Arcadia city staff opened a public hearing on June 18 to receive comment on the Rogers Garage affordable housing proposal but said no decision would be made after new environmental information emerged.

The council was told staff had discovered the project site appears on the state Cortese list of contaminated sites and that Regional Water Board staff had reversed an earlier position about whether a mapped wetland on the property would be subject to regulation. "We found some new information as we're going through the CEQA process and that's causing us to take a step back," Community Development staff member David Loya said. "CEQA is first and foremost a disclosure and discovery process." (CEQA refers to the California Environmental Quality Act.)

That change prompted about two hours of public comment, mostly from Bayside residents who live near the site and parents of children at Jacoby Creek School. Many speakers urged the city to require more testing and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) rather than relying on a categorical exemption or a shorter initial study. "This site is contaminated," said resident Michelle Warner, a local medical provider. "The ground there had a black sheen from all the fluids dumped on it. This isn't the site to disrupt the soils. We need third‑party safety oversight." Kevin Johnson, a Bayside resident, told the council that tarps and other temporary measures at the site appear degraded and that previous testing data is decades old. "Remediation is not complete for this Brownfield site," Johnson said.

Speakers pressed the council for alternatives, including other parcels in Arcadia and non‑housing uses such as a solar field. "Any project should consider risks and benefits and not just assume that housing is the one and only option," said Helen Cook, a Bayside resident who proposed a solar alternative that would avoid excavation and reduce exposure risks.

Council members and staff emphasized that no action could be taken at the meeting because CEQA is an active process. Loya said staff will re‑notice the hearing at a later date after additional analysis and recommended scheduling a town hall so neighbors, staff and the developer can discuss technical questions. "We're gonna schedule an additional town hall‑style meeting to be noticed in the relative near future," Loya said.

The hearing also produced administrative disclosures: one council member said she would recuse herself because of a potential conflict of interest (her spouse is taking a position with the developer) and staff reported that additional written public comments had been uploaded to the project web page. Several speakers asked that the city consider a full NEPA/CEQA combined review if federal funds are to be used. Retired wildlife biologist Lynn Roberts urged combining CEQA and NEPA work where federal funding is anticipated: "Since federal funding is anticipated, it seems most efficient to consider combining your CEQA and NEPA processes," she said.

No council votes or project approvals were taken. Staff said the project will be re‑noticed for a future hearing after additional environmental analysis, and that the city will propose a town‑hall meeting to allow a more extended public exchange with staff and the developer.

Residents and community groups asked the city to require an independent, third‑party environmental cleanup verification and to explore alternative sites before committing public funds.

The council closed the hearing after public comment and directed staff to continue CEQA review and to return with next steps once staff and regulatory agencies had clarified outstanding technical issues.