CC - 01-05-82 - Special MeetingAPPROVED
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
DATE _saf~GCe.O
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING nY
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 5, 1982 AT 7:30 P.M.
The Special Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called
to order by Mayor Jay Imperial on January 5, 1982 at 7:30 p. m.,
in the Conference Room of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead,.California.
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Councilmen Taylor, Tury and Mayor Imperial
Absent: Councilman Cichy (excused)
The Special Meeting was called to consider an amendment to
the Agreement with Atlantis Scientific.
Dr. Roy McDonald, Associate of Atlantis Scientific, stated
that he felt that the additional studies are necessary for a
more thorough preparation of the EIR for the proposed Cal Fed
Co-generation Facility. He recommended that detailed calcula-
tions concerning the potential for ground vibrations caused by
the Co-generation facility and this would cost not to exceed
$1200. He, also, recommended that an assessment of the noise
impact of this project and that the cost estimate would not ex-
ceed $2120.00 for this additional evaluation.
Councilman Taylor requested that the rest of this Meeting
be verbatim.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
C/M Taylor: I would like Dr. McDonald to explain the cost
proceedure. When your bid was put together on this,how did you
arrive at your base figure of $11,230. You are talking here of
the primary things as Air Quality, Noise and the Aesthetics.
How was that built up cost-wise in each catagory?
Dr. Roy Mc Donald stated that he would need a couple of
minutes to work it out. How would you care to have this broken
down?
C/M Taylor: The other proposals broke.it down it what they
figured to be man hours and breaking that in dollars. I am look-
ing at just a rough factor. How much do you figure it would cost
do the study on the Air Quality aspect of it, and a rough percentage
of what it would cost for the Noise Element of it and the Aesthetics.
Dr. McDonald: The Air Quality covers just under 20%. The
Noise come to around 30% and the Aesthetics just under 20% and
compliance to CEQA and the management part of the contract is about
20e. This is about 90%, and may I should work it out again.
C/M Taylor: No, that's close.enough. The Noise is 30%.
Dr. McDonald: What is broken down in the proposal is like the
graphics, having to make reproductions and the mileage coming down.
C/M Taylor: That's above and beyond the $11,000 that puts it
up to $12,330.
Dr. McDonald: Yes.
C/M Taylor: Mr. Mayor the reason I tried to get a break down
on the dollars and such is as you are well aware this was the highest
proposal as far as the others one was $8,080 and the other was $8,490.
This proposal was $13,500, $5;000 over, and I thought we used our
best judgement for different reasons for taking this particular pro-
posal. Incidentally, I would like to refer the proposal from Ultra
Systems it states under the Noise Element of their. proposal:
Special Meeting
Page #1
January 5, 1982
• •
Noise - 40 manihours
The ambient noise levels near the project site are available and
will be used.for the existing setting. Although a thorough analysis
was conducted in the Initial Study, for the facility and the major
components contained within and on the roof of the structure, an
additional analysis of the cumulative noise from the small compo-
nents and a reassessment of the major compenents and overall faclity
alternative features will be performed.
. C/M Taylor: Now keep in mind that this is a $5,000 less pro-
posal, and they have picked it out that the overall aspect must
be taken care of. I seriously question this proposal being brought
before us tonight. It is a 21 page document and I have tried to
read through it several times, and I would like to read some comments
from the proposal. I thought it pretty well covered the entire plant
and I can't justify this $3300. Starting on page #3 it states:
Atlantis Scientific Report:
We will consider the intrinsic values of the environment in
quantifable and objective terms that can be evaluated in the context
of the regulatory requirements of the City of Rosemead. Air Quality,
Noise, Aesthetics, and other pertinent considerations as described
in the following.pages in this proposal, will be thoroughly investi-
gated and evaluated. We will consider the more subjective and quali-
fiable values in terms of perferences and alternatives, noting the
logical extensions or consequences of variables and options.
C/M Taylor: It continues on further:
We consider a successful EIR to be a highly informative document;
an authoritative source of facts and responsible interpretations to be
referred'.to by developer, the local officials, and by the public
when a decision must be made concerning a proposed project. An EIR
must be technically sound, but at the same time it must be thoroughly
readable and responsive.to the varied concerns of its readers. A
successful EIR must address not not only the environmental impacts
identified by scientists, but must also deal with the sometimes highly
emotional concerns voiced by local residents and other concerned citi-
zens who are participants in the decision making process.
The general methodology we propose for this study program has
been developed on the basis of our prior experience on EIR assign-
ments similar in scope and nature to the EIR required for the California
Federal Savings and Loan Association Cogeneration Facility proposed
within the City of Rosemead.
C/M Taylor: It continues to Page #7 and refers to the Noise
Element.
Atlantis will provide an assessment of the potentially adverse
impacts from noise generated by the construction and operation of the
Co-generation facility, involving:
1. The quantification of the levels of noise likely to be
generated by activities associated with the cogeneration
facility;
C/M Taylor: Page #8 continues:
Atlantis has collected an enormous amount of data relating to the
levels of noise to be expected from various sources, and the quantifi-
cation of the noise levels likely to be generated by the Co-Generation
facility can be accomplished in-house. Using the project plan, we
will be able to identify the important noise source areas, and any
accoustical barriers that might exist. Ultimately, we will be able
to describe the project's noise generating characteristics, and pro-
bable impacts upon the adjacent areas.
Special Meeting
January 5, 1982
Page #2
• 0
of particular concern will be the levels of noise which may be
expected within residential areas adjacent to the site. our find-
ings on the levels of project-related noise will be compared to local
noise criteria; specifically those established by the City of Rose-
mead and the County of Los Angeles. Where levels of noise exceed
these criteria, negatively impacted areas will be identified. In
these..areas Atlantis will suggest mitigation measures that will
attenuate noise levels to below the City and County criteria.
These consider such things as the construction of additional accous-
tical barriers, and the installation of additional noise abatement
equipment. The approximate attenuation which can be expected from
each proposed mitigation measure will be calculated so that an intel-
ligent cost-effective choice can be made.
Atlantis will utilize the existing data to the fullest extent
possible in the achievement of the assignment goals discussed in
the above methodology. We will review and evaluate the project-
related date generated by Ultrasystems, Inc., and augment these data
to the extent necessary to provide a thorough, meaningful analysis
of the potential noise impacts of the proposed Co-generation facility.
C/M Taylor: Page #11 continues:
Firm Qualifications:
Atlantis has been preparing EIR for California jurisdictions
since the initiation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Even before that time, we were utilizing the Environmental Audit,
a procedure that we developed to reassure the public and regulatory
agencies that there would be no depletion of intrinsic environmental
values associated with a proposed development. This general philo-
sophy naturally adapted to the preparation of EIRs.' We consider
the EIR to be a useful contribution to the decision making process,
but recognize that to fulfill this role the document must focus upon
clearly defined issues and provide sufficiently quantified data to
enable reasonable people to make reasonable decisions about the pro-
posed project or action. This straight-forward problem solving ap-
proach is what distinguishes Atlantis EIRs.
Atlantis' outstanding credentials as EIR preparers are based
upon the completion of over 100 separate studies for projects of
varying magnitudes throughout the state. This solid background of
experience is augmented by the many assignments we were responsible
for that focused upon issues similar to those that are of critical
concern for the California Federal Savings and Loan Association
Co-Generator Facility project, namely:
Air Quality, Noise and Aesthetics.
C/M Taylor: Just a few more comments on Page #17 it continues:
Marshall Long, Ph.D., Noise
A respected acousitical engineer, Dr. Long will be responsible
.for the noise impact analyses of the proposed project. Dr. Long is
a professional with ten years of experience in the field of environ-
mental impact assessment. We are confident that Dr. Long will make a
valued contribution to the study.
Atlantis has the necessary personnel, equipment, technical and
financial resources to complete the proposed project as outlined in
our proposal. Atlantis has a strong cash flow position. We have no
outstanding long or short term debt. All accounts are current within
a period of thirty days.
We are reimbursed for all out-or-pocket expenditures directly
related to the assignment including: Travel and subsistence, mileage
at 20C per mile, parking, long distance telephone calls, reproduction,
conferences and miscellaneous items. These associated expenses have
been included in the cost estimate for this assignment.
C/M Taylor: Two more quotes here on page #20:
Sppecial Meetin%
?anagey#' 19 2
0 •
Proponents and opponents of the project may never consider
an environmental report as adequate. Adequacy is a primary considera
tion in the certification of an EIR. A means must be provided for
a determination of adequacy within the context of the agreement for
services: Terms and conditions of the contract, scope and nature
of the study program and the level of effort anticipated by the cost
estimate.
Atlantis has established stringent measures for project control
to insure that the results of the study program will meet or exceed
the goals identified in the request for proposals of November 30,
1981. Under no circumstances will the client be billed for services
rendered in excess of the amount quoted and confirmed in writing.
Cost Estimate
Our not-to-exceed cost estimate for the preparation of an Environ-
mental Impact Report (EIR) for the California Federal Savings & Loan
Association Co-Generation Facility is as follows:
Study Program $11,230
Associated expenses
(typing, reproduction
etc.) 1,100
Public Hearings 1,200
C/M Taylor: Mr. Mayor the reason that I refer to those .
comments is that I believe that Atlantis Scientific has the back-
ground and the knowledge,they have the plans. I think they had
sufficient information to give us the noise element using the plans
and equipment. When I asked the question what the cost of the Noise
element would be, was to get a general feel. The other proposals
that I referred to, and I read the comment that they had included
the small elements. Now going back to the question again of the
dollars that were allocated by Atlantis Scientic for the Noise
Element. What were those dollars proposed for... Were they just
for the generators-and the cooling equipment on the roof? Was it
just those two items?
Dr. McDonald: Yes, we did not have any plans.
C/M Taylor: Then what did you base your proposal on?
Dr. McDonald: On the description of the plans and having
engine generator units and cooling towers and based upon our re-
view of the Ultrasystems data which considered those two pieces
of equipment.
C/M Taylor: You gave a 21.page proposal without looking at
the plans and without knowing what the facility was. I am really
kind of perturbed in one sense, we go to the excessive bid of
$5,000 more, 60% higher than the other two, and then you come back
with kind of a empty proposal, we didn't know what the building was
in general. I find that hard to accept.
Dr. McDonald: Well, you see, now, let me try to put it this
way. We devoted,in terms of time and effort, a pretty substantial
amount of time in the preparation of the proposal. The size of the
contract does not really permit us to have our accoustical engineer
to spend a day or day and a half reviewing architectural engineering
drawings. This is really where we found in.our detailed review where
we found additional equipment.
C/M Taylor: That's all there was to it? Someone looked at
the plans and found out there was equipment in there that needed
to be reviewed. The other proposals I just find it hard to be-
lieve that you could...
Dr. McDonald: I can't figure Ultrasystems out. They recognize
from this proposal that there being a great deal of small equipment.
Yet, when we'reviewed their,analyses, they considered engine generators
with one path of noise.through the exhausts. They,obviously, were
aware of more equipment because they had this previous assignment to
go through the plans, and had the budget to do that.
Special Meeting
January 5, 1982
Paae #4
•
•
C/M Taylor: I am still at a loss in how you could submit
such a proposal and not have any idea of what was in the building.
Dr. McDonald: Well, we did have an idea. We had an idea of
generators and cooling towers. This is when we assign personnel
to it and received cost on it. We look at the project description.
The project description contained engine generators and cooling
towers and part of this is a lack of understanding of the developer.
of what kind of information is needed later on Environmental assess-
ments.
C/M Taylor: No, he is a developer. You are the professional.
You go to them and tell them what you do in an EIR. It refers to
similar facilities of the Cal Fed nature twice in the proposal.
The developer doesn't do EIRs you do them. For you not to under-
stand what is to be required and you have done over a 100 similar
projects of a different nature. The developer doesn't do this for
a living. I don't think it is fair to push it off on him that he
did not provide you with the information. You have to ask him for
it.
Dr. McDonald: On any assignment we must begin with a project
description and it is not possible in terms of the time we have to
respond. It is not possible to go to the developer and work on the
project description.-
C/M Taylor: Even the minutes that you referred to. There were
people that raised questions about other noise factors. Not just the
generators. Not just the equipment on the roof. What other noise
would there be?
Dr. McDonald: We had access to the minutes following the award
of the contract.
C/M Taylor: You did not get to read them before the award.
Dr. McDonald: No, we had the project description, description
of the equipment set forth by the developer, and we had the initial
studies which identified the key issues.
C/M Taylor: In your proposal you talk about the thorough
analysis of using the Ultrasystems data plus you will augment their
information if there is additional things that are required. I am
still at a loss if you did not have the minutes to look at, you did
not have the plans to look at, you did not know the equipment that
was going in it.... we went against our general principle as far as
taking the low bidder and took the-highest bidder. Your proposal
was 21 pages long and Ultrasystems is a couple of basis but they
had a pretty definitive breakout of what they were going do. BCL
only had a ~ page listing their entire proposal went into.....
C/M Tury: The selection of Atlantis was a political decision.
It wasn't a decision that was made by any sound judgement besides
that it would be the least controversial. Hopefully,that what cost
most is always best. The only question I have to ask is if people
ask you about vibration or about the noise what would you say to
them without these additional studies. The questions will be asked.
Dr.McDonald: We in terms of the current budget can look at
the most important noise sources.
C/M Tury: That is not the question. We are talking about
the sound impact at the property line of the cogeneration facility.
If you are asked that question, can you say absolutely 'yes'?
Dr. McDonald: We would have to condition it. We have...I think
....we are a very experienced firm and we have excellent people. I
think it may be that because we do have very good people working on
this that we have found some things that might not ocurred to Ultra-
systems for example.
C/M Taylor: Their proposal lists vibrations, small elements
and they knew that they should pick that up... and again keep in
mind that they are $5000 under your proposal and now you are coming
back with $3000 more. It is small dollars in one sense, but to me
Page #5
L1
it is the principle of the issue and now we are 100% higher than
the other two bidders were.
C/M Tury: In all fairness, though; Ultrasystems had a $5000 head-
start. They already had $5000 worth of our money involved into it.
So if you really look at it, costwise they were approximately the
same.
C/M Taylor: The verification of Atlantis Scientific they were just
going to verify what had already been done by Ultrasystems. There
again that $11,000
C/M Tury: I am not arguing...I agree with you 100%...I don't like
open ended contracts that especially when we go for the high bid.
Apparently, when checking over those figures something else showed
up and I had assumed that....I agree with Mr. Taylor with that fact.
I am upset with the fact, but I think we are at the point and time
that when this thing comes up we do not need anybody hedging. I
don't care how it comes out,believe me.' Either way if it is dog,
it's a dog.
Dr. McDonald: You see, this is my position, in managing this thing,
I want to be able to walk into the hearings and have my scientists
walk in and be able to state absolutely without any kind of condi-
tions.
C/M Taylor: Mr. Mayor, point of information. Mr. McDonald just
refered to the comment that his scientists could state without
conditions. Mr. Tury just asked him if they would stand by cer-
tain elements on condition. They are conditional then.
Dr. McDonald: No, he said without the additional studies, we would
have to frame our responses in terms of ....for example in the noise
that we have thoroughly investigated and analyzed the most important
noise sources..the others being judged by us to be relatively less
significant which is how Ultrasystems approached it. When we talk
about-where you mention in our proposal that we were going,to veri-
fy Ultrasystems data, was a lot less than we had anticipated. We
were not expecting the analyses to being so confined to the engine
generator and the path of noise out of the exhaust.
C/M Taylor: That was an assumption on your part.
Dr. McDonald: Yes.
C/M Taylor: Your proposal again states that you have an enormous
amount of in-house information available, and to me, that implies
that it is readily available within your own organization that
you could draw upon at any time.
Dr. McDonald: That is true. We do have a lot of data. Some of
the pieces of equipment, a catalytic convertor is a good illustra-
tion. The catalytic convertor, we had a choice on it as well of
a number of pieces of equipment.. We had a choice on the silence
and accoustical draft used to it based on our experience on the
equipment., or we had the choice of going after some hard data,
some measured data. The catalytic convertor ...we were told that
it existed, so we went ahead and spent the effort in acquiring it.
We were feeling like we would like to prepare a document that we
would just feel very confident about. We have been opting to ac-
quire hard data, by make and models of equipment rather than as-
signing assumed values to them as Purcel Napi did and as Ultrasystems
did. Now part of it, I am not critizing Ultrasystems and Purcel Napi
per se because of that, because when the time the other studies were
done,the makes and models were not specified. There was a need to
make those kind of assumption as to the kind of equipment that they
expected to put into the cogeneration facility.
C/M Taylor: Excuse me, when you say some assumption of the kind
of equipment that was to be put in there. What are you referring
to specifically.
Dr. McDonald: Assumption concerning the attenuation properties,
how much silence in the equipment will do. We have a lot of data
in-house. We have a 30 inch... whatever it is.. I am not an ac-
Page #6
coustical expert, I have talked to Dr. Long. If they have a
piece of equipment that has a certain length properties and
thicknesses and so on, we can go back and look at similar models
that we have data on; and make the assumption that way and it is
pretty good engineering guess.as to the comparability of the......
C/M Taylor: Why would you make that comparability if in fact you
know what the actual equipment is ?
Dr. McDonald: To get the hard data on the make and model of the
equipment, first you.-have to obtain.....
C/M Taylor: We have that already...we have the whole works...
the catalytic converters, the compressors, the chillers the whole
works ...I've got it... the equipment going in there.
John Carmona: We have the equipment, but he is talking about the
model.....
Dr. McDonald: We have had... it isn't in one document ...We have had
numerous conversations with Ed Gray of Graycon trying to acquire sta-
tistical data on their equipment.
C/M.Taylor--:-,.Another point then, what have you gotten from City Hall
as far as information regarding equipment.
Dr;.MCDonald: I don't understand the question.
C/M Taylor: The equipment that have going.....
Dr. McDonald: We have not received any accoustical data.
C/M Taylor: Have you received any equipment brochures? The submittals
of what is actually going into that plant?
Tripepi: Equipment specifications.
C/M Taylor: Yes.
Tripepi: Which we have available to everyone.
C/M Taylor: Have you got those in your files?
Dr. McDonald: I see what you are asking....
Tripepi: You are trying to answer Mr. Taylors question as if was
the accoustical calculations provided to you which we all know they
weren't, but he is asking about the equipment specifications sheets
themselves which came from the architect and I think Mr'. Butler had
hand delivered to your office. Spec sheets. Equipment Spec Sheets
the kind you find in catalogues when you go through looking for a
certain kind of.. generators or pieces of equipment that you want
to buy. That is what you are talking about, Gary?
C/M Taylor: We have that here, and when you say that you are going
to look in your files on comparable equipment when you have the ac-
tual equipment you referred to with model numbers and such that are
going in. You should have all that stuff already,knowing exactly
what is going in that building. The reason that ...in 15 years, I
get a little bit perturbed and this is not personal with you, but
some contractors get the job and then they live off the extras as
the saying goes. $3000 isn't that much. That is why I get so stung
out....I see too much of, it, and again it is the first time in dealing
with your firm and such and it starts to leave a bad taste.
Dr. McDonald: In going forward with this, I was very reluctant
because we don't do this kind of thing..unless it is necessary.
C/M Taylor: We haven't even started yet and you are coming in and
we haven't even got any paper yet and we haven't had any public hear-
ings yet, and all of a sudden, we are hit with a 25% increase.
Special Meeting
January 5, 1982
Page #7
C
Dr. McDonald: We don't want to go into a Hearing with a document
that we can't defend completely.
C/M Tury: Have you had a lot of imput from residents opposing this?
Dr. McDonald: No, not a whole lot. Four letters, and one phone call
asking where to send their comments.
C/M Tury: Once this is done will it be available for public review
for 30 days.
Dr.MCDonald: Yes, then the citizens will have a period for written
comments and then the Hearings upon the EIR.
C/M Taylor: Pardon me, a point of
to. If these additional.things ar
dent that you can stand behind the
Public Hearing and maybe two. Then
us for an extras because you think
plant?
information, what Mr. Tury referred
given to you, you will feel confi-
report. We are going to have a
are you going to come back and hit
you have missed something in the
Dr.McDonald: I hope not. I don't expect any'.additional increases.
C/M Taylor: I don't know what else it would be either.
Dr. McDonald: It is like the fifth generator, it comes up as a sur-
prise.
C/M Taylor: You are going to address that future growth for that
fifth potential.,
Dr.McDonald: It would be an appropriate way for dealing with it..-.
With a certain extent it is at the descretion of the client. This
is how we would recommend dealing with it...with putting it as a
mitigation recommendation that any increase in the plant would be
subject to review.
C/M Tury: Do you take the equipment as submitted or if something
better is available as a mitigation measure would you in this report
recommend if something is better that you are aware of.
Dr.MCDonald: That is your alternative. If we find a problem as we
go through the system.If the noise at the property line is well
within the criteria to the extent that no one will hear it. It is
not audible there is no reason to change your plans.
Tripepi: But you do have mitigating measures.
Dr.MCDonald: Yes, if the MT 21 silencer is not adequate then we
recommend another model:'..
Tripepi: You will recommend another model as a mitigating measure.
Dr.MCDonald: Yes, we will be able to do that.
C/M Tury:' That is what I am looking for. I really don't want any
holes when we go into a public hearing. I would.like to go into it
as well prepared as we can. It is not that much money but it is the
principle of it. I think we are to the point that I don't want to
go into a Public Hearing and then have to go back out for more in-
formation. I know people may think this is a delaying tactic, and
I would rather have the information to make the decision. We have
been monkeying around with this thing for 4 or 5 months or more.
C/M Taylor: Question about the Minutes of the Public Hearing with
the Planning Commission. Are you going to evaluate those questions
that those people have asked?
Dr.McDonald: Yes, we have gone through.....
C/M Taylor: What about different
City Clerk to send letters to the
Protection Agency, the.Air Qualit
for the approval source. Who has
these cogeneration plants.
comments like I have asked the
different Federal Environmental
Management District and looking
any jurisdiction and approval over
Page #8
Dr. McDonald: In this particular case it is the South Coast
Air Quality Management.
C/M Taylor: No, they said they do not approve the plants. They
approve the engineering technique,not'the location. Who approves
the location in a residential area? I want to find out who the
approving Agency is. They just cannot go and build them any where.
Mayor Imperial: The State Energy Commission?
C/M Taylor: I don't know, Jay, that is what I am looking for.
C/M Tury: Ater reading the CALVO bill I am not certain there
will be anything much.we.can do to stop cogeneration plants.
It may come up and we may not like it and it may go down and
they can just go ahead and build them.
C/M Taylor: They couldn't have referendums on Redevelopment
Projects either until it came into Rosemead.
C/M Tury: That is true.
C/M Taylor: People found out that they could go to.the City and
there were no votes required, no referendum, they could do nothing.
If they open a can of worms like this, again we are the first ones.
C/M Tury: I realize that, Gary, but we are working under the pre-
sent law, we are not working under what could.be.
Tripepi: It will go into effect January 1st, 1982. If I understand
the question correctly, if we are talking about a concept of a cogener-
ation.facility, that building per se, regardless of all the technical
data we are now receiving, and I will ask Kress to further comment on
it, but I think that the Council hold the Aye or Naye on it.
C/M Taylor: Under Zoning Regulations.
Tripepi: That is correct. The Judge has already basically said in
denying those attorney fees that this is an allowable use in a C-3
Zone.
C/M Tury: What it looks like and.where it is. Not if it is a
fact.
Tripepi: You do if it is a design review. Which is what the zoning
is on that property. But understand if the D-Overlay weren't there,
that is an allowable use in the C-3 and they could build it without
ever coming to the City. What Gary is trying to get at is.that we
are looking for a higher agency who says we can or cannot build a
cogeneration facility. I don't think you are going to find one, Gary,
because I don't think one exists.
C/M Taylor: I am talking about the magnitude of it.
Mayor: If this Council turns this thing down, which it hasn't,
what would happen?
Tripepi: You want a straight forward opinion? Cal Fed sues and
get a Writ of Mandate out of the Court to build it and I think
you would have to issue the permit. I have talked to Kress about
it.
Mayor: So there is a higher level.
Tripepi: Yes, the Court.
Mayor: So we are not the final word
Tripepi; I was trying to respond to Gary's question. He was not
talking about the equipment. I think it is the building, and the
fact that this commercial zone abuts residential zone perhaps makes
some other consideration that have to be taken a look at.
C/M Taylor: Mr. Mayor maybe we can't stop this one here; lie have
not the intent of stopping cogeneration, I think it has its place
and I think it is good idea, but by the same token when Mr. Butler
Paae 49
or one of the people from Cal Fed made reference that there is
1500 of these on the drawing board now. Just because a company
has the financial means should be entitled to come into a fully
residential area. Put them just because they want.to. That is
not Rosemead's problem that is beyond Rosemead. I guess getting
back to the issue before us tonight, even though, I must say I
object to the extra cost now, it seems that we have to cover the
loopholes and.make sure that it is a thorough report. Because it
is on record now that it won't be a thorough report unless it is
done.
C/M Tury:. If that is a motion I will second it, if not I'll make
the motion.
C/M Taylor: Fine.
Tripepi: Before you vote, can I throw something out? I just want
to make the Council aware that.inasmuch as the developer and of
course Cal Fed want it as complete as possible and it is to their
advantage time wise, they have indicated if there is any problem
with the charges„ they are happy to reimburse the City for this
additional money recognizing that perhaps.'it would have come up
with any one of the proposals.
C/M Tury: No, let us just pay for it.
C/M Taylor: I agree with that. It is not their problem. There's
actually stated that it was not a total cost, and it was time and
material, and Atlantis Scientific was a total estimated cost and
there are extra costs allowed. There might be some question if
they come back for additional money we wouldn't know that. We were
faced with the issue of what do we do. I don't think we should say
o. k. Cal Fed you pay it now. It is our decision.
Mayor: I think I will go ahead with this proposal but I have a
little problem with the statement that even after this if a question
comes up we might be facing the same type of issue again. I really
have problems with that.
C/M Tury: I think he said if these are done, he feels confident.
Dr. McDonald: I don't know how you can state absolutely that nothing
unanticipated will come up. I feel as an environmental scientist that
when we complete this study plus the additional studies I feel that
it is going to be a sound meaningfull document that you can make a
decision with.
C/M.Taylor: Mr. Mayor, can I just say in closing. My comment on
the thing, I would like to say that we have different reasons for
picking Atlantis Scientific, maybe not really different reasons,
but their proposal was the best-like I said 21 pages talking
about the project and Ultrasystem had three or four pages and the
rest of theirs 15 or 20 pages was on the firm. The same with the
BCL. They had approximately 3 or 4 pages or 5 pages and then again
the same thing 15 or 20 pages on their organization. I think that
Atlantis Scientific... the way it was written in there, they have
the experience, they have the information, they have the facilities
and I would hope that we don't get hit with.the extra costs for
the Public Hearings. I don't know what the loopholes would be.
As far as what the people might raise.
Dr.MCDonald: That is always an exposure in these things. We take
the key issues and we try in addition to covering the key issues
plus we serve CEQA required issues. We try to look at the thing
very freshly and try to see any additional areas of exposure. So
we try to cover ourselves so that we can anticipate so that we
don't have anything totally unexpected to handle after the draft
is'completed. We are confident that the issues relevant to the
cogeneration plant will have been covered conclusively and we
don't expect any issue to be raised by the public that is a new
issue.
C/M Tury: Is it possible that the valve would shut off when the
NOX reached a certain level. I realize they are monitored every
six months. Page #10
0
C/M Tury: There are automatic shut offs, that when it reaches
the NOX's allowable limits for a certain period of time, it
automatically shuts down the facility. In conversation with
people that has been brought up and the cost is quite high. I
would like you to take a look at it. I think it might be a factor
that makes it more palatable.
Dr.McDonald: We will have a look at that.
Mayor: Call for the question?
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY
that the amendment to the Agreement with Atlantis Scientific
be approved. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS-PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Mayor: Further comment.
Carmona: I would like to point out something. This is a time
of discovery for me as well. First of all,what bothers me, is
that someone at EPA is saying that they would never approve the
permit. I believe that we have identified all the responsible
Agencies under CEQA, in other words an Agency having jurisdic-
tion.- I would suggest that we get the gentlemen's name with
EPA saying that he is writing to us since we have the phone
number and call him tomorrow and find out what his jurisdiction.
is. The reason is there.is 45 day requirement for responsible
agencies to respond back.to us. If we have missed one, maybe
you gentlemen aren't aware an EIR can be attacked. It is not
so much the content but it is the procedure leading to the certi-
fication that generally comes under attack. It is the weakest
link within the chain.leading into that certification. Conceivably
if it goes back to court,I imagine, someone will look very carefully
at our procedure;. our notifications, have we contacted all the res-
ponsible agencies. We do have a letter from the State Clearing
House saying that they have no jurisdiction, meaning to their
knowledge South Coast Air Quality was the only responsible Agency.
I need to get with you and have to confirm that this EPA consi-
deration is or isn't a responsible agency.
Mayor: There is no way of telling if this thing ever gets hairy
there will probably be people that get involved that realize that
they-have a.responsibility.
C/M Tury: So this thing will have to be an orphan until a decision
is made. Unfortunately, we are the ones that have to make a decision.
Tripepi: We are going to set a precedent in this City.
Dr. McDonald:. Let's get together on it, John.
C/M.Taylor: I would like to have Mr. Carmona's statement verbatim.
C/M Tury: Everyone that would conceivably have say in this has been
contacted haven't they?
Tripepi: As far as we know, yes.
C/M Tury: When.we wrote to South Coast did we get any answers from
a bureaucrat or a member of the Board? Did we get a answer from the
manager of the area or did we get an answer from the board. It is
Dr. Hienschiemer, who supposedly represents us and we voted for him
anyway.
Carmona: We received a reply from the Executive Officer, J. A. Stuart.
C/M Tury: Write him a letter, Ellen.
C/M Taylor: What date were those letters sent on?
Clerk: December 11, 1981.
C/M Taylor: Since it will be a month at the next Council Meeting,
I would like it on the Agenda to see if we have got a response yet.
Page #11
There being no further discussion regarding this item, the
Council Meeting was adjourned to the next regular Meeting on
January 12, 1982 at 8:00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted:
City Clef of the ity of Rosemead
APPROVED:
r ~
l
Special Meeting
January 5, 1982
Page #12