cogeneration. What has been stated is that the plans
that were submitted at that RRA meeting and which were subsequently
resubmitted to the 'Planning Director on February 25th were site
plans showing phase #1 and phase #2 of the project which included
the Central plant facility and which indicated the general nature
of the equipment that would be included in that.
Councilman Taylor read 'that on February 25th, 1981 the Rose-
mead Planning Department received the site plans which related to
Cal Fed's February 18th,1981 variance application and a request of
a design review approval. Those plans showed the location of a
cogeneration` power plant but did not indicate the nature of the
equipment or give any details regarding the building which was to
house the equipment. They merely showed the location of the building
together with its approximate dimensions.
Councilman Taylor wants to clear up why its been told that RRA
had approved something.
Councilman Taylor inquired about Mr. Benzian's declaration
to the Court cogeneration had not been decided upon until January
of 1981 and Mr. Dockson stated,in a letter mailed to citizens,in
late January, 1980 the decision was made by Cal Fed to go with
cogeneration, in July Cal Fed entered into an agreement with Energy
Systems for a feasibility study of cogeneration. There is a letter
from Mr. Benzian's declaration prior to Cal Fed even owning the pro-
perty, conveyed to Cal Fed April 17, 1980, that a letter was sent
to Brian Danner requesting clarification of the maximum pollutants
that can be put in by equipment....
Mr. Benzian stated that the letter to Brian C..Danner is wholly
unrelated to Cal 'Fed in any respect. At that time, his law firm was
not representing Cal Fed with respect to this matter or as far as he
knows any other matter.
CM 3-9-82
Page #10
•
Mr. Benzian stated that a decision was made,at the recommend-
ation of A.C. Martin & Associates, for Cal Fed to retain Energy
Systems Planning, Inc., to do a cogeneration feasibility study.
That study was commissioned some time in September of 1980, and it
was not completed until October 28, 1981, and the decision to act
upon that feasibility study was not made based on my information
and belief until sometime in January of 1981.
Councilman Taylor,read the declaration of Peter Benzian of
August 20, 1981. N-=t
Mr. Benzian stated that the letter written by Brian Danner
which was attached to his declaration was not in reference to
the Cal Fed project, September of 1979, Latham & Watkins did not
represent Cal Fed with respect to this Rosemead Project. The
letter to which is referred which was sent to Brian Danner had
absolutely no connection whatsoever with Cal Fed. Until Septem-
ber of 1980 when Cal Fed commissioned the feasibility study, he
didn't think anyone at Cal Fed had even heard of cogeneration.
Mayor Imperial called for the question since anything else
said would be repetition.
Councilman Taylor inquired what act would follow after the
certification of this document by Cal Fed.
Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that certifying the
EIR does not grant any entitlement to Cal Fed whatsoever, but
it is a prerequisite to consideration of the Design Review for
the Cogeneration Facility.
Mayor:Imperial inquired if a vote for the EIR would indicate
approval of the EIR in its entirety?
Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that the Council by cer-
tifying the EIR is not adopting each and every word therein. The
certification stating that it has been prepared pursuant to the
State Law guidelines and the City's guidelines. Certainly in a
document that large with this many public comments that are answered,
the Council could never agree on it word for word. By certifying
the EIR the Council is stating that the document is an adequate
treatment of the environmental issues that it addresses.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CICHY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY
that the City Council amend the final EIR by including as an
appendix to the EIR, a copy of the verbatim transcript of tonights
public hearing and that the Council certify that the final EIR
has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, the State guidelines and the City of Rosemead guidelines.
Vote resulted:
AYES: Councilmen Cichy and Tury
NAYES: Councilman Taylor and Mayor Imperial
Whereupon the motion did not pass and therefore no action
was taken.
Councilman Taylor what legal aspect is Cal Fed entitled to
pursue with no action taken.
Dr. McDonald stated that the EIR certification would be the
determination that the EIR adequately addresses just the cogenera-
tion project, and it would not commit you to an approval of an.
assessment of the main computer facility.
Councilman Tury inquired if the Council could act upon the
project without certification of the EIR?
The City Attorney stated that he did not think that would be
defensible.
Councilman Tury stated then until we make a decision on the
EIR then there is no way a decision can be made on the project,
and everyone is entitled to a decision on the project.
CM 3-9-82
Page #11
•
•
Councilman Taylor stated that his concern is that the second
phase, the current phase, the cogeneration plant. He doesn't
believe that there has been enough imput, and we can't go back
and prepare an EIR on the other aspects.
Councilman Tury stated that he did not agree, since Atlantis
was ordered to prepare an EIR on the Cogeneration facility, and
if the Council wanted the total project addressed, instructions
should have been given to address the whole project. Cal Fed has
already stated that during phase #2 that they will have to go
through another review process for D-overlay. He felt that the
EIR addresses what was requested.
Mr. Abelson, stated that they are satisfied with the EIR
and it should be certified in so far as it complies with.Judge
Weils order.
Councilman Taylor stated that he felt that a clarification
needs to be stated on what certification is, and a notice of
determination.
Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that the Notice of
Determination would not be filed until the decision of the Council
is formalized by Resolution. Upon certification of the EIR then
you can consider based upon the information contained in the EIR
and the many hours of testimony and the documents whether or not
it is your intention to approve the cogeneration facility or not
based upon that announced intention we will come back to you with
a proposed resolution, findings, a notice of determination for
your consideration.
Councilman Tury stated that if Mr. Taylor has questions on
the EIR then he suggested it be held over to the next Council
meeting, and he did not want to go ahead with it unless the
Council feels comfortable with it. He personally feels that the
EIR is in substantial compliance with the CEQA guidelines.
Councilman Taylor stated that he would be willing to move
this project along so that Cal Fed may get their answer and the
residents are entitled to a decision on this item tonight and
based upon Mr. Abelson's statement that they would agree with the
EIR, he would not hold up the decision on the cogeneration plant only.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CICHY, SECONDED BY MAYOR IMPERIAL that
the City Council amend the final EIR by including, as an appendix
to the EIR, a copy of the verbatim transcript of tonight's public
hearing and that the Council certify that the final EIR has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
the State guidelines and the City of Rosemead guidelines. Vote re-
sulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered..
Mayor Imperial requested that the record show that he did vote
for the EIR but he did not agree with it in its entirety.
Mayor Imperial stated that the next item is to grant or deny/
the appeal to the Planning Commission's decision on Design Review
of Central Plant facility.
Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that the Central Plant
Facility is not a matter of controversy. The matter for decision
is some of the equipment that is inside of it.
Councilman Taylor read a document from the Resources Agency
of California, amendments to the CEQA guidelines and the exemptions
that now apply.
Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that what Councilman Taylor
read relates only to CEQA review and has nothing to do with Design
Review criteria of the City of Rosemead. If there is a motion sup-
ported by the majority of this Council to deny the use of cogenera-
tion equipment at this facility, the CEQA guidelines are not going
to grant Cal Fed or anyone else the right to simply do it. A build-
CM 3-9-82
Page #]2
ing permit would have to be issued and at the time a building per-
mit was considered in plan check, a design review would be required.
Regardless of the interpretation of new guidelines which were read,
as to this particular project, it would in no way grant any kind of
an entitlement to Cal Fed.
Mr. Benzian requested a short recess to discuss options with
his clients.
Mayor Imperial recessed the Council Meeting for five minutes.
John Maulding, City Engineer, commented on the overlay zone
whichrequires a design review.
Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that the design review
process is going on right now. He felt that a list of the required
heating, air conditioning and emergency power generating equipment
could be put together.
Councilman Taylor wanted to know who would be able to tell
the Council exactly what equipment would be going into the build-
ing.
Robert Kress, City Attorney, suggested that if that was the
.course that the Council wanted to take, then they should announce
that and then discuss it with the Consultants, Atlantis Scientific,
as they know which parts would be required for cogeneration and
which parts would not, and suggested that Cal Fed's architect would
assist in making that determination.
Councilman Taylor stated that he did not feel that he could
vote on the design.review tonight since there is no way to be
specific on what. equipment will be in the plant.
Mayor Imperial stated that there was no way to be specific
regarding the equipment at this point, but a motion could be made
to approve the design review for only those portions of the proposed
central plant facility necessary for heating, air conditioning and
emergency electrical generators.
MOTION BY MAYOR IMPERIAL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY that
the City Council approve the design review for only those portions
of the proposed central plant facility necessary for heating, air
conditioning and emergency (but not primary) electrical generators
and uphold the appeal from the Planning Comission's decision insofar
as it objected to the use of electrical cogeneration equipment as
a primary power source in close proximity-- to a residential neigh-
borhood, and (2) direct the staff to prepare a resolution, for
adoption at our next regular meeting, making findings consistent
with this decision and imposing the condition that the electrical
generators be.used as only an emergency power source. Vote resulted:
AYES: Councilmen Tury, Taylor and Mayor Imperial
NAYES: Councilman Cichy
ABSTAIN: None .
ABSENT: None
Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and
so ordered.
Councilman Taylor stated that he wanted the resolution
presented at the next Council.Meeting with the equipment that Cal'
Fed purposes to be put in the building, along with Mr. Carmona's
review of that information, of how that building is going to func-
tion.
Robert Kress, City Attorney, suggested that instead of relying
on Mr. Carmona and the Planning Department, the:agreement with At-
lantis should be.extended for the limited purpose of advising us
on that issue along with the cooperation of Cal Fed.
Mayor Imperial requested that the vote be taken-again.
The Clerk called the roll:
CM.3-9-82
Page #13
C
AYES: Councilmen Tury, Taylor and Mayor Imperial
NAYES: Councilman Cichy
Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and
so ordered.
Councilman Taylor requested that these resolutions be pre-
pared for the next Council Meeting.
The Council Meeting was adjourned to the next regular Meeting
on March 23, 1982 at 8:00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted
Cit.T Clerk
APPROVED:
MA
OR
CM 3-9-82
Page #14