The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJuly 3, 1990~- . . ~ _ _ ~ ._ ^ . . . . . . . , . . . . ~ ' - .. _ - ' , ' - _ .. - /..' . .. . A G E'N D A CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~ JULY 3, 199Q . 7c30 P.M _ INVOCATION - ACTION PLEDGE -0F ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Council Members Ciraulo,,Fasching, Gilb, . Harbicht and Young Gilb-.Excused Absence ~ MINUTES of,fhe Long Range Planning Study Session of June 7, 1990, and the.adjourned and regular meetings Approved of June 19; 1990 _ , MOTION: Read al'l ordinances and resolutions by title ` only and waive reading in f,uLl. Adopted PRESENTATION to Ruth Gilb and Barbara Saelid, outgoing members of the Sister.City Commission ADMINISTRATION of Oath of Office to Jo Ann Scott, incoming member of the Library Board -- ADMINISTRATION of 0ath of Office to Janie Steckenrider, . incoming member of the:Senior Citizens' Commission ADMINISTRATION of 0ath of Office to Barbara Hopp, incoming member of the Sister City Commission ~PRESENTATION by Ric Spencer, District Manager.of Azusa Land Reclamation Company (Azusa Landfill) 1: PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Reclamation Plan for the Rodeffer Publ'ic Hearing Closedi Quarry,on Lower.Azusa Road-(continued from J,une 1.9, , Approved; $100,000 1990). Bond required with c ari ying anguage 2. PUBLIC HEARING " addendum ' Consideration of Text Amendment 90-004 to.amend . . Sections 9253.3..1, 9251.2.1 and'9252.2.1 relating to building height to provide an exception to Public Hearing Closed; all'ow.wireless radio masts, towers or antennas , Approved (not including satellite dish anterinas) to be a maximum of 35'-0" in height. AGENDA, 7/3/90 .. ~ ~ ~ 3. PUBLIC HEARING ACTION Consideration of.Zone Change Z-90-001, from PR-3 (multiple-family zone with automobile parking zone) to C-2 D(general commercial zone) with archi- tectural design overlay for the properties at 311-325 E Live Oak Avenue 2616 S Th' d A 4 , . ir venue, public Hearing Closed; area east.of'Third Avenue, west of Fourth Avenue Approved at 26 feet to 44 feet south of the alley. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Text Amendment 90-005 amending Chapter 9 of Article VIII, setting forth Building Regulations for the reduction of earthquake hazards in existing buildings. Public Hearing Closed; Approved 5. Time reserved for those in the audience who wish to address the City Council (f.ive-minute Dominic Holihaus time limit per person). 6. RECESS CITY COUNCIL 7. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a. ROLL CALL: Agency Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gi1b, Harbicht'and,Young Gilb Excused Absence b. MINUTES of the meeting of,June 19, 1990 Approved c. Request to Roll-over Arcadia Redevelopment Agency loan . . Approved d. Request to correct Zahir-Younaei staff report of June Y9, 1990. Approved e. Request to consider and reject Northwest Continued to 5:30 p.m., Corner Prop osal. 7/17 for study session f. ADJOURN to 5:30 p,m., July 17, 1990 8. RECOPNENE CITY COUNCIL 9. CONSENT ITEMS a. Consideration of Text Amendment 90-006, to amend the building height and side yard setback require- ments in the R-M, R-0 and R-1 zones and amend the "Authority" sections of the Administrative Modification and regular Modification procedures /` -2- AGENDA 7/3/90 ~ 9 CONSENT ITEMS (continued) ~ ACTION pertaining to height and setback modifications in the single-family zones (PUBLIC HEARING TO ,public Hearin 8/7/90 BE SCHEDULED). 8 b. Consideration of Final Map 48496, for a 6-unit residential condominium project at~315-~321 qPproved Diamond (Mur-sol, Inc., developer). c. Request to Roll-over Arcadia Redevelopment Approved Agency Loan. d. Recommendation to authorize additional parkway . landscaping along Colorado Street and Colorado Boulevard between Michillinda Boule- vard and the railroad underpass near Santa Anita Avenue. Approved e. Recommendation for preferred alternative regarding San Gabriel Valley Groundwater A roved Cleanup. PP 10. CITY MANAGER Consideration of a request to determine that a "Quick Mart" convenience store is a compatible use in the CPD-1 zone. Continued to 7/17/90 11. CITY ATTORNEY a. RESOLUTION NO. 5538, establishing compensation for various positions in management for Adopted Fiscal Year 1990-91. b. RESOLUTION NO. 5539, establishing compensation for various positions of General Employees Adopted for Fiscal Year 1990-91. c. RESOLUTION NO, 5540, establishing compensation for various part-time employee positions for Fiscal Year 1990-91. Adopted d. RESOLUTION NO. 5541, withdrawing all territory lying within the City of Arcadia from the Longden Lighting District pursuant to the pro- visions of Section 19290 of the Streets and qdopted Highways Code of the State of California. -3- AGENDA 7/3/90 i; . . ' . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ . 11. CITY ATTORNEY.(.continued) ACTION e. RESOLUTION NO. 5542, withdrawing all territory lying within the City of Arcadia from County 'Lighting Maintenance District 540 pursuant to the provisions of Section 5853 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Adopted 12. MATTERS FROM STAFF 13. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS 14. ADJOURN to.5:30 p.m., July 17, 1990, for Study Session on Northwes*_ Corner Project, in memory of Charles Shugert Kinnahan - Contact ABA regarding Santa Anita and First left-turn lane: -9- AGENDA 7/3/90 0•A is -.s 7 ."' Q c2 Trees July 3, 1990 TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RECLAMATION PLAN FOR THE RODEFFER QUARRY LOWER AZUSA ROAD The Planning Commission at its May 22, 1990 meeting recommended to the City Council approval of the Reclamation Plan for the Rodeffer Quarry on Lower Azusa Road. The Commission made the finding that the plan substantially meets the requirements set forth in Section 2772 and 2773 of the 1975 Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). The Commission noted in its recommendation that approval of the plan does not permit the use of the property as a landfill or any other development. On May 23, 1990, Ross &Scott attorneys for the City of El Monte filed an appeal (see attached letter) of the Planning Commission's decision. The hearing for the City Council's consideration was originally scheduled for the Council's June 19 meeting. The public hearing was rescheduled to tonight's meeting in order to allow Rodeffer Investments the opportunity to address issues which were raised at the Commission's May 22 meeting. PROPOSAL The Reclamation Plan was submitted by Rodeffer Investments on April 18, 199 , for the sand and gravel quarry located on Lower Azusa Road in the City of Arcadia. The plan was submitted pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 as amended by Assembly Bill AB747 which requires that vested mining operations have an approved Reclamation Plan prior to July 1, 1990 or the continuation of the surface mining operation is prohibited until a reclamation plan is approved by the City. The Reclamation Plan is not a specific operations plan for reclamation of the gravel quarry. The plan acknowledges that the property must be reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses. The Reclamation plan is not an application for approval of a landfill. If after reviewing all material and receiving all public testimony, the Council approves said Reclamation Plan CC Review - Page 1 July 3j 1990 039YNI 83SV f ) plan the plan would not permit or authorize a landfill or any other type of development of this site. If, in the future, a conditional use permit is filed fora landfill operation or any ther development of this site, environmental documents will be required and public hearings will be held on any environmental impact report and conditional use permit application. PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 states in Section 2712 that: "It is the intent of the legislature to create and maintain an effective and comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy with regulation o surface mining operations so as to assure that: (a) Adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses. (b) The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment. (c) Residual hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated " The SMARA further states: "The lead agency's review of these plans is limited to whether the plan substantially meets the requirements of Sections 2772 and 2773 and the le-d agency's surface mining ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) o Section 2774. Plans that are judged to meet the intent of this chapter shal be approved for the purposes of this Chapter." ANALYSIS SMARA Sections 2772 and 2773 The reclamation plan shall include the following information set forth in Secti v ns 2772 and 2773 of the SMARA. (a) The name and address of the operator and the names and addresses of any persons designated by him as his agents for the service of process. See 2.1 and 2.2 of the Reclamation Plan - Page 2 (b). The anticipated quantity and type of minerals for which the surface mining operation is to be conducted. Reclamation Plan CC Review- Page 2 July 3� 1990 LAST IMAGED See 3.0 of the Reclamation Plan - Page 2 and item 16 of Lockman's June 21 letter (c) The proposed dates for the initiation and termination of such operation. See 4.0 of the Reclamation Plan - Page 2 (d) The maximum anticipated depth of the surface mining operation. See 1.5 and 7.0 of the Reclamation Plan - Pages 2 and 3 (e) The size and legal description of the lands that will be affected by such operation, a map that includes the boundaries and topographic details of such lands,a description of the general geology of the area,a detailed description of the geology of the area in which surface mining is to be conducted, the location of all streams, roads,railroads and utility facilities within, or adjacent to suich lands,the location of all proposed access roads to be constructed in conducing such operation, and the names and addresses of the owners of all surface and mineral interests of such lands. See 1.2, 1.3, and 1.6 of the Reclamation Plan - Page 1 and attached maps (f) A description of and plan for the type of surface mining to be employed anfi a time schedule that will provide for the completion of surface mining on each segment of the mined lands so that reclamation can be initiated at the earliest possible time on those portions of the mined lands that will not be subject to further disturbance by the surface mining operation. See 3.0, 4.0, 6.0 and 9.1.1 of the Reclamation Plan - Pages 2, 3 and 4 and attached maps which show the phasing of the reclamation (g) A description of the proposed use or potential uses of the land after reclamation and evidence that all owners of a possessory interest in the la d have been notified of the proposed use or potential uses. See 8.0 and the April 5 letter from Rodeffer Investments in the Reclamati n Plan -Page 3 and Exhibit 3 (h) A description of the manner in which reclamation, adequate for the proposed use or potential uses will be accomplished, including: • See 9.1 of the Reclamation Plan - Page 3 Reclamation Plan CC Review- Page 3 July 3 199 LASEI IMAGED �� A (1) a description of the manner in which contaminants will be controlled and mining waste will be disposed; See 9.2 and 9.3 of the Reclamation Plan - Page 4 (2) a description of the manner in which rehabilitation of affected streamb.d channels and streambanks to a condition minimizing erosion and sedimentation will occur. See 9.4 of the Reclamation Plan - Page 4 (i) An assessment of the effect of implementation of the reclamation plan on future mining in the area. See 9.5 of the Reclamation Plan - attached sheet (j) A statement that the person submitting the plan accepts the responsibility or reclaiming the mined lands in accordance with the reclamation plan. (See attached letter in Reclamation Plan dated April 23 from Rodeffer Investments) (k) Any other information which the lead agency may require by ordinance. Section 2773. The reclamation plan shall be applicable to a specific piece of pro lefty or properties, and shall be based upon the character of the surrounding area and such characteristics of the property as type of overburden,soil stability,topogra hy, geology, climate, stream characteristics, and principal mineral commodities. The reclamation plan is specific to the Rodeffer Quarry only. The plan is to restore the site to an essentially level condition which would bring the s'te into similar characteristics with the surrounding properties. Title 14 of the California Administrative Code During the May 22 public hearing, Ted-Handel attorney representing the City o' El Monte stated the Plan did not comply with Title 14 of the California Administ ative Code . The City Attorney requested that Mr. Handel provide the City with the sections of Title 14 that were cited. Based upon the City's review of Title 14 and consultation with the State Depar ment of Mines and Geology, it was determined that the Rodeffer's consultant (Lock an & Associates) should address Sections 3502 and 3503 of Title 14. Reclamatio Plan CC Review- Page 4 July 1, 1990 LASER I V1AGED 1 F_) Lockman & Associates in their June 21 letter prepared responses to Title 14 and to certain issues raised during the Planning Commission's public hearing. Section 3502(a) states: "Objectives. Reclamation plans shall be developed to attain the objectives of Public Resources Code Section 2712(a)-(c)" Section (b) Reclamation Plan Elements states: "In addition to the information required by Public Resources Code Section 2772, the following elements shall be included in the Reclamation Plan:" (1) The environmental setting of the site of operations and the effect that possible alternate reclaimed site conditions may have upon the existing and future uses of surrounding lands. See Attachment 1 of Lockman & Associates June 21 response (2) The public health and safety,giving consideration to the degree and type of present and probable future exposure of the public to the site. Lockman & Associates indicates that this element is not included since it is not required under Sections 2772 and 2773 and "City Codes 9521.1. and 9521.2 require health and safety finding by the City Council. Section (b) of 3502 specifically states: "In addition to the information required in Public Resources Code Section 2772, the following elements shall be included in the Reclamation Plan". It is our opinion that Mr. Lockman's statement that this is not included "since it is not required under Sections 2772 and 2773" is inappropriate. Also, Section 9521.1 of the Arcadia Municipal I ode states that "Before a surface mining permit may be granted and before a reclamation plan may be approved, it shall be shown: 1. That the granting of the permit or approval of the plan will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety or injurious to the prop ty in such zone or vicinity." Staff does not agree with Lockman's statement that this is not necessary because it is not required under Sections 2772 and 2773. However, Public health, welfare and safety will be addressed in the environmental impact report Ihich is required for any application for use of this property other than the existing gravel quarry use. (3) The designed steepness and proposed treatment of the mined land's final slopes shall take into consideration the physical properties of the slope material, its probable maximum water content, landscaping requirements, and other factors. In all cases,reclamation plans shall specify slope angles flatter than the critical gradient for the type of material involved. Whenever final slopes approach the critical gradient for the type of material involved, Reclamation Plan CC Review- Page 5 July 3, 1990 LASER IMAGE I . i regulatory agencies shall require an engineering analysis of the slope stability. Special emphasis on slope stability and design shall be necessary when public safety or adjacent property may be affected. See Sections 9.1 and 9.1.1 of the Reclamation Plan. (4) Areas mined to produce additional materials for backfilling and grading, as well as settlement of filled areas shall be considered in the reclamation plan. Where ultimate site uses include roads, building sites, or other improvements sensitive to settlement, the reclamation plans shall include compaction of he fill materials in conformance with good engineering practice. See 3502(b)(4) in Lockman's June 21 letter - page 2 (5) Disposition of old equipment. See Section 9.3 of the Reclamation Plan. (6) Temporary stream or watershed diversions. See 3502(b)(6) in Lockman's June 21 letter - page 2 Section 3503 (a) - (e) refer to "minimum acceptable practices to be following in surface mining operations". Section 3503 (f) Resoiling -This section does not apply to this type of mining operation Section 3503 (g) Revegetation. Lockman's letter notes that this issue will be addressed in the "Backfill Plan". This will be part of the permit for any subsequent filling of the quarry. Section 3504 discusses the Administration by the Lead Agency. This is not required to be included in the Reclamation Plan. "(a) Record Keeping. The lead agency shall establish and maintain in-hou e measures and procedures to ensure organized record-keeping and monitoring of surface mining reclamation under its jurisdiction. The lead agency shall forward a copy of each permit and approved reclamation plan to the California Division of Mines and Geology." The City of Arcadia will establish and maintain record keeping and monitoring procedures. Based upon our review of this Section, this does not have to ble done as a requirement for approval of this Reclamation Plan. Reclamation Plan CC Review- Page 6 July 3, 1990 LASER J AGED `- - "(b) Performance Assurances. The lead agency shall ensure that the objectivvIes of the reclamation plan will be attained. This may include provisions for liens, surety bonds or other security, to guarantee the reclamation in accordance With the approved reclamation plan." In checking with the State Mining and Geology Board office, cities are open ended on what we can require as far as performance assurances. Staff is recommending that the property owner file a $100,000 Surety Bond or other security acceptable to the City, within 30 days after approval of a Reclamati.n Plan for the subject property. This guarantee is to insure that the property owner will proceed in a timely manner in bringing the property into an acceptable alternative use after the mining operation has ceased. Lockman & Associates' June 21 letter also addresses items set forth in the State's "Model Reclamation Plan". These items are not mandatory, but further explain the proposed reclamation plan. The letter also addresses questions presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Section (b) of Section 3653 of the California Administrative Code entitled, "Technical Review for Adequacy of Reclamation Plan", states: "The determination of whether substantial compliance with Public Reso rces Code Sections 2772 and 2733 , 14 CAC Sections 3500-3500, and the Board certified Ilead agency surface mining and reclamation ordinance have been met shall be based on whether all elements of these provisions are necessary to ensure viable, planne reclamation of a particular site are included and are technically feasible so as to satisfy the objectives of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. For example, a description of revegetation efforts might not be necessary for a pit to be used as landfill, just as a description of final slope angles may not be necessary for a graael bar skimming operation. In other sites, however, such information may be critical." The plan does not address in detail how the reclamation of the gravel quarry will be P �' q Y accomplished. This would be subject to future specific application and review. If, in the future, the property owner wishes to proceed with a landfill on this site, a conditional use permit would be required. An operations plan which addresses the specific procedures on how the landfill will be operated would be required as part of the filing of a conditional use permit for a landfill. Any application for a landfill will require an environmental impact report. The environmental impact report will address the specific operation as outlined in the operations plan. In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed plan. The Reclamation Plan CC Review- Page 7 July 3) 1990 i fl LA ER IMAGED Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the plan including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Attached for the City Council's consideration are: 1. The Planning Commission's May 22 staff report which includes: a. The proposed Reclamation Plan submitted by Rodeffer Investments. b. The environmental documents._ c. The May 10 letter from Ross and Scott requesting continuance of the Planning Commission public hearing d. The May 16 letter from Ross and Scott commenting on the Reclamation Plan. 2. The June 21 letter. from Lockman & Associates • 3. The May 23 letter from Ross and Scott appealing the Planning Commission's recommendation. 3. A letter from Sally Tanner Assemblywoman regarding the Reclamation Plan. 4. A letter from E. Adams regarding the Reclamation Plan 5. The May 22 Planning Commission minutes. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS, CONDITIONS AND MOTION Findings_-`:. If the City Council intends to approve the Reclamation Plan the Council should make the following findings: _1. That the granting of the Reclamation Plan does not authorize a landfill o any other type of development or use of this site. 2.. That the Reclamation Plan substantially meets the requirements of Sections 2772 and 2773 of the SMARA and Sections 3502 and 3503 Title 14 of the California Administrative Code. 3: That approval of the Reclamation Plan will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety or injurious to the property in such zone or vicinity. Because the Reclamation Plan is not a permit process, approval does not grant Reclamation Plan CC Review- Page 8 July 3, 1990 LASER IMAGED - ` the authority to use the property for anything other than a gravel quarry. Public health, welfare and safety will be addressed in the environmental impact report which will be necessary for any application for use of this property. '4. That reclamation of the site, subject to an approved conditional use permit, will be in compliance with the Arcadia Municipal Code and is consistent ith the General Plan designation of Industrial. 5. That any future use of the property, per the reclamation plan, will be subject to environmental review and will take into consideration recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage and aesthetic enjoyment. That the City Council shall find that the Reclamation Plan will not have a significant effect on the environment because the Reclamation Plan is not a permit and approval of the Plan does not grant approval for the use of the property as a landfill or any other development. ^Condition(s) of Approval 1. That a $100,000 surety bond, or other guarantee acceptable to the City, be deposited with the City within 30 days after approval of a Reclamation Pl I n for the subject property. This guarantee is to insure that the property owner will proceed in a timely manner in bringing the property into an acceptable alternative use after the mining operation has ceased. Motion= =' If the City Council intends to;:approve the Reclamation Plan, the Council shoul adopt the findings and condition(s) set forth above or as amended by the City Council and move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and find that the plan will not have a significant effect on the environment. Other Action If the City Council determines that the plan does not sufficiently address the issues set forth in Sections 2772 and 2773 of the SMARA and Title 14 of CCR, the Council should refer the plan_back to Rodeffer Investments for revision and a new public hearing-will be scheduled. • Reclamation Plan CC Review- Page 9 July 3, 1990 d LASER IMAGED` . May 22, 1990 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: RECLAMATION PLAN RODEFFER QUARRY LOWER AZUSA ROAD On April 18, 1990, Rodeffer Investments submitted a Reclamation Plan for the sand and gravel quarry located on Lower Azusa Road in the City of Arcadia. This plan was submitted pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 as amended by Assembly Bill AB747. The plan is required by the State. The plan does not permit or authorize a landfill or any other type of development of the site. This plan should not be confused with other applications or hearings that the City has conducted in the past regarding this site. The conditional use permit application (C.U.P. 85-22) submitted to the City in 1985 for a landfill was withdrawn on September 25, 1989. Withdrawal of the conditional use permit application also terminated the City's review of the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed landfill project. If, in the future, a new conditional use permit is filed for a landfill operation or ny other development of this site, new environmental documents will be required and public hearings will be held on any environmental impact report and conditio al use permit application. BACKGROUND In January, 1958, the City Council adopted Resolution 2973 granting a special us permit for the development of natural resources on the subject site. Mining operations began in 1967 and have been in continuous operations since that time. In 1975 the State implemented the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act which required that no person shall engage or commence to engage in surface mining operations without first obtaining a permit to mine and approval of a reclamation plan. Section 2776 of the SMARA states: • Reclamation Plan May 22, 1990 Page 1 LASER IMAGED 3 7 I Rodeffer Investments has submitted the proposed Reclamation Plan for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. NOTICING A public hearing is not mandatory for the review of a Reclamation Plan. However, a hearing was scheduled to allow persons the opportunity to speak to this plan. The Reclamation Plan is not a development project. On May 11, 1990, public hearin notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and the City of El Monte Planning Department . A copy of the Reclamation Plan was hand delivered to the City of El Monte Planning Department and the Norwood Library in the City of El Monte on Apri. 27th. The letter accompanying the plans indicated that a public hearing was scheduled on this plan before the City of Arcadia Planning Commission on May 22, 1990. If a subsequent conditional use permit application is filed for a landfill operation or any other type of use on the subject property, persons who have submitted written requests for notification of a "development project known as the property inert landfill, a public storage facility and industrial uses on Lower Azusa Road in the City of Arcadia" will be notified of all hearings. PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 states in §2712 that: "It is the intent of the legislature to create and maintain an effective and comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy with regulation of surface mining operations so as to assure that: (a) Adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses. (b) The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment. (c) Residual hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated " The SMARA further states: "The lead agency's review of these plans is limited to whether the plan substantially meets the requirements of Sections 2772 and 2773 and the le d agency's surface mining ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 2774. Plans that are judged to meet the intent of this chapter shall be approved for the purposes of this Chapter." Reclamation Plan May 22, 1990 Page 3 LASER MAGE 'y ■ 7 "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring the filing of a reclamation plan for, or the reclamation of, mined lands on which surfac mining operations were conducted prior to January 1, 1976." In 1979, the City added section 9520 Permit and Reclamation Plan Requirement to the Arcadia Municipal Code. This code required that: "A person who has obtained a vested right to conduct surface mining operations prior to January 1, 1976 shall submit to the City Planning Department and receive with a period of 24 months approval of a Reclamation Plan for operations to be conducted after January 1, 1976 unless a Reclamation Plan was approved by the City of Arcadia prior to January 1, 1976, and the person submitted that plan has accepted responsibility for reclaiming the mined lands in accordance with that plan." It appears that the City did not follow through with the requirements of this section. On June 5, 1981, the State Mining and Geology Board certified the City's surface mining and reclamation ordinance as being in conformance with the state policy governing the regulation of surface mining and reclamation in California. On November 26, 1985, E. O. Rodeffer filed a conditional use permit (85-22) for a proposed inert landfill at the Lower Azusa Quarry. In 1987, Assembly Bill 747 amended Section 2770 of the SMARA requiring that "any person with an existing surface mining operation who has vested rights pursuant to Section 2776 and who does not have an approved reclamation plan shall submitl a reclamation plan to the lead agency not later than March 31, 1988. If a reclamation plan application is not on filed by March 31, 1988, the continuation of the surface mining operation is prohibited until a reclamation plan is submitted to the lead agency." The section further reads: "...if plans remain unapproved by July 1, 19 0, the continuation of the surface mining operation is prohibited until a reclamation plan is approved by the lead agency." As part of the application and processing of Conditional Use Permit 85-22 for the landfill and in compliance with AB 747, Mr. Rodeffer submitted a Reclamation Plan in April, 1988 to be considered in conjunction with the environmental impact report and conditional use permit. This plan was written to facilitate the reclamation of the property in accordance with the operations plan submitted as part of the conditional use permit for this property. When the conditional use perrrlit application was withdrawn (September, 1989) there was no further consideration of this Reclamation Plan because the proposed reclamation of the property was subject to an operations plan that had not been approved by the City. Reclamation Plan May 22, 1990 Page 2 LASER IMAGE i Pursuant to §2772 and §2773, the reclamation plan shall include the following information and documents: (a) The name and address of the operator and the names and addr sses of any persons designated by him as his agents for the service of process. (b) The anticipated quantity and type of minerals for which the surface mining operation is to be conducted. (c) The proposed dates for the initiation and termination of such operation. (d) The maximum anticipated depth of the surface mining operation. (e) The size and legal description of the lands that will be affected by such operation, a map that includes the boundaries and topographic details of such lands, a description of the general geology of the area, a detailed description of the geology of the area in which surface mining is to be conducted, the location of all streams, roads, railroads and utility facilities within, or adjacent to such lands, the location of all proposed access roads to be constructed in conducting such operation, and the names and addresses of the owners of all surface and mineral interests of such lands. (f) A description of and plan for the type of surface mining to be employed and a time schedule that will provide for the completion of surface mining on each segment of the mined lands so that reclamation can be initiated at the earliest possible time on those portions of the mined lands that will not be subject to further disturbance by the surface mining operation. (g) A description of the proposed use or potential uses of the land after reclamation and evidence that all owners of a possessory interest in the land have been notified of the proposed use or potential uses. (h) A description of the manner in which reclamation, adequate for the proposed use or potential uses will be accomplished, including: (1) a description of the manner in which contaminants will be controlled and mining waste will be disposed; and (2) a description of the manner in which rehabilitation of affected streambed channels and streambanks to a conditional minimizing erosion and sedimentation will occur. (i) An assessment of the effect of implementation of the reclamation plan on future mining in the area. (j) A statement that the person submitting the plan accepts the responsibility for reclaiming the mined lands in accordance with the reclamation plan. (k) Any other information which the lead agency may required by ordinance. §2773. The reclamation plan shall be applicable to a specific piece of property or properties, and shall be based upon the character of the surrounding area and such characteristics of the property as type of Reclamation Plan May 22, 1990 Page 4 LASER !MGM) t ' overburden, soil stability, topography, geology, climate, stream characteristics, and principal mineral commodities. The Reclamation Plan addresses each of the above requirements. The Plan recognizes that the property must be reclaimed to a usable condition which is re.dily adaptable for alternative land uses. It does not address the specifics on how this will be accomplished. This would be subject to future specific application and revie . If, in the future, the property owner wishes to proceed with a landfill on this sit , a conditional use permit would be necessary. An operations plan would be requi ed as part of the filing of a conditional use permit for a landfill. The operations pla must include the specific procedures on how the landfill will be operated. Any new application for a landfill will require an environmental impact report. The environmental impact report will address the specific operation as outline in the operations plan. Attached is a letter from Ross & Scott representing the City of El Monte requesti g that the Planning Commission continue its consideration of the reclamation pl n for the Rodeffer Quarry. In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed plan. The Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the text amendment including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise an objects of historical or aesthetic significance. Therefore, a Negative Declaration as been prepared for this plan. Attached for the Planning Commission's consideration are: 1. The proposed Reclamation Plan submitted by Rodeffer Investments. 2. The environmental documents. 3. The May 10th letter from Ross and Scott requesting continuance of this p blic hearing. 4. The May 16th letter from Ross and Scott commenting on the Reclamatio Plan. ' RECOMMENDATION ' The Planning Department recommends approval of the Reclamation Plan subj ct to the finding that the Reclamation Plan does not grant approval for the use of t e property as a landfill or any other development. Reclamation I lan May 22, 1990 ` PIge5 LASER I AGEQ. : - PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Review of this plan is limited to determining if the plan substantially meets the requirements set forth in SMARA (cited on page 4 and 5 of the staff report). The Planning Comission should direct staff to convey the Commission's recommendations, comments and findings to the City Council. A public hearin• on this plan will be held before the City Council. Reclamation Plan May 22, 1990 Page 6 • LASER IMAGEp, ' RECEIVED APR 18 1990 CITY OF ARCADIA PLANNING DEPT_ RECLAMATION PLAN FOR RODEF ER QUARRY IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA APRIL 6, 1990 DRAFT • LASER IMAGED)-) • 4 This Reclamation Plan has been prepared pursuant to the Requirements of the State Mining and Reclamation Act and the Arcadia Municipal Code, Chapter 5. APPLICANT: RODEFFER INVESTMENTS 11770 East Warner Avenue, Suite 129 Fountain Valley, California 92708 (714) 751-7000 Harry C. Schrey CONSULTANT: LOCKMAN&ASSOCIATES 249 East Pomona Boulevard Monterey Park, California 91754-7291 (213) 724-0250 W.J. Lockman LASER IN11AGED23 i RODEFFER QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN 1.0 Lands included in Reclamation Plan 1.1 The common name of the quarry is Rodeffer Quarry 1.2 Legal Description of Land PARCEL 1: That portion of Lot 1 of Tract No. 10369, in the City of Arcadia, Coun of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 149, Pap s 95 and 96 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, ying westerly and northwesterly of the westerly line of the land described i the Condemnation Action, Case No. 574211, Superior Court of said County, a certified copy of the Decree had in said action was recorded in Book 3 373, Page 153, Official Records of said County. EXCEPT therefrom that portion thereof lying northwesterly of the centerline described in Parcel 578 in the Final Order of Condemnation in Superior Court Case No. 740724, recorded in Book D3802, Pages 284 to 290 of said Official Records. PARCEL 2: That portion of Lot 2 of Tract No. 10369, in the City of Arcadia, Count' of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 149, Pag s 95 and 96 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said Co nty, bounded on the northwest by the southeasterly line of Lower Azusa Road, formerly El Monte and Covina Road, 50 feet wide, as shown on said Map, bounded on the southwest by that certain boundary line of said Lot 2, shown on said map as having a bearing and length of North 67° 22' 55" West 1287.40 feet, and bounded easterly and southeasterly by the westerly lute of the land described in the Condemnation Action, Case No. 574211, Superior Court of said County, a certified copy of Decree had in said action was recorded in Book 38373, Page 153, Official Records of said County. 1.3 Size: 85 acres 1.4 Information Map -Attached as Exhibit 1 is a map showing: - Boundaries; - Topography; - The location of all streams within or (and) adjacent to the lands; - The location of all roads within or (and) adjacent to the lands; - The location of all railroads within or (and) adjacent to the lands; - The location of all utilities within or (and) adjacent to the lands. 1 Id LASER IMAGE` 1.5 Description of the geology of the general area and the area to be mined The Rodeffer Quarry is part of an alluvial fan, known as the "San G briel Fan", sloping southerly from the San Gabriel Mountains. The fan ex ends about 8 miles southwesterly and is approximately 4 miles wide at its southern end. Its surface slope averages 50 feet per mile. The depth of material acceptable for commercial production of aggregate is slightly more than 200 feet at the northerly head of the fan, and increases gradually to at least 900 feet at the southerly base of the fan. The lowermost limit of commercially acceptable material has not been established. Upper recent alluvial de o osits are commercially preferable to older, more consolidated formations. 1.6 Name and address of owner of all surfaces and mineral interests: Rodeffer Investments 11770 East Warner Avenue, Suite 129 Fountain Valley, California 92708 2.0 Name and Address of Operator 2.1 Company Name and Address: Three-D Services, Incorporated 134 South Bielec Lane City of Industry, California 91746 2.2 Name and address of designated Representative: Charles Clark Address: Same as above Telephone: (818) 443-0505 3.0 Materials to be mined The type of materials to be mined are sand and gravel deposits fro s the sedimentary material of the San Gabriel Fan. The sediments range from boders exceeding 8 feet in diameter to clay-size particles. The aggregate material is excellent and is derived from the Holocene (recent geologic time period) a uvial fan. Annual production from the San Gabriel Fan exceeds 10 million short to of processed aggregate. 3.1 Total quantity of material to be mined is estimated at 20 million tons. 3.2 Total quantity of material remaining to be mined is estimated at 1 million tons. 4.0 Time of Operation 4.1 Approximate date of initiation of quarry operation was March, 1967. 4.2 Estimated date of termination of quarry operation is January, 1992. 2 LASER h AGE :' - i i j 5.0 Quarry Permit This quarry has been continuously operated since March, 1967 and is consider d to be a vested surface mining operation under Section 2776 of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). 6.0 Mining Plan 6.1 Description of Mining Plan The mining is an open pit multibench operation with possible dragline during conditions of high ground water. The material is processed on-site wiih no waste. The processed material is stockpiled on-site for sale. 6.2 Mining Plan Attached as Exhibit 2 is the Plan showing ultimate contours upon compl tion of the quarry operation. No phasing is necessary, because of the small quantity of remaining materials. 7.0 Mining Depth The maximum anticipated mining depth is 160 feet. 8.0 Proposed use after reclamation It is proposed to utilize the lands after reclamation for Light Industrial use developed compatible with surrounding residential uses and accommodating the extension of existing equestrian trails. No General Plan amendments or one changes are contemplated. Attached as Exhibit 3 is the acknowledgement of the land owner indicating his knowledge of the proposed land uses as required by Section 2772(g) of SMARA. 9.0 Accomplishment of Reclamation Plan 9.1 General description of Reclamation Plan The lands of the Rodeffer Quarry will be backfilled with suitable inert .olid materials pursuant to all city, county, state and Federal requirements. The final grades presently considered will be adequate for the property to a rain by gravity to Lower Azusa Road. 3 2C LASER IMAGED 9.1.1 Phasing of Reclamation Plan The backfill will be phased as shown on Exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7. The phasing accommodates reclamation commencing along Lower Azusa Road and along the west property line. The phasing provides: Reclamation of 4 acres in 12 months Reclamation of 9 acres in 30 months Reclamation of 13 acres in 5 years Complete reclamation in 20 years 9.2 Control of Contaminants There are no known contaminants presently on the site. However, prior to any backfill, a Site Audit will be conducted to verify this fact. There will be no contaminants in the backfill material. Dust as an air contaminant will be controlled with water and the surfacing of principal access roads. 9.3 Control for disposal of mining wastes There are no mining wastes resulting from the Quarry and processing operation. Hence, no disposal activity. All metal and wood remnants of the mining equipment will be removed from the lands. 9.4 Affected streams and stream banks The San Gabriel River to the east of the property has not been affected by the quarry operation. There is no tributary drainage and reclamation will involve provisions for property drainage only. It is understood that the environmental assessment of this Reclamation Plan will be made by the City of Arcadia. • 4 LASER AGE • ri G. %.. C1 V tD • III APR 26 1990 LOCKMAN ,& ASSOc tATES CITY OFARCADIA P CORPORATION PuAraviNtaiJaPT CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 249 EAST POMONA BOULEVARD•MONTEREY PARK.CALFORNIA 91754.7291 TEL.(213)7240250 =AX:(213)724.9999 PRINCIPALS ASSOCIATES W.J.LOCKMAN RQBERT L.McGRATH NORBERT W.WEINBERG DENN S A.KACHMARSKY RONALD J.LOFY.PH.D. RICHARD J.WILSON LELAND F.JOHNSON MARK W.FOSTER W.L.JENSEN PAUL S.MITCHELL MICHAEL J.WAGNER RICHARD L.WALKER RICK L.FERO April 24, 1990 CHARLES W.LOCKMAN Ms. Donna Butler Planning Department City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91006 Gentlemen: Rodeffer Quarry Reclamation Plan Supplement No. 1 Please consider this a supplement to the above-mentioned Reclamation 3lan dated April 6, 1990, by adding the following: 9.5 Effect of implementation of the Reclamation Plan on future mining in the area. • Reference is made to the mineral land classification of the greater Los Angeles Area Special Report 143 dated 1982, prep red . by the Department of Conservation, Division of -Mines and Geol gy. The Rodeffer Quarry is a portion of Resource Sector D - San Gabriel Alluvial Fan, West. As of 1982, 150 million ton of reserves remain in Sector D with an estimated 600 million ton of non-permitted resources. The permitted estimate was based ol an excavation depth of 150 feet. The reclamation for the Rode fer Quarry provides for an excavation depth of 160 feet. Hence, the Plan will not affect the estimated reserves of 150 million ton. . • • TRI-COUNTIES OFFICE:422 EAST MAIN STREET ILVENTURA.CALIFORNIA 93001,• TEL:(805)648-3135•FAX:(805)653-1700 p ,pp�� $� ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE:31732 RANCHO VIEJO ROAD,SUITE C C.SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CAUFORNIA 92675 •TEL:(714)240-0747 LFFS R0.jG68 AG F y'y 8 ' Ms. Donna Butler -2- April 24, 1990 Arcadia Planning Department However, the Reclamation Plan will preclude the development f a small portion of the estimated 600 million tons of non-permitted resources because it is considered unfeasible to remove the back- fill materials proposed by the Reclamation Plan. Given the long and narrow geometry of the quarry, the non-permitted resources lost are insignificant. V- truly y.urs, 7 / 41 . Lockman, P.E. 'resident WJL:mle [2580PLAN] cc: Mr. Ronald E. Schwegler Mr. Harry C. Schrey • LASER 141AG �, ODEFFER INVESTMENTS RECEIVED 11770 E. Warner Avenue, Suite 129 APR 24 1990 Fountain Valley, Ca. , 92708 (714) 751-7000 CITYDFARCADIA PLANNING DEPT, (714) 751-7720 FAX NUMBER April 23, 1990 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I hereby accept responsibility for the reclamation of the gravel quarry on Lower Azusa Road in the City of Arcadia under Section 2772(j) of the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. This notice is in reference to the Reclamation Plan which we have filed with the City of Arcadia. RODEFFER INVESTMENTS • E. O. ODEF • LASER G E _`� • J Ga:in• 11 i, -�� r ' __ - ::i;; - •,• ;•.'- /' ,• R* n I�r/.i. E:t;t!' _ - •,..-!�','^ _-'. 7f`` I ,:r' ---`� ea•W /-'i J60 "` T .,,,, •,i., _ -;'1 e•OW-aM; ',,��y. -i• r, r., a _ a /e./, •/ ._iii I!! ,- - 75 ARR .Y3R'7f'r r 6 ti:: �,' L ea _r. s.e t;1 ,47, y 1�® Br—3�1, f a• ... ®,;,•.s„,. •4V t:9 -f y.f.4 ,. y...; • �UCJ- ;� ... .J:359 a,.,_.,•.• ti. ` �- �ir:4,j '` �•r- `. V Ora ...,r..41,/!..n. •�• �l" (�, a. ... \ _ J ,111 ®�/• i F �., _.-� _ ,4^ 4•_ -}7�� ,.: ,41•••,.4i% .4'F..7.: If-t)rs r'•% .,_____..1. ._ /�i i��%� _• (' /l 4/ -� • K•3'/•••.Yx..Sri 1 .d . / 11 j�� • / , •,n (' plll C�• I/� I -i•,. --_ -° ".` *`..S `r* j.' :=� ,' ,r=ubstaytLon' �•'; ' i •0j1)}-35:p . , //•. ....2-:-.-. `s_ _}w/;•t.h•'. r _ /. / / 8 �:•/ Agy� 1 / ' 1.�!»`` ,•. :-=mss- .l.\�! ....tr 4'.ti TT. ,.'' /.�/' 85 a: m _• ARte••�� t--= Y ' I,• ;y` -moo` ,;;/ /Z' /------- 12 � .• 1 ;;- '° / +l PROJECTS r• /,:l ", .••lr = sue / - 4F ,,S� J•' i{t ''' ��: '' F c F!e,\ � "$.. !.' ala 's I nJ 11 l ...:!..„,;,...:.....Li'.4;X:47:-. //;‘, ' ' i • 117 /4/ -- !I-7...j ' iiiiir / Sch o _ : L J k+ / �»••, -. •F.� __. L LOS AM ELE •'322 •t - - / '/• •,-•••:.•...-�y ;T- / ^�,y _ T.:' '_fin'11 ,,:. .(16.4 itiri. ir ri,,.. , , 17-22-")-." . k/rn; P,i ��° 11 '•;;,m .,. .;•.I-�tr_��t. f;..,,�,•, �, I ID , ��F 1 o I -(�jM',•:rr,1;Y•''' __-P taw' - Sumo AveP 7.C.\ 30 •' �' i , � � I ,'..•�;1.�:��.._ - _ ANjpNA 1 ,seh•,__—: -1. 1 r —:"-i (sr or I 1�' l l gRN':r R s. I i 40 sr J_SO�s++,� o • I :d'• = i I T E , c BM 317�'�; ; ' \ = , 3os. •--- '''''. *fr. Ail/ P.7 alliP Ir A � / ` / •\ •Sierra Viet& I 2 Laren jp•4 :,,/,,' / ' ' ` // High Seh I � Q�' , Elwin 9c6 T Y j ' _/I 43ft - • Ce er 3o � '1' ' / SOURCE: USGS EL MONTE (1981) & BALDWIN PARK (1981) QUADS NOTE UTILITIES IN LOWER AZUSA ROAD NOT SHOWN SCALE 1' • 2000' 1\ '� Rodeffer Quarry Reclamation PlanI� •` INFORMATION MAP EXHIBIT 1 -,. \ $ei .,....• -•-,.....,--:.— ------"1----.. •_ _-.,... -...-----.7=--.-- - = Z .:___ __,.• -,---114. --2- - \ - — • ,_-_____,ii.,- jr.,...._,.•---:----....;..L.,;::..T...:.; ..L.. .. ----------- ----__ --,-—— a • •.:• ..,,-:-.... , --Tr% ....—_-__a---------------- •- ,. ..... . ....____ ......\ s,....._. ,. • , ..„:•... , ... • -.....-7,—,....-,.___------_______ . • ... ...,-- -.•.---„--,----, ........., ‘ , N\'.',.:.•. ...7;r.,, -,,--. p _;- _ 1•,:i 1• . !' ,A- , ..•.. -,.',\' ..0 , ,*- - — - - - - - - - - - -= - - --- - -. ‘, --s ' l' . . !. ' -,r. , , , , . ..„ ..,, I , 1,111 ..!,i 4, , ........ ‘,. . . ....._ - __ ... • . , ., . 1 ......--- , ‘ • Ili :ro. .....: , :. ...... .. ... . --_. _ . , , . N 1 I i a ) .1 . -ql 1 Ii , . ....... ,s, , -_........ .s 1 I (l•1 : 7 lie!,il % t , . k , i . : 1 .T I ,, u,..44 1 1 4 t,1,,..:. r..0 ...I.,' , 1 , ti illt, ••., •ii l• . t .i •' '' ......\-- -....._. .. ....N.:..%,1,‘,.'llip,4s. ....... _•---7,-..-s _-_-, - .. . ■ . ' "....„:`--t•-...-. _.■-•.__-----..-.; ■ . •••• .4. •4 /.11• I I I \‘r, , 1 - I 0 , , i 1 . .• i 1 I 1 0\I. . I II l! II" '---.' 4... ..`s, - .7-.-. ...... ... ..... •:•,,...,..\ ...../. .. N. i % II I I "to ts.r.---.._...-.----,•••-••••Ii.,''',;'.!:-sk... s% •% . I II i I 1 •..• ) II I i 1 1: . ll' N:I I ill'1.'--) , bi 1 1 44, -SZ.,. .44 •*,,,::::.,- Ng. ...... ,_ , i: 1 1 i i ... ...1,...r.ill I( , . ■ .. / 4 •II 11•6• I, • • , I. % '••••, 1 0 . V— 'I. \k.. :'•••• 'ZZ:•S wa....... • / /..--. i_ •••...... --... • \ *4 '''' - - .:: -_ -4,.. _ i. .. ! v • IPIIIii.)11 ,,C.... ..'--.-._ .. 4Z:7 s - ‘ • •! ...• : oil:1 I i r • ''''.--,,-,-,•.....:,_ \ s.:-"-ts_ - .".--. -- — .‘.----_' _ _ _- ' , 1 ' I zs — — — I ../1,1 -"11 I I tt% k . ----„, .. . . --— I.,—— ' --() .II. 11 ' . , „Mr .--- -.. , -_ . _ ..4,.. — 011,17 .--sc, ... , . —\ i:' I, '14 11 il ;/ . ..:.... ..,‘ 41,j,.....,..,....... ^' ,...„. 1-....r •Z' il h.i ' II c--. \ \• ;.■%.'IrIL.. -'— ' '-"‘e,t ? I/I I . ••■ woo 114,•-• ,T•,. I ; 1 % . 4, ...... ..... , .27.8.---• ..t , . , \ , 1 ( • ..-4-II •,....•11 ' .,;.\\-- --- -- .._.. - •_ , '':. j 4' s''.. 4 If . II . ."--::- ao. - ir\ .4...._ -'25——-, ` • ' • .1/441111th. .. .- s—, --------‘,-<- „ 9: r4:... _ --•- s...% • 11 r II..N,1 . ..., --.......:„ . ) ,_ _ _..,_ I i'l OH 1•:" , --- ::'• o _.iii 1.....! .......r....\ .._ ___..._. .....-.._.--, -41.1 "."'".......-"Il■ ■ ..--- • '. • li:: .,III !II - \ --- ----- c."7 - - _ ___ - --' . . /.411. .....\,-- --:.-....... _--. --. -..... . --.... --,_ ,- '.--...,.. „.". .. J! II 1.. 11 -11;•/e.1 .4 I. •ii ' \ ...44.4%;.,...._.Z. :,...........:...- ......., ...... .. 7.---, -.......1130,.. .1 •St II II • ( k .....-.........,, ' *t.'-••=-:,_ , \--,-,._. ----.:-.; A..,,,.;•■ i ii ....''..............., ....4!".... -....;:j...„, i 1 I I ( , ......Z.e.‘,14• * ------.'.- * 1 , im. ..... -....... .'•• ..V,./ I . II ' —2 k , ......._ .....z.......; ■7Z2:,eC 1 1441 ,...,,,,..........•',....„,zz..... ..,....._,... .• ml,../ ..'et.'■••••• /1-:‘41.411 \ , .........-..„ c„.... , . r-- --"\-- • -..,-----, -;.t-,..... .... ...._... -. - --\--- CI) . M • SOURCE:BKK ---. ::, - • . . __. C) , . • ., . • M Rodeffer Quarry Reclamation Plan _ 7\7) MINING PLAN EXHIBIT 2 • r ODEFFER INVESTMENTS 11 770 E. Warner Ave. , Suite 129 Fountain Valley, Ca., 92708 (714)751-7000 (714)751-7720 FAX NUMBER April 5, 1990 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We are the owners of the possessory interest in the Lands of the Rodeffer Quarry and hereby acknowledge the proposed uses after reclamation of Light Industrial with provisions for the extension of existing bridal trails. It is understood that this complies with Section 2772(g) of SMRA. Very truly yours, 60. EFFER eor/h Rodeffer Investments EXHIBIT 3 LASER' IMAGED' • ...,<• -J.:•-tea- - 4 : ��ak—i•�i:" r�s..•sem y?=r-= -r'6z_- --a.r� ty ` - r--'nom=� .'l .�,• N, \` J- �.. �4 .1 I ., - - -- Lo - - — - -''I'' ? ': •ir ,.:. � ' 4 4 - - - 1 i -- Loo - , 1 h n// �. • S.. J ' .._ I 1 1y r I• \ / ii !. '� \,• DEbv.s box. -�� -1p\ t� '• III , ' �� I� ill AREA ... �':� \ _�•Q�„.\, ` ` u i . i ij ! 1,�` I � (J • AiCiA' COuPLE"TSD wrna N �% •z......;1., \ - ' \” I - -_ - "I I • I ill °„rTi>zT OG OpEpeITIGNS. i � '� -- \N\ - w_ -..—-- - -1 n 1 -�7 ', • Ail I'i�1 ^•II / i''.!!.. _ r' -•. i �,, , _ III ;'I 11 1 /\' LNIOYAP-.D bE¢fA ' - ��/y ,'%1 -I ' �� _ ~� 41Y II•E►tTT1A 1JGE %i''s\ 't? �u �s n`°. IPPP �4 I 44.;)1/4,;I' .G GIG ST►110d � ' •.•• 1� r• A c' ! �'• 0' �+%........... •.• .- - .,J II TIPli)1 C3 SOURCE:BKK rn CD n • rrRodeffer Quarry Reclamation Plan•zz, kr, PROPERTY CONTOURS AFTER 12 MONTHS OF BACKFILL EXHIBIT 4 • . . . . • • , ' • --....-Nal. ..,v.f.....4,...,41,1,6....7.....-,...--.6.0,....... ..;...,, ,,.. j--••• ,:,_ •._ :.1 ,21...:•„i„___,,.........,a,..,,„;,„,..,Tf' ....r. ...,...,_. ' .,...,.,,...=.=---•ft..=-,...c=i7....:i 1".'.7....."-______________---• .1-1-r?--- ''- .... .-_____- -...--- -_,T:r........%''•-••:_N•_L.:,-r---'rr_._F. .,.. ...r.4.....r. --n_-11-2:_. •).-.;:: ".\,.$-- • .- ..„ . - ,.s.1.I,7 _-. • ..- _________, . . • / ... - — -' -• •••• -• l 1, 1 i .•-•••_., •• ..• -% i ••••••l'A•••... %. / .••4r. .i WI. tas a i .• oin I N\. • .e''.?? /:, 4 A / 'J• ....-• 4 .t ..,,„ i i .k . I 1 9 !rti. ..... ; 1 1 • 1 ' -I lid'• . i y • I, ., \ . , . ; . \. Do.1112.16 dori - . . f • / , . , 1 e. .1111 . I • •• • . -.. • \ ,. ,.•1.4 • an.I si "IC N.•••• 86 -J..... / i• i i I 4 % I ■1' • I II 1 i • II 1 i i 4 .:.I I li . . . ., .1 . C)N. . •41i•'II: • '1: I _..., r)- - .1 ix ‘ % .\ • • .• i I t 1 !;11411•4 i iiji ,,__,) • ... ••••• : ' • 44,. ...-•'`•••,-,,..i....1.:Z.. i "P.:*,-- 'I • .`• •••• . . . • ---i 1 1, •a •••a . .,.... ..• "•••, .• : I •:1 i , . ,I 1 ...• IP .-4. ,.. ...,, ...... i• ',11 i• 1 r_ 2.1.111zA.IJC.e.. --" '-', s. \,,\..•,,:s-'4C-:-..... -:.........k.„------Z.--•-11.0'-'-..— r z-4--:-". • '• .;1111Thr....N. ; i Cjg ... ,• i it. i r, I I ii II 1;:..ti':1.1)I 1 iii 11:■II:ii? II III .. t r• '''''' .I.;`... '••..'..;,.., . % ‘4. k -*:. •••._ -......•••........ „.--..... ,. :.'• '''...,""•Ni ".---"'""''-• s-1.',,:pc. i 8 i.-..,.. .. " r".t ."- . ••••. - ' •• N .. .-..-__- .4••"__, „„ 1 I -;.. •••••1k ''''•••s . -••-••„2,,,,, ",.:— 1 r: likr...6.e.-' I.,.... i . '.9 . 'NT,' s . ..-7.0 0 - - ''. sai • ./ • ■• 11, li'L...-.-.1',:i i El . -- v.• ,/ -.re 7 n" 1■,.; -::- •k. .. 3 -,-,-- .:...;, --1 , .k'sZ'ks' ...,' • ,,,,,,.. ;00 -:. 1 .: \ .--, --.... 4'4. I • - • 1 ....,. ' •* .......\/ \ -...._ ....."---'-_,-‘-. .•_•-4?-";. alp- . .....,.. .......'• .. : %. ....aZS \ . . ..........-$ - . ---..,-.•= ,...,, ..- .' :. • "-----.:."`■...., :.• r - -.• , ,-•." ,. 1 \t, ...I i• . • . ..., .. ••. , I lie . Ail...4 ":•••------...•.„. ......N. )( --. ..---.. -------...zz, .::.„. .... • ------,` . . .,,e"litild , -ieJ• fie il,ir ..q.p.. :.-. --, - .„........,,---....„... .1*..,.. ,s7 II: •••• . -...\-- 1 11,!..,1: • tl "•-• c.-....z.:4?-- -,":' ---:-•'•... iv. ' .,0,•:.11,. 14 ......,..,. -..z.....% -- •-........ ..„_,,,.....-. "N. - --4-7.1.: •-••-._ .--•'•,... ....-..011 II --_,\ -......\-- :$..4• .L --C•....r-...7-1_ ___..cf:'I: • ( , ••• ... -.... ... -•.__... - ---...„,......... • .. li ) ‘■ 4.-...„.... -.... . ...---.-..,...• .a.f.i '------' ....-' \ .......1.1...,. 1... I I , ..'..'••, s?::■ ...s.',.. , .."..‘ ........‘ • ...... .......... ••••••%.1.1i• ... .‘ • •• 'Z...,••••■'!••••&•. s ..:›1•Z...;..7.''''. \ '••■ • ••••,.!• ••'.' \ • .s.1...'...' ' ,••••••• . k ' SOURCE:BKK r— • co rn 7J =WM& • Rodeffer Quarry .Reclamation Plan Dm. - PROPERTY CONTOURS AFTER 30 MONTHS OF BACKFILL EXHIBIT 5 . . . , . • . • • \ _\,„ . IT,. ,_ 7."-"'"'",. =1••■•■••■••••• ra,- , . ... ) ., ---r—r•-•*•a- —cr -- ... "... - ...." ... ..z.....r..... "wa.A6....s....mamni,.. .......,..=-•-• cleal.zm,..■•■=1.(10..=sr-vac,.-••-•-..-.. .-..2 ,=„e--* az.==1:.--mxr -.1.e.'""____::---.-----.=if.--.-...-...- .-- ___._ ,__.:. _:_srii. ..1...z2L- • t,I.h.--9 f -.. '..'.'-- =-- -- - --.. • st..e is=t=1.4.1. . ............. ... .!.).12 Ido ‘...71t,• AP P R 0)C. IS ',GEES OF R.EGLAIME.Ca LAND --.$1, 0, ....— .„... .., _ t4 •-.• -ri,,:„....,f • •,,, s.tz,,.....: I .. % ,.../. • ••••• N' , . -._... 7". --- 5,c. ___ - - •k. • . _......._........._..--..--......trr . . ... ..- I CT . • e 0 / .•-• ------^' ..._.___.___...____ ....._...vp, ..-...-....___________.. s 1 /114 : .1.1. :■ii...:17• no* ‘...: ' • 71V-Lt.•II.,... •,.....4:' (1/4ki'l .... .. . ...._.... . . . . v 4) „, ... . -• I : : ..:.. :,.."[lir:1;146(• ' II .' - - - -....,- ----, ' ` '11 . 1 .: .I• ;!I :I 0 a 1 ...... ...00. ma • I li a ;„ ,i.a in , \ . ' ,11 1 A i Ie. -N. ..„ • . ,u , a I ..• .:•:.% -----,._- _1 ' '• - •.• '. • ' t 1 lif i., 1 , . -. •...• . .4... ,„..._. \ .. . _ -• ; 1 .__•••-'- , . ,. •,.. --. -_ .. , • , . - . , , ... 0 .. • ,-,._ 1 - - , ..: it oir \ ■11.----' -.- . ..... . • ENTZAMC.G. ''-'2-...„...___-3•-•'' •X‘N_, .\ --•••1- Zi•- .. . _..-' 7.1. 11 - )44.... r . --- __,....."`....----,. ---:, - ■___ . • /__ . JI .0 . $ te A-- ---.. --- .7.-.:-..---s_,.„,:,,-;-... - -_,--, ,-,,, ,,,_)•‘ . :.....„ .. .......,..._„:„..... ---c _ ., ......„,...‘„,._RA. tom ,..,- • ,\ ...".-.5 • ... •2.41. . kr / -1 II 7t, 1 1 II - .• %-4,..--■nt..– cl( -1":\-el_ p . , . -. \ -`,.. -37,-, . , - • , I if , ....41 '-`, .. ..• i , . _ ... • A-- ,6.1::",,_-.,...._-s-—,,,.••-..,.-.....0,...„„z.i„L..-.„.,-.,...._...__..._-...00_...._,. _.:.,.l. .-f#1.,•,,,..,„).„,a-.._-..„, ,...u.A A_.-..• , •. V.•,i • -,-„ --I I I; - --- '- .- . ,_ .... 1 i A„ 1ii l 1 ,r., .., - ..... — •••.z , '--N ,'11., 11 I-. k NIOTEs: t.CuRu4C. Tglf: moor, op-Ns R.e.u...ASAATiCit..1 Puma, ....:” ':::::: (..`••:..... ....”- -... -•:- -------(All , .. il j;. ''. h A al.,.■. ........• -- ■•:...... - ,...1 E•e. Louvrez at.e.16 Toe. WeVre.ILI--c 156441‘. OF THE. ...": "".:::::" .1• s",...."....- ----:"\'''..... .,, , ... ih 41 . r • ...-._ --...- ---...,,-41. , ...-.---, ,i• • .i)11 , oumzey .% FILL OPe.R.A.T1CASS IN TPie. victual"( Dic.TATE. :,-, 2.4aTP.IN -roe. ■Ppiccl. 5'raze. Putzioo TIM- M•t•h•nitr- ?• - --4-7...; -----: , 144C.VTEM.L..st• p0E-no).1 oc 114e- auXr-ILY *3“-i- "46-SEW0-1 --, • ■■•••• • k SntxXut b.1.1.'y etorrTgLEty 1ZO. aft .... •••••• ,I/ .... k i . ... 5.Fm.34T-T. C11.1..NCT Vbe.10,..1 0 "Toe. 5 E.R.N PLAN •50ALI- --....„ --..... . ,. :....--...•1 ... -.... --.-4,........ -...‹......-,...... MX.=0 V1206% The. u:Asn+ 16.1 A NOUN•-•NESMER.I..:( Clillseanclui ...-A"'\ . - .......... -7:-- ....... ............... ....iz.......„! , \ '"'•..... N.--,C--k... '-I-.■ ....-t.. r-- --\\-- - - ..=., - co.) i-ri SOURCE:BKK = 7Z° . ..-0 . CD rri t.... Rodeffer Quarry Reclamation Plan _ c---.) PROPERTY CONTOURS AFTER 5 YEARS OF BACKFILL - EXHIBIT 6 . .• . .......m.•m m..=.■■•-_ - c -��.— mil_ Tr oS c \33 340 1p-t`,9 `i?s u�a `�0 S s k 4•014N■ 2.596 A��RpGE is n ` co k ENTRANCE da \ aa0 I . k , ` 340 k 335 airs I k cio rn . Rodeffer .Quarry Reclamation Plan n PROPERTY CONTOURS AFTER COMPLETION OF BACKFILL EXHIBIT 7 File No. Reclamation Plan CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA A. Description of project: Reclamation Plan as required by the State Surface and Mining Act of 1975, amendment AB747 for a vested quarry located on Lower Azusa Road in the City of Arcadia B. Location of project: s Lower Azusa Road. city of Arcadia C Name of applicant or sponsor: Rodeffer Investments D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the env=ronment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached Initial Study. E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: The Reclamation Plan is not a permit and approval of the Reclamation lan does not grant approval for the use of the property as a landfill or ahy other development. Any future application for use of the property will require an Environmental Impact Report and an approved Conditional Use Permit. Date: May 11, 1990 _ -_Abk— ` - Signature Date Posted: Senior Planner Title LAS ,R IMAGO File No. Rarlamad•inn ptan ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent Rodeffer Investments • 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 11770 E. Warner Ave. , Suite 129 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 751-7000 B, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available a. Unstable earth conditions or in public water supplies? changes in geologic substructures? - b. Disru tions, dis lacements, com- S. Exposure of people or property P P _.. to water related hazards such as paction or overcoverinq of the soil? Y flooding? c. Change in topography or ground / 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: surface relief features? a. Change in the diversity of species, , d. The destruction, covering or or number of any species of plants , modification of any unique geologic or physical features? microflora andeaquaticplants)?, crops, ,/ e. Any increase in wind or water b. Reduction of the numbers of any /� erosion of soils, either on or off unique, rare or endangered species / the site? of plants? _e/ f. Changes in siltation, deposition c. Introduction of new species of or erosion which may modify the / plants into an area, or result in a channel of a river or stream. Y barrier to the normal replenishment g. Exposure of people or property to of existing species? --- geologic hazards such as earthquakes, / 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result landslides, mudslides, ground failure, / — or similar hazards? VVV a. Change in the diversity of species, 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, a. Substantial air emissions or fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, deterioration of ambient air quality? insects or microfauna)? _ b. The creation of objectionable I/ b. Reduction of the numbers of any odors? � unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Alteration of air movement, — moisture or temperature, or any c. Introduction of new species of change in climate, either locally 1110/ animals into an area, or result in or regionally? — a barrier to the migration or move- / 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: went of animals? —✓ d. Deterioration to existing wildlife o a. Changes in currents or the course habitat? of direction of water movements in / —' — fresh waters? ✓ 6. Noise. Will the — proposal result in: b. Changes in absorption rates, a. Increases in existing noise levels? drainage patterns, or the rate and — — amount of surface water runoff? b. Exposure of people to severe / c. Alterations to the course or / noise levels? — — flow of flood waters? ✓ — 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal • /.,''' produce new light or glare? d. Change in the amount of surface — water in any water body? B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in 1 a—bsu stantial alteration of the e. Discharge into surface waters, or present or planned land use of an area? in any alteration of surface water --' — quality, including but not limited to 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal temperature, dissolved oxygen or / result in: turbidity? ✓ a. Increase in the rate of use of any f. Alteration of the direction or natural resources? _ rate of flow of ground waters? _ g. Change in the quantity of b. Substantial depletion of any / y ground nonrenewable natural resource? !� waters, either through direct additions — or withdrawals, or through interception of any aquifer by cuts or excavations? -1- LASE IMAG • ,5 MAYBE NO ( HO `J YES MAYBE 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal � 18. Aest( r„ Will the proposal result • • involve a risk of an explosion or - in a oostruction of any scenic the release of hazardous substances vista or view open to the public, or (including, but not limited to, oil, will the proposal result in the • pesticides, chemicals or radiation) creation of an aesthetically offensive in the event of an accident or ,/ site open to public view? upset conditions? _ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result 11. Po elation. Wi 12 the proposal alter in an impact upon the quality or the ocation, distribution, density, quantity of existing recreational or growth rate of the human popul a- / opportunities? lion of an area? ✓ 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the ' . 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect proposal result in an alteration of existing housing, or create a a significant archeological or demand for additional housing? • historical site, structure, object / or building? ✓ 17, Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. • a. Does the project have the potential a. Generation of substantial addl- •" to degrade the quality of the environment, tional vehicular movement? substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish • b. Effects on existing,parking or wildlife population to drop below facilities or demand for new parking? ✓ self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, c. Substantial impact upon existing reduce the number or restrict the range transportation systems? of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the d. Alterations to present patterns major periods of California history of circulation or movement of people / or prehistory? and/or goods? se.....' I b. Does the project have the potential e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage or air traffic? of long-term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment f. Increase in traffic hazards to is one which occurs in a relatively motor vehicles, bicyclists or / brief, definitive period of time while pedestrians? long-term impacts will endure well into / the future.) Le 14. Public Services. Will the proposal -- have an effect upon, or result in a c. Does the project have impacts need for new or altered governmental which are individually limited, but services in any of the following cumulatively considerable? (A project areas: - may impact on two or more separate ✓ resources where the impact on each a. Fire protection? resource is relatively small, but where ✓ the effect of the total of those impacts b. Police protection? on the environment is significant.) _ c. Schools? d. Does the project have environmental Je effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either d. Parks or other recreational / directly or indirectly? ✓ facilities? 1/ e. Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? _ _ _ • f. Other governmental services? ✓ C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of SEE ATTACHED SHEET fuel or energy? • b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result n for new systems, or substantial alterations to the follow- ing utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? Je!' f, Solid waste and disposal? _v 17. Human Health. Will the proposal . result inn: a. Creation of any health hazard or • D. DETERMINATION potential health hazard (excluding . (to be complet by the Lead Agency) mental health)? ✓✓// b. Exposure of people to potential On the b s of this initial evaluation: health hazards? find the proposed project COULD NOT h ve a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION w will be prepared. ❑I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, _here will not be a significant effect in this case belause the mitigation • measures described on an attached sheet have been added to • the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ❑I find the proposed project MAY have a Significant effect • on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. Date May11• 1990 IS A�.ei • //� Ate_ • (Si. =ture/ - - -2- LAS R IMAGED • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM RECLAMATION PLAN RODEFFER QUARRY AB 747 an amendment to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires that vested surface mining operations have an approved Reclamation Plan by July 1, 1990. As per the State requirement, the lead agency's review of these plans is limited to whether the plan substantially meets the requirements of Sections 2772 and 2773 of the SMARA and the Arcadia Municipal Code. The proposed plan is a mandatory requirement of the State. The Reclamation Plan is not a permit and approval of the Reclamation Plan does not grant approval for the use of the property as a landfill or any other development. Any future application for use of the property as a landfill or any other use would require an Environmental Impact Report and an approved Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepar d for the Reclamation Plan. LPSER IM ME[ ` 03EWVI113SV1 -t- •seTZsedosd btrypttttosxrs •tom ;o zuaaidot•s•p put on etLT, ••sTs 400coad tqa suoTZese;Tv pasodosd ems, •_ V Li a� V 'suiTxmo aT sr •4T, 40e40sd t ;o buT34e. tv4usoQts0x71►u• *mil •t 3 AS buTwaTto; ettz •gtsosep 'zeetits •zisedes r t� •�` :saTun ;o s•qunN -- - 2 eeTZTATU,Y t•TVu•gTi•M 't I s•T3TATgay tTTx;input 't seTq;►Tt tvTos •Y lie; pest •q oz rbu ptTrs ;o •brioo4 ss,etbg 'i a IFS 04101ro ' ION 2 sbuTptTMI *•x ;o abr;oo; exrttibs 'M emmmmw +paaoszas •9 os, 'L uTINIM aL •t 2'buTptTi6 buTzsTx'j ;o ebraooj armtbs •o (17%b 2 eaTB ;o •brzood •zvnbs .4 • • {zusmkotd;ss 's•T3xATar ' 'edA4 ' • 'T 1442•41024 stp 20; pepue;uT sT .sn ;vt;h Atzovxe owns) asn pesodoad 's 3 " W 'uoI roulsom *um ,a 1 or Ae S(7c7 /V j— — ,uoTavubTSeo u*td texeuso .D • - AA 07 .10 Ng XV ' tuoTZvao1) ss•xpp j Rzxedosd. •Q '7, .L / - 1 . ••- •• ' : , r 2 ssexppY • sz '.*e s-awi Nor d J a 0€3Y !'MK r,4030T7dift •Y WiOl NOIxNS0IOlNI 'ItiZNZINOOiTANI •Mt st'Fj • — viros,.,, ntul Information. loran K• Check the appropriate answers to the following questions, 1. Will the proposed project result in a substantial alteration of ground contours and/or alteration of existing drainage pattern? • =IX MINNIE 2. Will the proposed project result in a change, in groundwater quality and/or quantity? 3. Will the proposed project result in an increase in noise, vibration, dust, dirt, smoke, fumes, odor or solid waste? 4. Will the proposed project result in the use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? S. Will the proposed project result in a substantial inareaae in demand for municipal services and/or energy consumption! selain in detail any "YES" answers to the above questions on additional sheets. e RTTA6.M BMT Foil DI TA1ti. • OF AN Sarnia K- $ L. Provide any additional information which would elaborate on the potential environmental consequences resultant from the proposed project. K. Certification, i hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, ,statements and information presented are true and correct to the beet of my knowledge and belief. pate ti _.. .LI14 . , l /9 90 ,eo - F ry vg's rM4.✓r3 8y ! 14.1 • dre44.0.0---• a4� lrQJM6 w Signature of Applicint i0�afESSlQ4,1.1-0 Cit (44, • 1#0 Lhl No. RE-10290 ,� rIDJ,Q�S \* 12.3fr92 CIVIL. 0. LASER IMAGED,; _a.. f fTTACHMENT TTO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORK( J. 1 . The environmental Setting This 85-acre restoration project is located on the north s de of Lower Azusa Road, just west of the San Gabriel River (605) F eeway in the southeasterly corner of the City of Arcadia. The s to is abutted by quarrying operations to the North, a flood c.ntrol channel and freeway to the East, vacant industrial land and Lower Azusa Road to the South, and a horse trail and homes to the 4est. 2. Prmled Alterations Project site alterations consist of restoration of the pr perty approximate to pre-1956 grades and elevations by backfilli g the mined lands commencing at the westerly boundary of the site and filling to the north and east. • No alteration is sought in the location of the existing ingress and egress of the site 3. Surrounding Properties With the exception of the property south of the site, the use and development of surrounding properties is fixed with no foresleeable changes. K. Detailed explanation of "Yes" answer to K-1: 1. The mining operation since 1967 substantially altered the ground contours by creating a pit about 160 feet deep with steep side- slopes and ponding of drainage waters. The proposed project would only re-establish the original ground contours and drainage pat- tern. • LASE' Diana P. Scott Ross & Scott CITY OFARCADIA pl hNrtlnr G OE Pr William D. Ross A Professional Corporation Corin L. Kahn 520 South Grand Avenue Richard H. Loomis Suite 300 Alyce A. Rubinfeld Los Angeles, California 90071-2610 Telephone: (213) 892-1592 Ted M. Handel Facsimile: (213) 892-1519 File No: 57/7 May 10, 1990 The Honorable Larry Papay, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91006 Re: Request For Continuance Of the May 22, 1990, Arcadia Planning Commission Hearing On The Reclamation Plan For The Rodeffer Quarry Dear Chairman Papay: This firm represents the City of El Monte ("City"), which requests that your Honorable Commission continue its consideration of the Staffs proposed Reclamation Plan for the Rodeffer Quarry. This matter is presently scheduled to be heard on May 22, 1990. The City submits this request for two reasons. First, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Board") is currently considering a proposed rule 'which would regulate the use of inert landfills and their impact on groundwater resources. This rule, which is scheduled to be heard on June 18, 1990, would have a direct impact on the proposal to backfill the Rodeffer Quarry with inert solids and then use the site for light industrial purposes. Specifically, the rule would require an investigation into the existence of contaminants on the property before it could be used as a landfill and, if so, a remediation plan would have to be prepared. The Reclamation Plan contains no such requirement. In addition, the rule would mandate that certain steps be taken to protect the site as a groundwater source. Again, no such requirement is contained in the Reclamation Plan. For these reasons, the City urges the Planning Commission to coordinate any action on the Reclamation Plan with those being taken by the Bo rd on the proposed rule before it hears this matter. In addition, our office was advised today that Planning Department Staff have prepared a Negative Declaration for this project and intend to release it publicly either on May 15, 1990, or May 16, 1990. Pub. Resources Code §21092(a) requires that "[a]ny LASER IMAGED The Honorable Larry Papay Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Arcadia May 10, 1990 Page 2 public agency which is preparing . . . a negative declaration shall provide public notice of that fact within a reasonable period of time prior to final adoption by the I ublic agency of the . . . negative declaration." (emphasis added.) Therefore, we also r quest a continuance because reasonable notice has not been given with respect t the environmental analysis of the Reclamation Plan made through the Negative Declaration. Finally, please provide our office in the future with notice of any matter relating to the City of Arcadia's consideration of the Reclamation Plan. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact our once. Very truly yours, /-j/7/4/ Ted M. Handel TMH:pac cc: David Gondek, Esq. City Attorney, City of El Monte Ms. Donna Butler Senior Planner, Arcadia Planning Department • • • 4 LASER IM I GED • • Diana P. Scott Ross & Scott William D. Ross A Professional Corporation Corin L Kahn 520 South Grand Avenue Richard H. Loomis Suite 300 Alyce A. Rubinfeld Los Angeles, California 90071-2610 Telephone: (213) 892-1592 Ted M. Handel Facsimile: (213) :92-1519 File 150. 5°1-7 _.. .. ... «_. May 16, 1990 ' oF VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED The Honorable Larry Papay, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91006 Re: Comments Of The City Of El Monte On The Proposed Rodeffer Quarry Reclamation Plan Dear Chairman Papay: This firm represents the City of El Monte ("City"), which submits the foLowing comments on the proposed Rodeffer Quarry Reclamation Plan ("Reclamation Plan") in the event your Honorable Commission declines to grant the City's May 10, 1990, request that this matter be continued until after June 18, 1990. This request was made tilo give the City of Arcadia an opportunity to consider the impact of a proposed State R igional Water Quality Control Board rule regulating inert landfills as potential groundwater sources on the Reclamation Plan which will be considered on June 18, 1990. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Planning Commission may not proceed with its consideration of the Reclamation Plan because Rodeffer Investments (the "applicant") and the City of Arcadia have failed to comply with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (Pub. Resources Code §2710 et seq., "SMARA"). Further, the City of Arcadia did not meet certain procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. • LASER IMAGED n I The Honorable Larry Papay Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Arcadia May 16, 1990 Page 2 Resources Code §21000 et seq., "CEQA") when it issued a Negative Declaration' for the Reclamation Plan. LEGAL ANALYSIS I. SMARA Requirements A. Vested Rights Pub. Resources Code §2770(b) requires, in part, that "[a]ny person with an existing surface mining operation who has vested rights pursuant to Section 2776 and who does not have an approved reclamation plan shall submit a reclamation plan to the lead agency not later than March 31, 1988." Therefore, the Planning Commission must consider whether the applicant has a vested right. Pub. Resources Code §2776 provides that: [a] person shall be deemed to have such vested rights if, prior to January 1, 1976, he has, in good faith and in reliance upon a permit or other authorization, if such permit or other authorization was required, diligently commenced surface mining operations and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor." (emphasis added.) A similar requirement is contained in Arcadia Municipal Code §9520. The applicant asserts that it has a vested right because "[t]his quarry has been continuously operated since March, 1967 and is considered to be a vested surface mining operation . . . ." Reclamation Plan, p. 3. Neither the Reclamation Plan nor the City of Arcadia's recordS on the Reclamation Plan contain evidence supporting the cla4ms of a vested right. Specifically, a review of the Arcadia Planning Department's ("Department") files on the Reclamation Plan conducted on May 15, 1990, fail ed to 1 A "Negative Declaration" is defined as "a written statement by the Lead gency briefly describing the reasons that a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the environment,• and therefore does not require the preparation of an EIR." CEQA Guidelines §15371. Here, the City of Arcadia is the lead agency because it has primary responsibility under Pub. Resources Code §2770(b) for approving the Reclamation Plan. LASER IMAGES a The Honorable Larry Papay Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Arcadia May 16, 1990 Page 3 disclose any documents which meet the statutory criteria set forth above, including permits, licenses, receipts, and/or a reclamation plan required under Pub. Resources Code §2776 for surface mining operations conducted after January 1, 1976. n the absence of such evidence, the applicant must cease operations until it has obtain d the required surface mining permits, and submitted and received approval for a reclamation plan from the City of Arcadia. Pub. Resources Code *2770(a) B. Submission Of A Reclamation Plan Application - Assuming arguendo that the applicant is able to produce substantial evidence in support of its claim of a vested right, the following procedural requirements sett forth in Pub. Resources Code §2770(b) must be met as a condition of continuing with its present surface mining operations: 1. Any person who has vested rights and who does not have an approved reclamation plane must have submitted a reclamation plan for the lead agency's review by March 31, 1988; 2. The lead agency must review the reclamation plan to determine if it meets the requirements of Pub. Resources Code §§ 2772 and 2773 and the agency's surface mining ordinance; and 2 Pub. Resources Code §2770(b) provides that a reclamation plan: may consist of all or the appropriate sections of any plans or written agreements previously approved by the lead agency or another agency, together with any additional documents needed to substantially meet the requirements of Sections 2772 and 2773 and the lead agency surface mining ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 2774, provided that all documents are which together are proposed to serve as the reclamation plan are submitted for approval to the lead agency in accordance with this chapter. As indicated previously, there is no evidence in the Department's files which indicate that a reclamation plan was prepared in 1976 nor are there any documents which could be claimed to constitute a reclamation plan. LA ER IMAGED . , ; v L The Honorable Larry Papay Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Arcadia May 16, 1990 Page 4 3. If the lead agency finds that the reclamation plan meets these statutory requirements, it must approve the plan. On the other hand, if the reclamation plan does not meet these requirements, then the surface mining operator has 60 days in which to cure the identified deficiencies. Based on a review of Department files, and discussions with Departmen staff, the applicant did not submit a reclamation plan for approval before March 31, 1988. Further, there are no records which establish that applicant submitted a reclamatio o plan application on or before that date as mandated by Pub. Resources Code §2770(.) and Arcadia Municipal Code §9520. Pub. Resources Code §2770(b) requires. that '[i]f a reclamation plan application is not on file by March 31, 1988, the continuation of surface mining operations is prohibited until a reclamation plan is submitted to the lead a envy." (emphasis added.) Accordingly, the City of Arcadia should have ordered the ap licant to cease surface mining operations during the two year period until it satisfie this statutory requirement on April 6, 1990. C. City Of Arcadia Compliance With State Mining and Geology oard Regulations Under Pub. Resources Code §2755, the State Mining and Geology Boaild has promulgated regulations concerning review, approval, and administration of recla ation plans by lead agencies. Specifically, Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, §3504(a) requires that a lead agency establish internal recordkeeping and monitoring procedures for surface mining reclamation occurring within its jurisdiction. In addition, Cal. Code Regs., it. 14, §3504(b) mandates that a lead agency ensure that the objectives of a reclamatio plan will be met, including provisions for liens, surety bonds, or other security. There is no evidence in the Department's files or in other City of Arcadia records that these respective requirements have been met here. D. City Of Arcadia Compliance With CEOA ' Pub. Resources Code §21091(b) mandates, in part, that "[t]he public review period for a negative declaration shall not be less than 21 days." (emphasis a ded.) Here, the Negative Declaration is clearly dated May 11, 1990. Also, Departmen staff indicated that the Negative Declaration for the Reclamation Plan was released for ublic review either on this date, or on Monday, May 14, 1990. Regardless of which hs the applicable release date, the public will not have been afforded the required 2111 day period in which to review the Negative Declaration if the Planning Commission proceeds to consider and act on this matter on May 22, 1990. Therefore, the City respectfully LAS R ILIA - The Honorable Larry Papay Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Arcadia May 16, 1990 Page 5 requests that the public hearing on the Reclamation Plan be rescheduled no earlier than either June 1, 1990, or June 4, 1990. Thank you for your consideration of the views expressed in this communication. Very truly yours, Ted M. Handel TMH:pac cc: David Gondek City Attorney, City of El Monte Michael Miller City Attorney, City of Arcadia Ms. Donna Butler Senior Planner, Arcadia Planning Department • • • LASER IMAud LOCKMAN & ASSOCIATES P CORPORATION CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 249 EAST POMONA BOULEVARD•MONTEREY PARK,CALIFORNIA 91754-7291 TEL:(213)724-0250 FAX:(213)724-9999 PRINCIPALS ASSOCIATES W.J.LOCKMAN OBERT L.McGRATH NORBERT W.WEINBERG DEN IS A.KACHMARSKY RONALD J.LOFY,PH.D. ICHARD J.WILSON LELAND F.JOHNSON MARK W.FOSTER W.L.MICHAEL SJ.WAGNER . June 21, 1990 R CHARD L.WALKER RICK L.FERO MIC ELLE P.LEONARD CHARLES W.LOCKMAN RALPH D.MYERS Ms. Donna Butler z- ^� Planning Department •° A:`= City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive r' li A:. p990 Arcadia, California 91006 c,,,, FA"C^ � ^/A �LkNNrr,IG DEr'T. Dear Ms. Butler: Rodeffer Quarry Reclamation Plan Response to Comments Please consider this letter a response to your memorandum of June 13, 19'0 and comments at the Planning Commission Hearing of May 22, 1990. A. MEMORANDUM OF JUNE 13, 1990 The memorandum makes reference to the provisions in Title 14 Sections 3500 et seq. and the "Model Reclamation Plan". It is understood that these provisions are administrative and are "Rules" for administering the law as set forth in Public Resources Code, Division II, Chapter 9, Sections 2710 to 2795 inclusive. Sections 2772 and 2773 clearly set forth Reclamation Plan requirements and Section 2770(b) limits the Lead Agency's review to whether the Plan substantially meets the requirements of Sections 2772 and 2773 and the Lead Agency Surface Mining Ordinance. Our firm is prepared to testify that our Reclamation Plan as submitted is in compliance. However, there is no objection to responding to each applicable Section of Title 14, Article 1, as follows: 3502(b)(1) Environmental Setting. See environmental informatio form dated May 1, 1990 and Expanded Environmental Setting enclosed as Attachment 1. 3502(b)(2) Health & Safety. This element is not included since it is not required under Sections 2772 and 2773. City Codes 9521 .1 and 9521.2 require health and safety finding by the City Council . The difference in health and safety between the pit, with water and 1:1 slopes and level ground draining to Lower Azusa Road, is quite obvious. 3502(b)(3) Slope Stability - See Sections 9.1 and 9.1.1 of Plan. The Plan addresses the slope stability problem by buttressing the existing 1:1 slopes adjacent to the residential neighborhood in the early phases. LASER M^ fin TRI-COUNTIES OFFICE: 1534 EASTMAN AVENUE,UNIT A•VENTURA,CALIFORNIA 93003-7760•TEL:(805)648-3135•FAX:(805)653.1700 I') � ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE:31732 RANCHO VIEJO ROAD,SUITE D-1 •SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA 92675-2778•(714)240-0747•FAX:(714)240-1658 �3 t-, Ms. Donna Butler -2- June 21, 1990 ' Planning Department City of Arcadia 3502(b)(4) Additional Mining. This Section is not applicable Since mining for backfilling is not proposed and the actual Backfill P1 n is the subject of a Conditional Use Permit and/or Grading Permit. 3502(b)(5) Old Equipment - See Section 9.3 of Plan. All old 'equi ment shall be removed. 3502(b)(6) Diversions. This Section is not applicable since there are no diversions. 3503(a) Soil Erosion. This Section is not applicable since al the remaining mining operation is at the bottom of the pit. 3503(b) Water Quality. This Section is not applicable since the pit contains no streams and is not land designated as groundwater recharge. 3503(c) Fish and Wildlife Habitat. This Section is not applicable because the pit is not such a habitat. 3503(d) Waste Disposal . This Section is not applicable because here are no piles of waste or overburden. See Section 9.3 of Plan. 3503(e) Erosion and Drainage. See Section 9.1 of Plan. Ultimate drainage is planned to Lower Azusa Road. 3503(g) Revegetation. This issue shall be addressed in the Bac fill Plan. See Section 3653(b) of Title 14. 3504 Administration. This Section is not applicable since it is unilateral on the part of the Lead Agency. 3505(b) Vested Rights. The vested mining rights of Rodeffer are net on issue. Your memorandum of June 13, 1990 also commented on certain items i the "Model Reclamation Plan" which are responded to as follows: ITEM 9 ACCESS ROUTE. Regional access to the site is provided vi . the San Gabriel River Freeway (I-605) which is linked to the three ajor east/west freeways traversing eastern Los Angeles County. They ar the Pomona (SR-60) and San Bernardino (I-10) Freeways, running south of the proposed project, and the Foothill (I-210) Freeway to the north. Primary access to the freeway network by project-generated traffic will be via Lower Azusa Road, with the closest access point being t e I- 605/Lower Azusa Road interchange. This signalized "diamond" ramp s stem accommodates east/west access via Lower Azusa Road to/from th San Gabriel River Freeway. Primary local street access is via four arterial streets: • LASER gMiAGED Ms. Donna Butler ( ) -3- �— � June 21, 1990 Planning Department City of Arcadia 1. Live Oak Avenue - four lanes, undivided 2. Lower Azusa Road - four travel lanes, undivided 3. Santa Anita Avenue - four travel lanes, divided 4. Peck Road - four travel lanes, divided ITEM 13 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. See Attachment 1. ITEM 16 ANNUAL PRODUCTION. See Items 3.0 and 4.0 of the Plan. The total quantity of material remaining to be mined is 1 million hort tons. Termination date of the mining is January, 1992 providing an annual production rate of 250,000 to 1,000,000 short tons. ITEM 19b WATER USE. Wash water for the screening operation is pumped from the bottom of the pit and returned thereto. It is estimated to require less than 10,000 gallons per day for the operation incliding dust control . Water quality is not an issue. The basin is adjudicated so that the development of water rights is also not an issue. In addition, there is an existing 10-inch water main in Lower Azusa Road for water delivery by the San Gabriel Valley Water Company as a supplemental supply. ITEM 26 SOIL CONDITIONS. See Section 3.0 of the Plan and the res onse to Item 3503(g) hereinabove. B. COMMENTS AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF MAY 22, 1990 Responses to some of the comments at the Planning Commission P blic Hearing might be stated as follows: 1. Mining Reserves - There is still one million tons of mining materials available because of the lowering of the water tab e to economically accommodate the additional mining at this time. 2. "Suitable Inert Materials" is defined by the State Water Reso rces Control Board, Title 23, Subchapter 15, Section 2524 as mat rial which does not contain hazardous waste or soluble pollutants at concentrations in excess of applicable water quality objectives, and does not contain significant quantities of decomposable waste. 3. Contaminants - There are presently no known contaminants or the site. Reference to Section 9.2 of the Plan clearly indicates that a site audit shall be conducted prior to any backfill . 4. Water Pondinq - This term as used in the environmental assessment refers to the present condition where all precipitation onto the area of the pit no longer drains naturally to the south, Ot is caught by the pit, ponding in its bottom, and thereafter percolating into the groundwater. • MAGED 5 LASER I :1- . Ms. Donna. Butler -4- June 21, 1990 Planning Department City of Arcadia It is again emphasized that the. Reclamation Plan before the City permits absolutely no backfill activity. It only complies with State Law (SMARA) with a commitment on the part of Rodeffer Industries to backfill the pit to drain to Lower Azusa Road. The extent and manner in which this backfill is accomplished must be done under future permits to be issued by the City of Arcadia and other agencies. Ver ruly yours, r` / " 9/ Lockman, P.E. -- 'resident WJL:mle [2580PLAN] Enc. • LASER OMAG ) ( 1 EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL' SETT , The Rodeffer Pit is near the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, which foam the north edge of the greater Los Angeles urban basin. Much of the land surround- ing the site is used for the mining and processing of sand, gravel , and related construction products, and has been intermittently mined for thi pur- pose since about 1910. The area surrounding the pit is developed with 'ndus- trial , manufacturing, wholesaling, distribution, service and commercial land uses that depend upon immediate highway access and visibility. This la ri d use corridor is a significant regional employment center. The area to the west in the City of El Monte is developed with a neat and stable residential neighbor- hood. As the site has already been intensively disturbed by sand and gravel extrac- tion operations, there is little or no soil present in the sense of a mineral and organic layer capable of supporting plant life without major human inter- vention. The soils present at the ground surface are the same sand and gravel materials being mined and processed-. Vegetation is mostly limited to 'ppor- tunistic species that have colonized disturbed areas. The site doe not appear to support any known rare, unique or endangered flora or fauna. Other than normally occurring avifauna, minimal animal life has been observed on the property, which does not provide suitable habitat for unique plant or animal life. The site is not identified as being within any biotic habitat conserva- tion districts. Groundwater beneath the site is part of the aquifer of the San Gabriel V lley. The elevation of the groundwater table fluctuates greatly in response to wet and dry cycles, major storms, and nearby groundwater spreading operations man- aged by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW) . However, the historic high groundwater level is approximately at elevation 315 feet, based on DPW data from April 1944. Other DPW data indicates that the mean nnual precipitation at the site varies from about 18 to 20 inches per year. The primary surface stream draining the area is the San Gabriel iver. Because the river crosses a large alluvial fan, though, there was no well- defined stream channel down the fan before the area was developed. In tead, the entire fan surface was covered by small distributary channels and s rface flows switched from channel to channel with every flood. The p esent "channel " of the San Gabriel River is a man-made floodway. Other small streams in the area also occupy man-made flood channels or storm d ains. Santa Fe Dam, a major flood control structure constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the San Gabriel River, lies to the northeast acro s the right-of-way of Interstate Highway 605. Alternate site conditions involve less backfilling or no backfilling. Less backfilling with slope stabilization would have no different effect upon existing and future uses of surrounding lands than the complete backfill pro- posed. No backfilling would have considerable effect as: 1. Slope erosion through the years effects the stability of surro nding lands; 2. Capital storms overflowing the dam spillway and/or the San Gabriel River could cause the avulsion of adjacent lands; 3. The aesthetic appearance of the abandoned pit would affect the market values of some of the adjacent land uses. ATTACHMENT 1 LASER IMAGED rr44 V. 247 17) Diana P. Scott Ross & Scott ,'2-4rt rn rA7,a William D. Ross A Professional Corporation Richard H. Loomis 520 South Grand Avenue Alyce A. Rubinfeld Suite 300 Telephone: (213) 892-1592 Ted M. Handel Los Angeles, California 90071-2610 Facsimile: (213) 892-1519 File No: 57/7 May 23, 1990 VIA MESSENGER Ms. June D. Alford City Clerk, City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91006 Re: Appeal Of The Arcadia Planning Commission Decision Approving The Reclamation Plan For The Rodeffer Quarry Dear Ms. Alford: This firm represents the City of El Monte which is appealing the decision of the City of Arcadia Planning Commission on May 22, 1990, to approve the Reclamation Plan for the Rodeffer Quarry in accordance with the provisions of Arcadia Municipal Code §9522. The City of El Monte submits this appeal to the Arcadia City Council because the Reclamation Plan because does not comply with (1) the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (Pub. Resources Code §2710 et seq.) including, but not limited toll, Pub. Resources Code §§ 2772 and 2773 and Cal. Code Regulations, tit. 14, §3502; (2) the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.) including, but not limited to, the public notice and review requirements of Pub. Resources Code §§ 21091 and 21092; and (3) Arcadia Municipal Code §9520 et seq., including, but not limited to, Municipal Code §§ 9521.1 and 9521.2. In presenting our appeal to the City Council, we reserve the right to raise any new issues concerning the Reclamation Plan and.its environmental analysis after further review of the City of Arcadia's files. Further, we have been advised by the Arcadia Planning Department that no fee is required under Arcadia Municipal Code §9522 to file SER ��NGEP.-? Ms. June D. Alford City Clerk, City of Arcadia May 23, 1990 Page 2 this appeal. The City of El Monte will make immediate payment of any reasonable and necessary fee if this information is incorrect. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact our office. Very truly yours, Xe-/q/41/ Ted M. Handel TMH:pac cc: David Gondek City Attorney, City of El Monte Michael Miller City Attorney, City of Arcadia Ms. Donna Butler Senior Planner, City of Arcadia • SASE ti: • -• SACRAMENTO ADDRESS _ - COMMITTEES. STATE CAPITOL ( ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY& P 0 BOX 942849 -- TOXIC MATERIA IS,CHAIR SACRAMENTO,CA 94249-0001 GOVERNMENTAL RGANIZATION s (916)FFCE 445-7783 cAs sienthi LABOR RESOU CES DISTRICT OFFiCE'ADDRESS 11 100 VALLEY BOULEVARD SUBCOMMITTEE. SUITE 106 Iz1ifttrriia 7Cishiture eg GOLJ EL MONTE,CA 91731 (818)442-9100 REGULATION MEMBER. SELECT COMMITT EON SALLY TANNER UNLICENSED CQNTRACTORS -� �5 nt'Is• SELECT COMMITTEE ON .:,,_ ASSEMBLYWOMAN,SIXTIETH DISTRICT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.PIPELINE. 'T:;-.,` /' CHAIRWOMAN CHEMICAL PLANT AND REFINERY SAFETY 4.1r„ JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY&TOXIC MATERIALS FIRE.POLICE.EMERGENCY& o.� DISASTER SERV CES May 17, 1990 ice. t... C. ...c .iRCADIA Larry Papay, Chairman L ""';^ Planning Commission City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 Dear Chairman Papay: I am writing to request that the Arcadia Planning Commission postpone consideration of the proposed Reclamation Plan for the Rodeffer Quarry. It is my understanding that this item is scheduled for hearing on May 22, 1990 . As you know, the existing contamination of San Gabriel galley groundwater is a major concern to residents from cities throughout the Valley. This is our -drinking water supply, and it must be carefully protected from any further contamination. In recognition of the need to protect the San Gabriel Groundwater Basin, the City of El Monte has requested that the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board consider the adoption of a rule which would impose waste discharge requirements upon inert landfills which are proposed to be located within federal Superfund sites (like the San Gabriel Groundwater Basin) , and which are above usable groundwater. Among other things, the proposed rule would require an investigation at each such silte to determine if there is any preexisting contamination before landfilling operations could begin. Because the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board will be considering the City of El Monte proposal in the very near li-ASutj • Mr. Larry Papay Page Two future, I would recommend that the Planning Commission postpone action on the Reclamation Plan for the Rodeffer Quarry until that related, action has been taken. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, SALLY T NER, Assemblywoman 60th A embly District ST/df cc: Mayor Mary Young, City of Arcadia Mayor Donald McMillen, City of El Monte Dave Gondek LNSER 1, is,GED �3 May 16, 1990 City of Arcadia P. O. Box 60 R C — Arcadia , Ca . 91066-0060 Planning Department TAY ? 199C1 CITY OF ANCACY.A Gentlemen: PLANNING DEPT. I cannot be at the hearing May 22 regarding the Rodeffer Quarry on Lower Azusa Road , but let me go on record as adamantly opposed to any landfill on that property while it belongs to Mr . Rodeffer or is under the jurisdiction of Arcadia . From the time this land was so shamefully annexed to Arcadia, through the many years that it has been an obnoxious , dirty neighbor , your city has shown no concern at all over how it has been operated. Now, the notorious BKK Company is the choice of Mr . Rodeffer to fill the hole up. With their known. record and your lack of interest, we have absolutely no assurance that our water table will not be further polluted . You have been notified many times , by calls , letters and at such hearings as this one that the sides of this quarry are being dug vertically and not to the slant that was promised when the quarry was first allowed in. Arcadia was going to police against a y other slope, and against noise and dirt . The walls of the quarry are so decidedly vertical that the homes along the edge are at risk. For the sake of Rodeffer ' s profits and Arcadia ' s t x income, you have done irreparable harm to this area of El Monte . Surely you have taken enough, and can afford to use good sense finally. Very truly, E. Adams 12135 Hallwood Dr . El Monte, Ca . 91732 • 1r�� 'TI V li _y PUBLIC HEARING Review of Reclamation Plan for the Rodeffer I uarry on Lower Azusa Road Lower Azusa Rd. The Plan is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of the State of California Surfa a Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) which requires that vested mining operations have an approved reclamation plan. The staff report was presented. Staff explained that the Commission should only consider the approval or denial of the Rec amation Plan and if it complies with the State of.Caliornia Surface Ming and Reclamation Act (SMARA) requirements. If the applicant should decide to fill the pit, at a later date, they would be r quired to file a CUP which triggers the necessity for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The public hearing was opened. Chairman Papay noted that a letter has been submitted by Ross & Scott on behalf of the Cit of El Monte requesting continuance of the public hearing. Harry Schrey, 11770 E. Warner, Fountain Valley, representing Rodeffer Investments spoke against the continuance and said that it would cause problems. Ted Handel, 520 S. Grand, Los Angeles, representing Ross & Scott and the City of El Monte said that one of the reasons for the continuance is that the City of El Monte has proposed a rule to regulate the use of inerit landfills and their impact on ground water resources, to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board of the Los Angeles region. This will be considered at their June 18th meetin . The proposed new law would require that an investigation be conducted into the existence of ntaminants on the site and would also mandate certain steps to be taken to protect the site as a ground water resource. He noted that neither issues have been addressed in the Reclamation Plan. He stated that another reason for the continuance is the lack of reasonable notice of the preparation of the negative declaration. He commented that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a public agency in preparing a negative declaration must provide public notice of th t fact within a reasonable period of time prior to Its final adoption. He said that subject notice was published on May 2nd and was not mailed until May 10th and in his opinion this was not a reasonable notice. Under CEQA the public must have at least 21 days to review the negative declaration and if the Commission is not agreeable to continuing the hearing until after June 18th, then the hearing should be continued until after June 1st to allow for adequate time to provide the Commission with well informed comments. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 • Page 4 • INGV-43 2 • ,3 . Willie Lockman, 249 E. Pomona, Monterey Park, representing Lockman & Assoc., the consulting engineer of the project stated that the proposed Reclamation Plan only proposes to backfi I with inert solids. He further stated that pursuant to the State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) the Reclamation Plan ust be approved by July 1st. If there is no action by July 1st, then any operation must cease until the Reclamation Plan is approved. The City Council will have the final action on the approval of the Reclamation Plan and the Planning Commission will only be making a recommendation to the City Council. Although it would be preferred to see the whole matter remain at a local level, if the City does not approve this matter by July 1st then Rodeffer Investments will be forced to appeal the matter to the State Mining and Geology Board. Walter Kreute, 12141 Roseglen, El Monte, spoke for the continuance and said that he was concerned with the ground water and noted that there are currently 400 wells in the area which are shut down due to contamination. He suggested building an underground parking lot there instead of f(ling the pit. Christina Astengo, 12113 Hemlock St., El Monte, said that she resides 200' out of the Ci 's 300' radius and felt insulted that she was not given a notice by the City. She remarked that they would need more time to formulate intelligent responses to the Reclamation Plan. She said that there are no Arcadia residents in the area and she said she felt that is why the City of Arcadia is not wiping to generate information for the residents of El Monte. She commented that the proposed Recl mation Plan directly ties into the landfill and the Reclamation Plan states the the pit will be "backfilled with suitable innert solid materials". Mr. Handel remarked that the plan states "the Rodeffer Quarry will be backfilled with suitable innert materials" but fails to define "innert solid materials". The continuance will give the Board time to define the requirements for a landfill which innert materials would be deposited into a po:ential ground water source. Mike Miller, the City Attorney, stated that in reviewing this with staff, they came to a conclusion that there is no legal basis for continuance. The final action will be taken by the City Council a d the appropriate time requirement will be met. Chairman Papay said that there other people in the audience that should be allowed to address the Commission. The audience should keep in mind that the Planning Commission will only be making a recommendation to the City Council who will have make the final decision. The proposed pl n does not allow a landfill but is to fulfill the SMARA requirements. Any development on the site would need a full EIR and a possible CUP. Mr. Lockman commented that the State is requiring reclamation plans because there have been considerable mining operations where once the activity has been completed the property has been abandoned. The Rodeffer Quarry cannot continue to mine unless the reclamation plan is 4roved. SMARA has left the jurisdiction at the local level. There are many reasons why the pit sholuld not be left as it is; 1) the problem of the safety of the slopes which are rather steep and in some bases 160' high, 2) the problem of exposure of ground water which the San Gabriel Valley already is lin the super fund area. He recommended a minimum back fill to provide a land area with a minimum of 10' above the historical high ground water level. In reviewing the general plan and the zoning of the City of Arcadia, it was concluded that the area was ultimately planned for industrial purposes. H explained that they are recommending to backfill so that it will drain by gravity onto Lower Azusa R ad which would leave some slope remaining along the east side next to the river, however,.the propoised reclamation plan does not concern itself as to how this is done. He commented that they use the words "suitable inert solids" pursuant to all permits. Under SMARA the mining operation cannot continue unless this Reclamation Plan is approved. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/2 2/9 0 Page 5 _ � ADD LRS E 3 ., • Christina Astengo, resident of El Monte, spoke against the Reclamation Plan. She wondered what the hours of operation would be? She asked if it would include weekends and evenings and stated that presently they pull out of the pit early in the morning and asked when do they estimate be inning of the backfilling? At what rate will the remaining material be mined? The Reclamation Plan states that there is an estimated 1,000,000 tons left, but in reviewing the 1987 EIR the figures are identical and she wondered how this number could remain the same after 18 months of continuous usage. She went on to say that on page 3 of the plan, 6.2 the Mining Plan, states that no phasing is necessary because of the small quantity of remaining materials and wondered what is a "small" quant'ty? The Reclamation Plan indicates that the property will be used with "light industrial use developed compatible with surrounding residential uses" . She felt that statement is a contradiction ' ince there are residential uses in the immediate area and residential uses and industrial uses are not compatible. She said the Dootson complex is in the area and the residents can agree on just how incom atible it is with the surrounding area. She asked if there could be a definition of "suitable inert mate ials" and wondered who would regulate where these materials come from. On page 4, 9.1.1 the Phasing of Reclamation Plan has the same information as the 1987 D aft EIR. She felt that it would take longer than 20 years to fill the pit. Item 9.2 Control of Contaminants states that "there are no known contaminants presently on the site". She asked when was an inspection done, what organization conducted the study and where the certification? She felt to fill the pit it would push the contamination further down into the water table and suggested the introduction of fresh or reclaimed water to help flush the water table that is already polluted. She asked who will monitor the air and noise pollution? Item 9.2 Control of Disposal of Mining Waste states that "there are no mining waste resulting from the quarry and processing operation" and asked what governmental organization would determ ne this and where the certification would be? She noted that Exhibit 3, Rodeffer Investments letter dated April 5th, states "...acknowledge the proposed uses after reclamation of light industrial with provisions for the extension of th existing bridal trail". She commented that this would be the landfill project. She remarked that s e is- representing the.children in the area who cross the streets and the residents who have to live in the area and was concerned that the proposed Reclamation Plan would just be the beginning o trouble for them. Ted Handel, from Ross & Scott, representing the City and the residents of El Monte said that under CEQA, the public should have at least 21 days to review the negative declaration and commented that in this case they have not had the required 21 days. In a letter from SMARA dated March 30, 1990, it is stated that the there are 3 possibilities with respect to vested surface mining operation, I) the operation will have a lead agency approval of a reclamation plan, 2) the operation will be pending an appeal with he Board, or 3) the mining operations will have ceased with those companies without an approved reclamation plan until such time as a reclamation plan has been approved by the lead agency. He said that the Reclamation Plan can be rejected because it fails to meet not only the statutory requirement of SMARA but also regulatory requirements imposed by the Board. The Planning Department's records do not contain any evidence of the company's claim that they have a Vested right to proceed with the surface mining operation. The staff report clearly states that the City did not comply with its own requirements as well as the one contained in Section 2776 of the Pu p lic Resources Code that Rodeffer had a reclamation plan in place within 2 years after January 1, 1976. If Rodeffer can establish this right, it must also demonstrate that they filed a reclamation plan or an application of one prior to March 31, 1988. Again, this requirement was not met and a reclamation plan was submitted in April, 1988 which is past the deadline. For the above mentioned reason the City should immediately order Rodeffer to cease operations until a reclamation plan is approved. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 6 sc.,51, ONG -‘) 6 ;. ) • Under SMARA, the State Mining and Geology Board has'set the following criteria for an adequate reclamation plan. It states that "in addition to the information required by Public Resources Code 2772, the following elements shall be included in the reclamation plan, public health and 'safety, the design's steepness and the proposed treatment of mined land final slopes, disposition of old equipment and temporary streamer water shed diversion". He commented that none of the above criteria have been addressed in the plan or in the staff report. He remarked that even though the Commission is not obligated to hold a public hearing, the residents of El Monte have their property rights and their constitutional rights at stake. Staff said that Section 2770 reads that "if a reclamation plan is not on file by March 31, 1988, the continuation of the surface mining operation is prohibited until a reclamation plan is submitted", and not approved by the lead agency. Mr. Miller commented that-the issue before the Commission is not the cessation of the op rations but the approval of the reclamation plan. Commissioner Hedlund arrived at the meeting. In response, Mr. Handel stated that a reclamation plan was to be submitted to the lead agency by March 31, 1988, by Rodeffer and it was not submitted until an uncertain date in April and it was withdrawn in October of the same year. So, this indicates that for at least 18 months the operation has been operating in violation of the Public Resources Code. R. Brown, 2153 Aroroa, W. Covina, Director of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, an elected official by the people to represent a good portion of the people in the San Gabriel Valley regarding water matters. He commented that there are superfund areas in this valley. The leaders of the superfund are the environmental protection agency's top officials. Those officials point out that unless local planning units in the United States take much stronger steps to control the use of the land there will be a series of conditional disasters. They have asked that the water officials in the United States adopt much tighter regulations for the control of land so to avoid any future problems with the ground water. The reclamation plan submitted has no information regarding the character of the surrounding properties, a serious omission. It does not discuss soil suitability, geology, climate, stream characteristics and principal mineral commodities. Soil suitability - He asked what type of materials would be going into the pit as a result of the back fill? Will asphalt be one of the materials? Asphalt can pollute the ground water since it consists of an oil product. There should be a better definition of the type of materials that will be used to backfill the pit and ample time so proper comments can be made. Topography - Even though there are some maps included in the plan, they are prepared by BKK. Will BKK be involved with the operation of the landfill? He stated that being a neighbor with'n 1/2 mile of one of their operations, they have not been a good neighbor. Geology - The geology of this valley is an alluvial fan. Climate - The plan does not include any data on rain fall or air pollution. This is suffici nt reason to deny the Reclamation Plan. Stream Characteristics - Section 9.4 omits the connection between surface an subsurface floats. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 7 LASER NAGED • ._1 • • Principal Mineral Commodities - As part of the Reclamation Plan there should be a type discussion, nature and the characteristics of those materials to be placed. In response to a question by Chairman Papay, Mr. Brown said that character as used in Section 2773 refers to the current uses, type of homes, drainage, type of problems that could come fronl� those homes, problems that could come from this site to those homes, the history of those home§, whether they had septic tanks on them. The above are part of the characteristics that need to be reviewed and presented before the reclamation plan is approved. Mark Sullivan, 122116 Hemlook, El Monte, said that the proposed Reclamation Plan is ircomplete, incorrect and totally inadequate. The document fails to include environmental concerns. Tie document states that there are no contaminants on the site which is in direct contradiction with the Draft EIR. The EIR not only identifies the material but dictates the manner of removal. He felt that the fact that the City of Arcadia has stood by and not taken any action on this permit violation is deplorable. Scott Poise, 5139 Cogswell, El Monte, wondered if any tires would be dumped at the site? Susan Smith McGlohin, 12119 Hemlock, El Monte, said that an industrial use and residential use are not compatible. She didn't think that it would be classified as light industrial since the trucks load up early in the morning and use Lower Azusa. The Commission's decision will impact many people in the City of El Monte and their life styles. Arlene Patlan, stated that she does not reside in El Monte but teaches at the Durfeey Elem ntary school and she was concerned about the students who attend the school and their safety and said that the school is approximately 2,000 yards from the site. She was concerned about the traffic proble s which are already very congested. In rebuttal Mr. Lockman said that the Commission should consider only the Reclamation P an. The matter of backfilling is a question that will come before the Commission via a grading per it or a CUP application. The letter from Rodeffer Investments assures the City that Rodeffer is corn itted themselves to fill the pit. Prior to the consideration of any grading, state law requires th t the plans be in substantial compliance with Sections 2772 and 2773. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner. Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. In answer to questions from Commissioner Szany, Mr. Woolard said that there have been complaints but he is not aware of any within the last couple of years. If anybody is in violation as to the hours of operation, they should contact the Arcadia Police Department. The consideration of the proposed plan does not alter the original permit under which they were authorized to mine. The City cannot limit what a truck does on the public streets but the City has control over the operation of the �t and the hours of operation. If the Reclamation Plan is approved, they will probably continue to xtract the last of the gravel. The operators will have to come to the City to seek a CUP in order to fill the pit with some material that is going to be acceptable by the City and other regulatory agencies. Many of the concerns raised by El Monte will have to be addressed in an EIR which will be required if a CUP is filed. The material that would be permitted would have Regional Water Quality Control Board approval. Mr. Woolard further stated that even though there won't be a 21 day notice pe iod to this meeting there will be 21 days before the City Council meeting on June 19th. Staff said that the resolution which was adopted in 1957 indicates that the hours of operation are from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and did not restrict the days of operation. • Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 8 LASER WAGED a a • Mr. Miller clarified and said that there will be numerous procedures that that they will have to go through before the backfilling process and the City can address a lot of these issues through conditions. He noted that the City shares the concerns of the City of El Monte as far as the public health and safety and welfare are concerned. Mr. Rodeffer is aware of the stringent requirements that will be imposed, however, that is not the issue that is before the Commission tonight. The Commission should only vote to recommend approval or denial of the Reclamation Plan to the City Council. The City's coinducting a public hearing is what staff felt is the fairest approach in this regard. This plan is required under the law and the Commission should vote on the Reclamation plan and not what will happen to the pit in the future. Commissioner Clark said that the City's controls can very effectively control what is depo ited into the pit. He liked the idea of filling up the pit and did not want to leave it abandoned. He remarked that he does not want something that will adversely impact the community to the south anymore t an they are already affected. Commissioner Hedlund was against filling the pit and explained that it is unknown where he material comes from that fills the pits. He felt sure that some of the pits were filled with concrete nd asphalt and wondered what is in those aggregates. Although he felt something should be done with the of quarry he was not sure whether filling it would be the best idea. This is just a plan and if the Re,lamation Plan is approved that does not necessarily mean that they will be obligated to do it. Staff said that the Reclamation Plan is just a plan and if and when they file for a landfill, here will be an EIR done which will look at alternatives. This is not a proposal by the City but rather by Rodeffer Investments. The Reclamation Plan is a mandatory requirement. This plan does not give teem any vested right, but a requirement of the State and the Municipal Code. It does not give them the right to fill the property. Commissioner Clark felt that the Commission's concerns should be forwarded to the City ouncil. He thought that the conditions that will be set can be put in a very stringent fashion to protec the people who live down there. Mr. Woolard said that the pit will be subject to an EIR and at that time alternatives could e discussed. Ms. Astengo's suggestion of injecting water could very well be considered and while this is a a plan to fill it, it may not be what is actually done depending upon what is disclosed when the EIR rocess begins. Chairman Papay remarked that an EIR would be needed at the time that a CUP application is filed and said that that is the basis for the negative declaration. If the pit is not filled it will be hard to put a light industrial use on it. If and when an EIR is done, input from various state and federal agencies in the environmental review process will require that all issues concerning contaminants, xisting and future contaminants, water table, surrounding neighborhood, be adequately addressed in tie EIR. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Szany to approve the reclamation plan, finding that it does substantially meet requirements set forth in the SMARA and recommend that the staff be directed to convey the recommendations, comments and findings discussed above. This motion does not grant approval for a permit or the ise of the property as a landfill or any other development. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None Arcadia City Planning Commission 5/22/90 Page 9 ref LASER IMAGED j 4 Mr. Woolard said that as a part of the process for the previous EIR a great number of post cards were received from people requesting notice of any hearings regarding any development. If an application is filed for filling this pit, notices will be mailed out to all those persons who sent in post cards. The public hearing before the City Council will be held on June 19th. �.P. ER IMAGED