HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 15, 1994i
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
MOTION
A G E N D A
Arcadia City Council Meeting
March 15, 1994
Pre - Meeting: 7:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting: 7:30 P.M.
Council Members Fasching, Harbicht,
Lojeski, Margett and Ciraulo
of the February 22 Study Session and
March 1, 1994 adjourned and regular meetings.
Read all ordinances and resolutions by title
only and waive reading in full.
1. PRESENTATION: A.Y.S.O. GOLD MEDAL TEAM WINNERS
2. PUBLIC HEARING - COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL RECYCLING
a. ORDINANCE No. 2000 - Introduction - amending the Arcadia
Municipal Code by adding Part 3 to Chapter 1 of Article V
to implement and provide regulations for a Commercial and
Industrial Recycling Program
b. Rescind January 4th approval of the Commercial/ Industrial
Recycling Agreement
C. Approval of agreement with Zakaroff Recycling Services
for the collection of recyclable materials from
commercial and industrial properties.
1
ACTION
AGENDA 03/15/94
ACTION
3. PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 92 -003 (including the
Operations Plan) and a Reclamation Plan for an Inert Landfill
at 12321 Lower Azusa Road, and a Final Environmental Impact
Report for said Conditional Use Permit and Plan (Applicant,
Rodeffer Investments).
Time reserved for those In the audience who wish to address the City Council,
(five - minute time limit per person).
RECESS CITY COUNCIL
5. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
a. ROLL CALL: Agency Members Fasching, Harbicht,
Lojeski, Margett and Ciraulo
b. Adjourn to 7:00 p.m. April 5, 1994
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL
6. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
7. CONSENT ITEMS
a. Recommendation to Defer the Consideration of the
Capital- Improvement Program
-2- AGENDA 03/15/94
_. 0 0
ACTION
CONSENT ITEMS, CONTINUED
b. Request for Approval to Contract for the
Purchase of Four Load Banks (Electrical Load
Devices) for Water Division Generators
C. Report and recommendation for the purchase and
installation of exhaust fume ventilation system
at Fire Station No. 1 - 710 S. Santa Anita Avenue
8. CITY MANAGER
a. Recommendation to Retain Technical /Legal Cable Consultants
b. Recommendation to Proceed with Cable Television Equipment for
the City Council Chambers Improvement Project, _Approve
Specifications, and Authorize Advertisement for Bids
9. CITY ATTORNEY
a. Consideration of Revised Agenda Format
b. RESOLUTION No. 5776 - A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use
Permit 93 -008 to construct a 50,547 square foot Albertson's
Market within 100 feet of residentially zoned property and
a 2,800 square foot restaurant with outdoor seating located
within a 5,923 square foot multi- tenant building at 232 and
300 East Live Oak Avenue.
10.' MATTERS.FROM STAFF
ADJOURN In Memory of Fred F. Gansen to March 22, 1994 @ 5:30 p.m.
-3- AGENDA 03/15/94
U
!- 4
e lo- 5 0 gob
w. a
Memorandum
01r it
RPORATEO-
March 10, 1994
To : Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Alex D. McIntyre, Assistant to the City Manager
RE: Recommendation to Proceed With City Council
Chambers Improvement Project, Approve
Specifications, and Authorize Advertisement for
Bids
Summary
In July, 1993, the City Council retained Communications Support
Group (CSG) to provide technical assistance in upgrading the City
Council chambers to improve the quality of the cablecasting of the
Council meetings . The first phase of the project has been
completed and the Council has the opportunity to progress to the
next phase.
Background -
• In January, 1993, the City' s cable company Telecommunications, Inc.
(TCI) began to cablecast the Arcadia City Council meetings . Given
the limitations of the equipment and the chambers to produce a
quality program, the City, its residents and TCI have been less
than pleased with the quality of.the productions .
Currently, TCI brings in equipment and produces the program out of
a van parked adjacent to the council chambers . Two of the three
cameras are manned and controlled by the director located in the
van. To exacerbate problems, the chambers lighting is inadequate
and the sound system and acoustics of the chambers inferior for
production purposes .
To improve production quality, Communications Support Group has
developed four alternative improvement alternatives . The relevant
portions of the proposal as well as a staff summary are attached
for your review. (Attachment 1) .
At different times, four members of the City Council toured a
variety of city council chambers which represent CSG' s four
alternatives . The four members were impressed by CSG' s Option 1A
LASER IMAGED
e
J
Council Chambers Improvement Project
March 10, 1994
Page Two
which is similar to the Cerritos Council chambers plan design.
Option lA is a fully automated, five camera, robotically controlled
production facility with editing capabilities . Option lA also
recommends replacing the inadequate audio system and modifying the
lighting in the council chambers . At the February 22, 1994 study
session, the City Council directed staff to prepare the
specifications for Option 1A.
CSG has prepared plans and specifications in order to advertise for
bids of the equipment described in Option lA.
Fiscal Impact
CSG anticipates that the equipment purchase and installation should
cost approximately $210, 600 . Sufficient funds are available from
the Capital Outlay fund to pay for the equipment . Any funds that
can be recaptured from the cable franchise will be offset against
the total cost .
Annual operations of the equipment should not exceed $15, 000 .
These figures will be budgeted in the 1994-95 City Operating budget
and will be derived from franchise fees paid by the cable company.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council proceed with the City
Council Chambers Improvement project and endorse CSG Option lA to
purchase and install audio/video cablecasting equipment in the City
Council Chambers .
It is further recommended that the City Council approve the
specifications for the audio/video cablecasting equipment described
in Option 1A and authorize staffito advertise for bids to purchase
and install said equipment .
Attachments
119T341/
Approved: ,
William R. Kelly, Acting City Manager
TO
• i l
%fi=r, DEC 0 2 1993
Memorandum COUNCIL
.r
- 'M 0)11,1.! i4
CORPORA. O-�a
December 2, 1993
To : Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Alex D. McIntyre, Assistant to the City Manager
Subject: Council Chambers Upgrade -- Cable Television
In September, 1993 , the City Council authorized staff to retain
Communications Support Group (CSG) to provide expert advise on the
equipment and architectural upgrades needed for the Council Chambers
to enhance the cablecasting of the City Council meetings . CSG has
completed Phase I of the project and this report summarizes CSG' s
findings and recommendations (Attachment I) .
CSG has evaluated the council chambers, interviewed staff, and
prepared the attached report which identifies teleproduction, audio,
acoustical, and lighting needs in order to improve the broadcast of
the City Council meetings .
CSG has developed four different options each with specific equipment
needs and costs . The attached chart summarizes the options
(Attachment I I) .
The proposals are technical in nature. In order to bring more meaning
to each option, I have arranged a tour of three cities' council
chambers that most closely resemble Options I, II and III . The tour
will include a walk through of the chambers, an explanation of the
needs and uses of each type of equipment. by the host city staff and
CSG staff, and a general question and answer period for city council
members . I am arranging the half-day tours for
Friday, December 17, 1993
with the cities of Yorba Linda, Cerritos and Cypress . Linda Garcia
will be handling the reservations. Please let her know of your
intentions on attending.
The final staff recommendation will be brought before the City Council
at a future meeting.
Attachments
ATTACHMENT 1
MM NICATI F SUPPORT GROUP, IC.CO U O ,
P.O. BOX 10968 SANTA ANA, CA 92711-0968 OFFICE: (714) 288-0100
FAX: (714) 288-0313
CITY OF ARCADIA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AUDIONIDEO/CABLECASTING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Presented to:
Alex McIntyre
Assistant to City Manager
Communications Support Group, Inc.
Report RPT93018.001
November 8, 1993
CITY OF ARCADIA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AUDIO/VIDEO/CABLECASTING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
* * *
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Descriotion Page
1 . PURPOSE 1
2. METHODOLOGY 1
3. SUMMARY OF STAFF INTERVIEWS/COMMENTS 2
3.1 Current Presentation Media 2
3.2 Current System Issues and Problems 2
3.3 Staff Suggestions for System Improvements 3
4. FINDINGS 4
4.1 Audio System 4
4.2 Number and Location of Cameras 5
4.3 Camera Control 6
4.4 Lighting 7
4.5 Projector And Video Presentations 8
4.6 Cablecasting Control Room 9
4.7 Editing vs. Production and Tape Format 10
4.8 Graphics 12
4.9 ENG Production 12
4.10 Other Concerns 12
5. FACILITY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 13
5.1 Options 1A & 1B 13
5.2 Option 2 15
5.3 Option 3 16
6. COMPARISONS TO OTHER CITIES 1-7
7. BIDDING PROCESS AND CONCLUSIONS 20
8. CONSULTANT'S CERTIFICATIONS 20
9. APPENDICES 21
CITY Of _-_jCADIA - 'Cablecast Feasibility,„-ia/ysis'
CITY OF ARCADIA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AUDIO/VIDEO/CABLECASTING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
1. PURPOSE
The City of Arcadia ("City") contracted the services of Communications Support
Group, Inc. ("CSG") to provide a feasibility analysis for creating a permanent cable
television production facility in the Council Chambers. This report is intended to
provide City management with an overview of related improvements considered
essential by City staff and that, in our professional opinion, address current and
future public meeting presentation, teleproduction, and cablecasting needs.
Our report is designed to provide both objective and subjective findings as a
foundation for budgetary and programmatic action. Our facility improvement
recommendations are presented in three levels or scenarios with separate cost
projections for each. These options can be considered independently as each is
capable of standing alone. However, Options 2 and 3 are incremental components
of Option 1 and could be viewed as interim measures.
2. METHODOLOGY
In developing the options presented in this report, we conducted a site survey of
the Arcadia Council Chambers on October 7, 1993. During the site survey, CSG
conducted an assessment of the City Council Chamber's A/V facility and solicited
comments from City staff. CSG held discussions with the following staff
members:
Mr. Alex McIntyre, Assistant to the City Manager
Mr. Merlin Bakke, Building Maintenance Superintendent
Additionally, a questionnaire was distributed to members of the Executive
Management Team to solicit input regarding the nature of presentations made by
staff during Council meetings. The questionnaire was responded to by the
following staff members:
Mr. Donald Duckworth, City Manager
Mr. Alex McIntyre, Assistant to the City Manager
Ms. Donna Butler, Planning
Mr. Pete Kinnahen, Economic Development
Mr. Jim Dale, Finance
Mr. Gary Rogers, Human Resources
Mr. Joseph Lopez, Public Works
Mr. Jerome Collins, Recreation
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 1
r OF ARCADIA - 'Cab/ecast Feas,,,,aty Analysis'
3. SUMMARY OF STAFF INTERVIEWS AND COMMENTS
Staff members offered comments describing applications, problems, and
suggestions for improvements. In general, staff members feel that the current
coverage of city council meetings through the use of the cable company truck is
not efficient and is prone to problems (lengthy setup time, cables on the floor,
persons at cameras, doors blocked or left ajar, etc.), and therefore not adequate to
meet current and perceived future usage requirements. Moreover, use of three
cameras, with one being stationary, was seen by some to provide too few angles
to adequate cover all persons and presentations simultaneously.
Staff member concerns suggest the creation of an integrated audio, video, and
cablecasting system which creates a fixed or a transportable cable production unit
located within the Council Chamber building. This integrated system will improve
cable television coverage and presentation media(audio and visual) and also
eliminates the current use of cables and cameras on the Chamber floor.
3.1 Current Presentation Media
Public address
Overhead transparencies
35 mm slide presentations
Illustration, blue print and drawing presentations
3.2 Current Issues and Problems
The current public address system (P.A.) was installed during the original
chamber construction more than 18 years ago. This includes the amplifiers,
equalizers, and compressors/limiter located in the closet of the study room
adjacent to the council chambers. Sound equipment has a useful life of
roughly fifteen to twenty years, so the City's equipment is reaching life
expectancy.
Lavalier microphones for the system were purchased during the past two
years. Although originally chosen as a guard against inadvertent sound.
pick-up, lavalier microphones present problems in some circumstances due
to the awkwardness of their accompanying cord and the fact that they are
sometimes hand-held or placed down by the members during discussion.
While the lighting in the council positions is adequate, lighting for the
presentation area and the public seating area is considered poor. Currently
the cable company sets up two 1 k stand lights for each meeting for
supplemental lighting, however this increases the air temperature of the
chambers which has been a complaint from council members.
The current air conditioning system distributes air unequally; freezing the
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 2
CITY 01--_LRCADIA - 'Cablecast Feasibility�y.: is/ysis'
public in the back of the chambers and remaining warm in front of the room
where council members sit.
The current slide projector was considered adequate. The current overhead
projector was considered by some to be inadequate. Currently there is no
video projector system for computer graphics or a video presentation.
Additionally there is a need for a laser pointer.
The video coverage of the council meetings is considered by staff to be of
poor technical quality due to poor camera angles, low grade equipment, and
an insufficient number of cameras to cover council action.
Staff discussed the possibility of making the public podium and staff
positions modular for easy reconfiguration. This would permit the chamber
to be used as a studio during other hours when the council meetings are not
being conducted.
The electrical power for the council chambers and the city computer room
run off the same transformer. This could be a future potential problem if
additional power is needed.
3.3 Staff Suggestions for System Improvements
Staff members with whom CSG personnel interviewed had several
recommendations for improving the current Council A/V system. In general,
these recommendations call for an upgrade of the current system that
incorporates integrated visual aid equipment allowing for simple multimedia
presentations with a minimum of effort.
A. Add a wireless microphone, laser pointer, remote projector controls and
easy lighting controls.
B. The presentation system should be upgraded to include full-motion
video and computer graphics (RGB). Such systems should be
integrated with the cablecasting system for presentation to the viewing
audience. -
C. Consider replacement of the old audio P.A. hardware to current
technology for improved audio quality and minimal maintenance. The
audio system should provide level control.
D. Install wall mounted remote control cameras for better council coverage
and better angles. There would only need to be two to three operators
in a remote control room. No staff would need to be inside the
chambers.
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 3
CI, . OF ARCADIA - 'Cab/ecast Feas:411 ty Analysis'
E. Others commented that the room itself could use a redesign, such as
expanding and raising the area where staff presentations are made,
moving the public podium off center to reduce obstructed views. Due
to these comments being more aligned to "building" vs. "equipment"
issues, we therefore are not responding to them in this report.
4. FINDINGS
From the above, CSG established a set of assumptions which are minimum criteria
in establishing an audio/video/cablecasting facility for the Council Chambers. In
doing so, we looked at important cost/performance trade-offs to insure that the
City would achieve the broadest possible range of uses within it's budgetary
limits.
Specifically, our assumptions are:
• Maximum use of existing equipment
• Highest achievable quality (cost effectiveness)
• Ease of operation
• Minimal intrusion to Council proceedings
• Transportability to outside locations and other facilities (Library Forum)
• Maximum flexibility of use
• Minimum equipment set-up and removal time
• Allowance for future expansion _
4.1 Audio System
Although the P.A. system is functional and few negative comments were
stated by staff, CSG recommends replacing all P.A. equipment except the
microphones and the directional speaker column for the following reasons:
1 . Current equipment is near life expectancy
2. Installation of a new public address system is more cost effective
when made part of a larger project .
3. Audio system could come under same warranty as video system
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 4
CITY O1 i 'CADIA - 'Cablecast Feasibi/ity` .:�a/ysis'
During the past decade, substantial advances in audio electronics in •
P.A. equipment (automatic mixing equipment, solid state amplifiers,
and digital compressors) make the current system obsolete. CSG
recommends the City consider purchasing new amplifiers, limiters,
compressors, and muting controls. Further consideration should also
be given to replacing the existing lavalier microphones with
unidirectional gooseneck microphones to minimize unwanted
surrounding sounds and optimize the facility's audio system. Specific
suggestions are as follows:
A. Council dais lavalier microphones and staff table microphones should
be replaced with table-mounted gooseneck unidirectional microphones.
The mounting of the microphones on the dais itself will provide for a
more effective audio pick-up system. Current microphones available on
the market are extremely streamline and have an adjustable
unidirectional pick-up which guards against background noise (Exhibit
A). The adjustable gooseneck for each microphone can be tailored to a
specific person's speaking habits. The microphones can be mounted
directly on the dais or on a movable microphone table-top stand.
Muting controls are recommended.
B. A wireless microphone should be added to the system for staff
presentations.
C. A self adjusting microphone mixer/equalizing device is recommended.
This device will compensate for variations in presenter speaking
volumes. New amplifiers, limiter, compressor will also be needed.
4.2 Number and Location of Cameras
Due to the unique design of the Arcadia Council Chambers, CSG
recommends four to five cameras to cover the proceedings of meetings. By
way of comparison, five cameras for similar reasons are used in Cerritos,
while .four cameras are used in: Santa Ana, Beverly Hills, Garden Grove,
Dana Point, Mission Viejo, Yorba Linda and Monrovia.
CSG's camera locations, depending on Option, are outlined in Section 5 of
this report and on drawings DWG.01, DWG.02 and DWG.03. For optimum
coverage, five cameras are recommended (one behind the dais, one on each
side wall of the facility, and two at the rear of the room. The use of five
cameras will provide for optimum flexibility, and speedier meeting coverage.
All cameras are recommended to be wall mounted on a pan-tilt control
system. Additional discussion regarding camera cablecast facilities is
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 5
Ch OF ARCADIA - 'Cablecast Feasro lity Analysis'
covered under the Facility Designs section of the report.
There are three types of cameras (manufactured by a variety of companies)
used by most cities and industrial users to televise meetings. Each type
varies in quality and cost. All employ digital processing and CCD "chips"
rather than tubes as pick-up elements.
A) At the low end in terms of cost and quality are single chip cameras
manufactured by Panasonic and the type used by Garden Grove,
Cypress, and San Clemente. These can be purchased and installed
for approximately $4,000 per camera. However, pictures generated
by these cameras have less color contrast and poorer pictures due to
greater levels of noise, lower light sensitivity, and poorer lenses.
B) In the middle in terms of cost and quality are three chip cameras
using 1/2" CCD chips manufactured by Sony, Panasonic, and JVC.
This type of camera is used by Mission Viejo, Torrance, and
Lakewood. These cameras have greater resolution and light
sensitivity and are moderately priced at approximately $9,2500 per
camera.
C) At the next level are three chip cameras using 2/3" CCD chips. A
variety of models are manufactured with this size chip by Panasonic
and Sony. This type of camera is used by Beverly Hills, Cerritos and
Los Angeles and produces a very clear and stable picture. Costs per
camera at this level are priced at approximately $12,500 per camera.
CSG recommends use of 1/2" digitally controlled chip cameras because of
their high Quality pictures given overall price. (See Exhibit B)
4.3 Camera Control
Tours of various cities will illustrate three types of camera control
methodologies:
A) Manually operated cameras by production staff using portable tripods
and cables like the type used by Cablevision in Arcadia
B) Remote controlled cameras using an individual pan/tilt controller for
each camera.
C) Remote controlled cameras using an integrated joystick controller
panel capable of controlling all cameras from a single panel.
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 6
•
r� � .
CITY 0 --JRCADIA - 'Cablecast Feasibility analysis'
Option A above is the City's current method. This method requires no
permanent equipment to be dedicated to the Council chambers. It requires
instead, dedicated conduit and cable runs which terminate on the walls and
floor of the Council chambers which run back to a central control location,
such as a studio control room. This option requires additional staffing,
usually one person per camera. This option also requires additional time to
set-up and tear down. Finally, this option places a degree of obtrusiveness
into the meeting proceedings as crew members, equipment, and cables are
in plain sight of meeting participants. Also the City's fire code may prohibit
certain camera locations in aisles.
Option B above is the method used by Dana Point, San Clemente, Cypress
and Torrance. This method requires permanently mounted equipment and
hardware. It also requires dedicated conduit to connect wall or ceiling
mounted cameras to the production control center. This option removes
staff members, cables, and equipment from plain view. This option allows
only one staff person to operate all cameras. The equipment in this option
however does not enable smooth camera moves. Instead motion is jerky
and difficult to control. Typically all shots are set up prior to switching
resulting in slower coverage than joystick type system as described in
Option C. Equipment and labor to install this type of control equipment is
moderately priced (approximately $2,000 per camera).
Option C above is the method most preferred by the cities we consult. This
type of equipment is in use by Santa Ana, Yorba Linda, Cerritos, Beverly
Hills, Mission Viejo, Brea, Thousand Oaks, Monrovia, Los Angeles. It uses a
digital technology coupled with ergonomically designed hand controls to
provide sophisticated camera controls from a single control panel. This type
of equipment allows one person to work all cameras with much greater
accuracy and control. Shots can be pre-set and called up with simple
command codes, speeding up the time it takes to set up shots. Camera
pans, tilts and zooms can also be easily made from the control panel while
on air. Movement is smooth and simple.
Equipment related to Option C is can be purchased and installed for
approximately $6,000 per camera.
CSG recommends Option C for its staff efficiency and greater accuracy and
performance. (See Exhibits C and F)
4.4 Lighting
The current lighting is a combination of florescent and incandescent. It was
noted that the incandescent lamps have recently been upgraded to 200
watts which is maximum for that type of fixture. There may be need to
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 7
C11 . JF ARCADIA - 'Cablecast Feasi, o,r�ty Analysis'
replace some of the "can type" fixtures with ones that are adjustable for
more directional lighting. The public seating area is poorly lit. If the budget
allows for it some consideration should be given to track lighting, or a
florescent strip in several strategic locations.
CSG notes that the existing lighting above the Council Members appear to
be adequate in light of the anticipated available funds for the Council
Chamber Audio/Video/cablecasting project. CSG believes that.a significant
amount of money can be saved and used in other project areas if the
existing lighting is maintained.
Where possible, all the lamps could be upgraded to 3200 degree Kelvin
color temperature lamps. CSG believes that the exchange of lamps in the
existing lighting fixtures will provide adequate lighting for the CCD cameras
recommended for this project without adding appreciable heat.
4.5 Projector And Video Presentations
The current motorized screen and projection locations have been deemed
adequate by CSG and city staff. A new overhead projector is
recommended.
Video presentations from the Council Chambers by City staff is something
the City may wish to study. More and more cities across southern
California have added video projectors to their Council Chambers (Vista,
Mission Viejo, Beverly Hills, Cerritos, and Yorba Linda). Video presentations
have been used by these Cities to enhance presentations by Finance,
Planning, and Recreation Departments.
If the City is supportive of video projection, CSG recommends that the video
projector be capable receiving an input directly from a computer. Images
generated by computers such as Harvard Graphics slides and computer
graphics could then be displayed on the screen in the council chambers.
CSG recommends locating the video projector in the ceiling speaker
enclosure shown in the photographs attached at the rear of this report. The
projector would be directed to throw its image on the existing slide screen.
Current LCD video projectors on the market are small, relatively inexpensive
and require low maintenance (See Exhibit D). In addition, the new LCD
projectors do not have the alignment problems associated with standard
three lens video projectors.
Approximate cost is $6,500.
Communications Support Group,.Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 8
a _ ,
4 , 1
CITY OF ARCADIA - 'Cablecast Feasibility-Analysis'
The City currently uses a large television monitor to provide the audience a
feed from the cable production control area. This helps people in the back
of the chambers to see close-ups of persons. City. staff and CSG concur on
the need to add a second display monitor to be located on the opposite side
of the room. Finally, a additional video monitor is recommended to be
located in front of the Council dais as a display monitor for those seated at
the dais.
4.6 Cablecasting Control Room
CSG recommends that the control room be located in the small room
adjacent to the council chambers on the east side. This room is currently
being used for storage. This room is recommended as power is already
available to this location and the runs to the camera locations are
satisfactory.
However, if portability for the new equipment is required, it is recommended
that all new equipment be housed in transportable equipment racks.
DWG.04 shows CSG's recommendation for the configuration of such an
equipment rack.
Actual equipment items may vary depending on the specific equipment
option selected by the City.
Key components of this system include:
1 . Four piece transportable production console
2. Computer based video switcher, digital effects system, and
production titler
3. Touch screen pan/tilt/zoom/focus panel
4. Four channel audio mixer
5. Automated tape replay system
6. - Video source and cable system monitoring
7. Wireless microphone
8. Video editing, dubbing, and playback decks
All options will enable live broadcasts or taped replay from the production
console, provided special cabling is installed by the cable company.
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 9
CITY OF ARCADIA - 'Cablecast Feasibility Analysis'
To minimize conduit expense and facility disruption, CSG recommends that
the audio/video cables be run above the ceiling tiles from the control room
to the Chambers if the crawl space permits access. We need to determine
as per fire code if it is a plenum area or whether conduit is needed. If crawl
space does not permit access then the runs can be made on the outside of
the wall with use of aesthetic molding to match the current wood color.
See photographs of these areas in Appendix 4.
4.7 Editing vs. Production and Tape Format
CSG recommends the City acquire video cassette recorders capable of
editing. This feature will allow editing of video tape programs from the
control room when the system is not being used for Council meetings.
Just as has been the case with home video equipment, such as Betamax,
VHS, and Hi-8, a variety of video tape formats are produced by
manufacturers of industrial and broadcast quality production equipment.
Just like home video, each format brings varying degrees of quality and
performance.
There are three primary formats for video tape used by local governments in
southern California:
a) S-VHS
b) 3/4" U-matic SP
c) Betacam SP
Characteristics to consider in selecting a format are equipment costs, tape
costs, performance, and compatibility with other equipment. S-VHS is a
relatively new format and has quickly grown in popularity. Beverly Hills,
Yorba Linda, Cypress, Cerritos, Monrovia, Mission Viejo, and Los Angeles
use S-VHS format. S-VHS provides good quality first generation pictures
and provides up to two hours of standard speed recording time on one video
cassette. Two hour tapes can be purchased for under $10.
3/4" U-matic SP has been the government, public access, and broadcast
industry standard for much of the past decade. Still used by Lakewood,
Torrance and Santa Ana, this format provides for excellent pictures and
performance. 3/4" U-matic SP recording decks are nearly twice as
expensive as S-VHS and so are 3/4" video tapes. Another weakness of
3/4" video tape is cassette length (only 1 hour per tape is allowed, thus
leading to greater costs and greater storage needs).
Betacam SP is a broadcast standard. Betacam is used by most Los Angeles
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 10
CITY O -HRCADIA - 'Cablecast Feasibility.aalysis'
area broadcast stations and is used by the cities of City of Beverly Hills,
Santa Monica, and Los Angeles (for field acquisition and editing). Betacam
produces excellent pictures and can record up to ninety minutes on 1/2"
size video cassettes. Betacam's greatest obstacle to government users is
price (approximately three times greater than S-VHS and two-thirds greater
than 3/4" SP).
CSG recommends S-VHS format for its cost-effectiveness, high
performance, and compatibility to the popular VHS consumer video format .
Other video tape equipment considerations concern:
1) Number of machines for recording
2) Editing capability
3) Playback capability •
To provide continuous coverage of Council meetings a minimum of two
recording machines is required. Two or more machines enable editing
functions to occur. Video tape editing, unlike film, requires dubbing of a
tape from one machine to another under electronic control. Editing control
equipment links the two machines together for this purpose.
Two options are suggested for editing capabilities:
a) Cuts Only
b) A/B Roll
Cuts only editing uses one machine as a source and a second machine as a
recorder. Control is managed byba remote panel generally made by the
same manufacturer as the tape machines (Sony, Panasonic, JVC). T�
enable the City to consider editing capability now, or in the future. CSG
recommends that the two recording machines used for recording meetings
provide editing capability., Approximate cost for two S-VHS editing
machines recorders is $12,000.
A/B roll editing allows a multiple number of machines to act as sources, and
along with a video switcher can create unique transitions between sources
such as fades and wipes. A/B roll editing controllers do not necessary need
to be manufactured by the same companies as the tape machines. In fact
many cities, (Lakewood, Cypress, Torrance, and Beverly Hills) use edit
controllers made by third party companies.
Edit controllers range in price from $1,800 to $25,000. CSG recommends
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 11
Ch r OF ARCADIA - 'Cablecast Feas pity Analysis'
starting with a simple cuts only editing system using a manufacturer based
single control panel to control up to three machines. Approximate cost is
$3,500.
CSG recommends an additional two VHS decks for tape dubbing and
playback and record functions. Since these types of decks have built-in
timers, they make ideal machines for taping special events from cable or
broadcast networks.
4.8 Graphics
Computer graphics have become common in all types of television
programming. Computer generated graphics are often the center of news,
sports, and informational programming. In order to create graphics of
television quality, special computer equipment needs to be purchased.
Cities rely on graphics primarily to cablecast public information messages
over the cable channel between programs and to provide titles and agenda
information during Council meetings. Like with "letter quality printers," a
minimum resolution or graphics quality needs to be determined. Similar to
the justification to purchase high resolution laser printers (300 dots per inch
of resolution) most cities require electronic graphics devices capable of
providing a minimum of 35 nanoseconds (rise time) from black to white
horizontal and resolution of 640 x 480 pixels with a minimum 16 bit color
values (256 colors).
CSG recommends graphics equipment similar to that found in Yorba Linda,
Cerritos, and Commerce. This is PC based system (Amiga) and costs
approximately $10,000.
4.9 Eng Production
The City should assess its plans for producing programming other than
Council meetings. Unless portable electronic news gathering equipment
(ENG) is available through the cable system, CSG recommends the City
study the purchase of a portable S-VHS production camcorder.
4.10 Other Concerns
Other areas to be reviewed by the successful equipment vendor involve
shared use of electrical circuits and any available conduits which might run
from the proposed control room into the Council Chambers. CSG's
assessment suggests that sufficient floor space, conduit, breezeways and
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 12
•
CITY 01,�;?CADIA - 'Cablecast Feasibi/ity,� la/ysis'
power exists to support all improvements stated above. However, more
study should be done prior to the bidders' meeting as to whether the City •
electrician will perform electrical circuit work, or whether the chosen vendor
will responsible.
Also, CSG recommends:
A. As a capital improvement or building improvement, new air-conditioning
duct and vents could be tapped off the existing system to provide
additional air flow to the council members areas.
B. If it is decided that there is enough potential future use of the chambers
as a production studio then additional installs would be needed. A
curtain track for a back drop, additional lighting (grid) for more
directional lighting, tripods, camera studio configurations.
C. The city computer system and the council chamber should be on two
different transformers. This could be done as a capital improvement for
building improvement possibly by a city staff electrician.
5. FACILITY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
In creating the equipment options presented in CSG's feasibility analysis, CSG lists
four improvement options with distinct levels of quality, flexibility and integration.
5.1 Options 1A and 1B: (see DWG.01)
Options 1A and 1B (as shown in DWG.01) represents our optimum scenarios for
upgrading the audio/video/cablecasting capabilities of the City. The major factors
included in this option are to replace the sound system; add a wireless
microphone; install five remote controlled digital cameras using touch-screen
control; install a video projection system which includes a projectors and two
additional video monitors, install wall-mounted camera controllers, add editing and
playback equipment; add wireless control to lighting and A/V controls; and add
advanced computer graphics with digital effects.
Option 1A and Option 1B operate under essentially the same design, but Option
1B provides for higher quality cameras and editing equipment (similar to Cerritos,
Beverly Hills, and Los Angeles). Option 1B is less expensive than Option 1A.
Both options provide the high quality video productions using the least number of
staff persons. Both options require the same level of skills to operate.
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 13
Cl i OF ARCADIA - 'Cabldcast Feas,_2ty Analysis'
Option 1A
ITEM ' COST
Replace sound system, add wireless microphone $22,500
Amount includes replacement of lavalier microphones
with unidirectional gooseneck type. Deduct $2,400 if
lavaliers are not replaced.
Install five cameras with 3-2/3" chip cameras $62,500
the like and type of Hitachi Z-1 C, Sony DXC537
Panasonic WF300CLE.
Install five pan/tilt pedestals with touchscreen control $30,000
Install computer graphics and switching device $10,000
the like and type of a Video Toaster
Add an LCD video projector $6,500
Production control equipment-in transportable cases $44,000
Includes black and white monitors, color monitors for
program and preview, routing switches, video tape recording
machines, time base correctors, waveform and vectorscopes,
and A/B editing control equipment.
Add automated playback equipment supporting two editing decks, $3,000
and two additional 3/4" and SVHS decks
Add remote controlled light and AV control and replace lamps $7,000
Add additional lighting and wireless control $3,500
Standby uninterruptable power supply $1,300
Offer staff training $1,400
Provide system documentation $3,200
Including line drawings, runs sheets, operations manuals
Tax and miscellaneous expenses $15,700
$210,600
Option 1 A provides the highest levels of functionality and technical advancement.
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 14
CITY OV:,^: CADIA - 'Cablecast Feasibility0alysis'
Option 1B
ITEM COST
Replace sound system, add wireless microphone $22,500
Install five cameras with 3-1/2" chip cameras $46,250
the like and type of Hitachi C-10A
Install five pan/tilt pedestals with touchscreen control $30,000
Install computer graphics and switching device $10,000
the like and type of a Video Toaster
Add an LCD video projector $6,500
Production control equipment in transportable cases $32,000
(Same as above less A/B editing)
Add automated playback equipment supporting two editing decks, $3,000
and two additional 3/4" and SVHS decks
Add remote controlled light and AV control and replace lamps $7,000
Add additional lighting and wireless control $3,500
Standby uninterruptable power supply $1,300
Offer staff training $1,400
Provide system documentation $3,200
Including line drawings, runs sheets, operations manuals
Tax and miscellaneous expenses $13,700
$180,350
Option 1 provides the highest levels of functionality and technical advancement.
5.2 Option 2: (see DWG.02)
Option 2, as shown in DWG.02, provides four camera scenario for outfitting the
Council Chambers. This option provides the necessary facilities to meet the City's
needs as expressed in Option 1 but does not include: a fifth camera, a portable
production console, a wireless remote control lighting.
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 15
CI: OF ARCADIA - 'Cablecast Feat,_fifty Analysis'
ITEM COST
Replace sound system, add wireless microphone $22,500
Install four cameras with four 3-1/2" chip cameras $37,000
the like and type of Hitachi C-10A
Install four pan/tilt pedestals of the like and type $24,000
which allows for computerized touchscreen control
Install computer graphics and switching device $10,000
the like and type of a Video Toaster
Production control equipment in rack mounted $30,000
bays on casters (non portable)
Add automated playback equipment supporting two editing decks, $3,000
and two additional 3/4" and SVHS decks
Add an LCD video projector $6,500
Replace lamps $60
Staff Training $1,400
Provide system documentation $3,200
Tax and miscellaneous expenses $6,740
$144,400
5.3 Option 3: (see DWG.03)
Although CSG does not recommend a three camera option, Option 3 (DWG.03)
represents a low budget approach to televising City Council meetings. This option
could be considered phase one of a two phase capital improvement project.
Items deleted from Option 1B include two cameras and pan/tilt pedestals, a Video
Toaster graphics and effects station, a video projector, lighting controls,
transportable cases, and a wireless microphone. This option provides for new
audio system, three remotely controlled cameras, and a non-computerize-based
production switcher.
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 16
CITY O1-ARCAD/A - 'Cablecast Feasibility +alysis'
- Option 3
ITEM COST
Replace sound system $21,500
Install three cameras $28,000
with three new 3-1/2" chip cameras the
like and type of Hitachi C-10A)
Install three pan/tilt pedestals of the like and type $18,000
allowing remote control from a computerized touchscreen
Add less sophisticated switching device the like $5,_500
and type of a Panasonic WJMX-50
Purchase VTRs , audio mixer, character generator $30,000
Provide system documentation $1,800
Training $1,400
Tax and miscellaneous expenses $4,200
$110,400
6. COMPARISONS TO OTHER CITIES
CSG tracks municipal programming trends through survey data collected
nationally, state-wide and locally. Data collected during the past five years
suggests the following:
• Cities have become much more active in cable production since passage of the
1984 Cable Communications Policy Act.
• The majority of the nation's cities do not employ full-time cable television
administration and production staff.
• A majority of cities who responded to surveys about cable television production
possess some form of basic video production equipment.
• Most cities with municipal programming capabilities have annual operating
budgets under $100,000.
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 17
Cl , OF ARCADIA - 'Cablecast Fea .,e ty Analysis'
• For cities with cable production capacity, 5-10 hours of original
programming is produced per week.
•
• The average number of staff dedicated to municipal production is 2.75.
The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA),
conducted a national survey of cities in 1992 to measure the level of technology
and staff resources committed to telecommunications from across the country.
Twenty-five percent of NATOA's 400 members responded to the survey. Of those
respondents, 75% reported having basic in-house and remote production
equipment including editing facilities. 60.6% stated having a cable television
studio and 37% reported using a mobile production truck. 76% use 3/4"
recording equipment; 48% use S-VHS, while 44% indicate that they will switch to
higher S-VHS formats in the near future. 14% indicate that they use the more
expensive Betacam format. 48% have A/B roll editing capacity, and 52% have
digital video effects equipment.
Cities with production capabilities reported having an average of 3.75 full-time,
and an average of 2.75 part-time production staff members. Twenty-one percent
of the sample have facilities valued under $150,000. Twenty-six percent of the
sample had facilities valued between $150,000 and $300,000. The average
number of original programming hours per week for cities with cable channels was
13 hours, with the majority of the sample producing only 4 hours per week. The
cities were found to repeat their programming a total average of 28 hours per
week.
Examples of municipal programming included council meetings, city sponsored
events, recreation and sporting events, community events, and alphanumeric
information related to program schedules, employment offers, and city services.
In 1988, California Foundation for Community Service Cable Television (FCSCTV)
conducted a survey of California cities designed to solicit information about their
involvement in local cable programming. Twenty four cities were sent surveys.
Nineteen cities responded, of which 15 indicated that they produce programming
on a local cable channel. Of those 15 cities, 73% produce programming using city
staff resources while 26% either use contractors or a combination of contractors
and city staff. 33% of the sample produced less than 5 hours of programming per
week, 20% produce 5-10 hours per week, and 47% produce more than 10 hours
per week.
Over 50% of the sample had been engaged in producing cable television programs
for 2-5 years. Onk, 13% had more than 5 year experience. 33% of the total
respondents repor-ad annual production budgets of less than $50,000. 20% in
the $50,000 - $100,000 range. And 33% reported budgets over $100,000.
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 18
1
CITY OL .�RCADIA - 'Cab/ecast
An average of 1 .7 full-time positions was found to be dedicated by these
municipalities to video production functions. 58% of the cities polled have a
dedicated channel for municipal programming. The remaining cities share a
channel with either public access, educational access, or cable company users. A
majority of the cities polled were from southern California.
Communications Support Group conducted a survey during the first two weeks in
April, ,1992 which was responded to by 15 cities in Orange and Los Angeles
counties during.FY 91-92.
From this study, the cities of Beverly Hills, Chino, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Garden
Grove, Hawthorne, Huntington Beach, Lakewood, Mission Viejo, Norwalk, Santa
Barbara, Santa Monica, Santa Ana, Thousand-Oaks, and Torrance reported
televising City Council meetings to their residents on a live, or taped delayed basis.
Ten of the 15 cities reported operating budgets in excess of $150,000 per year.
Only two cities (Santa Barbara and Mission Viejo) have budgets of less than •
$100,000. All but two cities used a combination of full and part-time staff.
Mission Viejo, Yorba Linda, Cerritos, and Beverly Hills use a combination of
independent contractors and part-time employees. Torrance had the largest staff
and largest budget -- six full-time, eight part-time staff and annual expenditures of
$600,000.
The mix of programming varied significantly between cities. Coverage of meetings
represented more than 60% of programming for the cities of Beverly Hills, Costa
Mesa, Cypress, Huntington Beach, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica and Thousand
Oaks. Lakewood and Chino had the lowest percentage of programming related to
meetings with 25% and 30% respectively.
As for capital budgets related to Council Chamber teleproduction facilities, the
following is known:
CITY AMOUNT YEAR INSTALLED
Santa Ana $450,000 1985
Beverly Hills $250,000 1989
Cerritos $258,000 1993
Glendora $160,000 1993 (underway)
Manhattan Beach $150,000 1993 (underway)
Mission Viejo $140,000 1990
Yorba Linda $135,000 1993
Chino $130,000 1988
Garden Grove $130,000 1988
Cypress $130,000 1987
Dana Point $ 70,000 1992
San Clemente $ 60,000 1989
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 19.
Cl OF ARCADIA - 'Cablecast Fees w ty Analysis'
- 7. BIDDING PROCESS AND CONCLUSIONS
The second phase of our work (Request for Bids) will set out specifications for a
competitive bidding procedure.
Based on the option the City selects from the information provided in this report,
CSG will provide line item specifications and general design parameters for a
competitive bid solicitation.
As part of these specifications, we recommend that the procedures require the
winning equipment vendor to provide, as an integral part of its contract, "turn-
key" installation services on the equipment it supplies, as well as interconnection
with equipment already owned by the City. The successful vendor should offer
complete design and functionality assurances. The City should have independent
professional supervision of the installation to insure that quality standards are
applied and achieved, and to provide the City with competent project oversight in
fielding and resolving the installation problems which naturally arise.
A formal acceptance test to demonstrate achievement of proposal specifications
should be required of and performed by the selected vendor, and witnessed by an
independent technical inspector. A sample schedule is attached as Appendix D.
We are also providing you with a listing of vendors in the southern California area
which have submitted bids on projects we have managed for other cities.
There is no doubt that the desire of the City to improve the presentation of
audio/visual materials within the Council Chambers and to improve television
production of Council meetings and other programming from Council Chambers is
highly feasible. Our assessment of the Council Chamber leads us to conclude that
the physical facilities are more than sufficient. The improvements we envision in
Options 1, 2 and to a lesser extent, 3 will permit the City to enjoy the benefits of
an integrated audio/video/cablecasting resource for many years to come. These
lists of practical, highly efficient recommendations, form the foundation of a
compact technical facility from which future expansion would be permitted. The
equipment and related control systems listed in the options will result in notable
improvements.
8. CONSULTANT'S CERTIFICATION
The statements, recommendations, and conclusions contained herein are based
solely on our professional judgment. We are not financially related to, nor have
contractual or casual relationships with any potential equipment manufacturers,
vendors, or service agencies which might bid on the project specified in this
report.
<END REPORT>
Communications Support Group, Inc. RPT93018.001 - Page 20
. CONTENTS
DRAWINGS i
EXHIBITS 2
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE 3
PHOTOGRAPHS 4
5
M OneSten*
CITY OF ARCADIA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AUDIO/VIDEO/CABLECASTING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
* * *
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF DRAWINGS
DWG.01 : Council Chamber - OPTION 1
DWG.02: Council Chamber - OPTION 2
DWG.03: Council Chamber- OPTION 3
DWG.04: Control Room Rack Elevation
DWG.05: Council Chamber Video Flow Diagram
from side wall
s
■ 1 ;,,
Camera 4
i$ o _ 0 0 0 0
'1°-t m DRAWING DWG.O
o � 0 0
'la
i 5 camera scenario ff
0 -- f
N�,
9
O �A
7
1
118'from Ins a Step Camera 2
�� ' A 1 8 from Inside step
•
1 �
i1 -
a
o m C°CCCOCCOCOCC°CCC°C);0
is 0
•••••••••••••••
..."•••••••••••••••"•••••
•• •••••••• ••
..70040:4A•0•••••44460000400,001....
•••••••••.:444 iles.:40000104,14010000..11•AWSPs
Camera 1 _ Camera 5
All cameras 7'6'from floor
Communications Support Group 1993
City of Arcadia Council Chambers
7.5'from side wall
, Camera 4
0000
g° m DRAWING DWG.02
a . 0 Q 4 camera scenario
/ 0 I I
0
0 l%
�A
-- Camera 2
1'8'from insi�e step r ' _— 'i I'8'from Inside step
_P
IN
a CQD°CCOODOCCGCr3CC°C)0
o m
Q U ..• • • ••
- •
••••• ••..••• IA
4ILI4
• !(11140easeeseess•••••••••
Camera 1
All cameras 716'from floor
Communications Support Group 1993
City of Arcadia Council Chambers
J
" 7 om side all
Camera 3
0 0 0 0
�o ® DRAWING DWG.03
ooo Q ,
-� g
'n DRA I 3 camera scenario j
0 Nom,
'>
o nA
m
Q r/\ .
Cam :; 1 � , C.. 'era 2
l'' Z ' CC°X°C1000000OCCCC°
< U
di .•••••.•.•,. Ah sill
•,••••••••••••••
see• a••••..••• �••
wws•oesesesee•••.....
.•. .•_ _•_S. ,
•
(Communications Support Group 1993
City of Arcadia Council Chambers
F
CONTROL ROOM RACK ELEVATION
DRAWING DWG.04
Audio Audio
Monitor '
Monitor.•••••.••
•
• :..
%%% 0.5 % %% %:%% A%VA el
.•\ •. • %% `••• Character .\
•• Preview ••.♦♦ ,... VDU ••
••• .. Program \. •
;� ; Generator k%•• •
%%% :, _ '
%%% \5. . ♦♦ i li i/e� 1 ♦I\\ CD 31:3 i\;` 1.ji
:
DRAWING DWG.05
CAM 1 VIDEO
CAM 2
SWITCHER _ S-VHS VTR
CAM 3 VHS DUB
PGM
CAM 4 PROGRAM D.A. S-VHS VTR
CAM 5 LOBBY
MONITOR
U-MATIC -
VTR PROGRAM
MONITOR
Pti,�,`, PREVIEW
CHAR GEN MONITOR
FUTURE
PODIUM
a MONITOR
FUTURE
VIDEO
MODULATOR
S-VHS VTR w a PROD.
0
• a
S-VHS VTR
TO CABLE
SYSTEM
•
•
CITY OF ARCADIA
AUDIO/VIDEO/CABLECABTINO IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Option I-A Option I-B Option II Option III
Cost $210,600 $180,350 $144,400 $110,400
Summary Five camera automated Five camera automated Four camera automated Three camera automated
system. Sophisticated system. Less sophis- system yielding fewer system yielding still
editing abilities. ticated editing abil- camera angles. Func- fewer camera angles.
State of the Art ities. Lesser camera tionally less efficient.
technology for city quality. More typical
standards. for city needs.
(' Equipment Replace Sound System Replace Sound System Replace Sound System Replace Sound System
Wireless microphone Wireless microphone Wireless microphone
Five 3 2/3" chip cameras Five 3 1/2" chip cameras Four 3 1/2" chip cameras Three 3 1/2" chip cameras
with pan/tilt pedestals with pan/tilt pedestals with pan/tilt pedestals with pan/tilt pedestals
and touchscreen control and touchscreen control and touchscreen control and touchscreen control
Computer graphic's and Computer graphics and Computer graphics and Less sophisticated graphics
switching devise switching devise switching devise and switching devise
Production control Production control Production control Production control
equipment including equipment including equipment including equipment including
B/W monitors B/W monitors B/W monitors B/W monitors
Color monitors Color monitors Color monitors Color monitors
Routing switches Routing switches Routing switches Routing switches
Video tape recorder Video tape recorder Video tape recorder Video tape recorder
Time base correctors Time base correctors Time base correctors Time base correctors
Waveforms/vectorscopes Waveforms/vectorscopes Waveforms/vectorscopes Waveforms/vectorscopes
Tranportable Transportable
A/B editing control
I
4 .
•
Option I-A Option I-B Option II Option III
Equipment LCD video projector LCD video projector LCD video projector LCD video projector
Automatic playback - Automatic playback Automatic playback
w/2 editing decks and w/2 editing decks and w/2 editing decks and
2 additional decks 2 additional decks 2 additional decks
Remote control lighting Remote control lighting
and audio/visual and audio/visual
Additional lighting Additional lighting
Standby uninterruptable Standby uninterruptable
power supply power supply
j System documentation System documentation System documentation System documentation
and training and training and training and training
System
Comparison Cerritos Mission Viejo Dana Point
Beverly Hills Yorba Linda San Clemente
Santa Ana Glendora v-d'
Manhattan Beach Q�
tCypfagg
Chino
Garden Grove
Monrovia d
r—
•
4
Option I-A Option I-B Option II Option III
Equipment LCD video projector LCD video projector LCD video projector LCD video projector
Automatic playback Automatic playback Automatic playback
w/2 editing decks and w/2 editing decks and w/2 editing decks and
2 additional decks 2 additional decks 2 additional decks
Remote control lighting Remote control lighting
and audio/visual and audio/visual
Additional lighting Additional lighting
Standby uninterruptable Standby uninterruptable
power supply power supply
l System documentation System documentation System documentation System documentation
•
and training and training and training and training
System.
Commparison Cerritos Mission Viejo Dana Point
Beverly Hills Yorba Linda San Clemente
Santa Ana Glendora Cypress
Manhattan Beach
Chino
Garden Grove
Monrovia
•
•
MENT
�-41S QO�U ,�
rci.n <, n 're�
114"11 611 Of i i:i A
Arcadia, Ca icrnia
March 15, 1994
FILE NO. -------------
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Donna L. Butler, Assistant Community Development Director;
Planning
SUBJECT: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 92-003 (including the
Operations Plan) and a Reclamation Plan for an Inert Landfill at 12321
Lower Azusa Road, and a Final Environmental Impact Report for said
Conditional Use Permit and Plan
SUMMARY
In December, 1994 Rodeffer Investments, Inc. ("Rodeffer" or "applicant") filed an
application for a reclamation plan and conditional use permit 92-003, including an
operations plan (collectively referred to as the "project") for a proposed inert landfill
at the 85± acre depleted sand and gravel quarry located at 12321 Lower Azusa Road.
On the basis of the initial study prepared by staffs, it was determined that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was necessary.
The Draft EIR and the project were reviewed by the Planning Commission at a
public hearing on September 14, 1994. The Commission's findings and
recommendations to the City Council are set forth in Resolutions 1504 and 1503
(attached hereto and incorporated by this reference).
The City Council is the final decision making body for purposes of certifying the
Final Environmental Impact Report ("final EIR" or "FEW"), and approving the
reclamation plan and conditional use permit (including the operations plan).
To facilitate review of this project, the staff report is divided into five sections:
Section 1 Project Description
Section 2 Procedural Background and the Environmental Analysis
Section 3 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Section 4 Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation
Section 5 Recommendations; Findings and Motions
Section 6 Attachments
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 1
1
)
SECTION 1
PROTECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located at 12321 Lower Azusa Road within the City of
Arcadia. The subject of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consists of the
establishment and operation of an inert landfill on a depleted sand and gravel
quarry site. The 85 acre site was used for sand and gravel extraction from 1967 to
1990. Operation continued until aggregate depletion and groundwater intrusion
rendered it economically infeasible to use the site as a quarry. The proposed landfill
will accept only soils, rocks and other inert materials to fill the quarry pit.'
It is estimated the quarry pit is between 150 and 165 feet deep and contains
approximately 1.1 billion gallons of standing water. Currently the bottom of the
quarry is under approximately 40 feet of water. It is estimated that 10 million cubic
yards of inert materials will be required to fill the quarry to its pre 1967 surface
elevations and take approximately eight to twelve years to completely fill.
The project site is currently designated industrial in the City's General Plan and is
zoned M-2 (heavy industrial). No permanent long term land uses are proposed at
this time.
Several State and local agencies will be responsible for permits and authority over
the proposed project. These agencies include:
1. City of Arcadia: Has approval authority over the Conditional Use Permit
(including the operations plan) and Reclamation Plan for the proposed project.
2. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (RWQCB): Has
permit authority for all landfills to ensure that they comply with State law and
also has permit and regulatory authority for discharge of storm water associated
with construction and industrial activities.
3. California Integrated Waste Management.Board: Has review and approval
authority for the proposed landfill.
4. South Coast Air Quality Management District: Has review and permit
authority for operations of the landfill and ensures compliance with all
applicable rules and regulations.
5. Los Angeles County Department of Health Services: Has permit approval
authority for the proposed landfill and ensures compliance with all conditions
set forth in the permit.
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 2
I ‘,.
The primary objectives of the Project are to:
1. Stabilize the quarry slopes to reduce hazards to public health and safety
consistent with State and local requirements; and
2. Reclaim the property to a reusable condition consistent with the City of
Arcadia's General Plan and zoning regulations;
3. Comply with the requirements of the City of Arcadia as contained in the
Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan adopted June 5, 1979; and
4. Comply with the 1975 California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act.
HISTORY
The subject site was annexed to the City of Arcadia in 1957. In 1958 a special use
permit was approved by the Arcadia City Council to allow sand and gravel
extraction. The quarrying operation started in 1967 and was discontinued in 1990.
During this period of time more than 10 million cubic yards of sand and gravel were
removed from the quarry.
In 1985, Rodeffer Investments, Inc. filed an application for a conditional use permit
(No. 85-22) proposing an inert landfill for the subject property. An environmental
impact report was prepared by Lockman & Associates and certified by the City
Council. As a result of a court ruling, a second environmental impact report was
prepared on the project by Michael Brandman Associates. After the public hearings
on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the applicant withdrew his conditional
use permit application.
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act(SMARA, Public Resources Code §2710 et.
seq.) of 1975 and as amended by Assembly Bill AB747 requires that mining
operations have a Reclamation Plan approved by the City. In April 1990 Mr.
Rodeffer filed a Reclamation Plan for the Rodeffer Quarry with the City of Arcadia
that was approved by the City Council on July 3, 1990. A copy of the Plan was
forwarded to the State Mining and Geology Board. The City of El Monte filed an
appeal with State Mining and Geology Board challenging Arcadia's approval of the
Reclamation Plan.
In September of 1990, Mr. Rodeffer's Attorney, Marlene Fox, requested that the State
Mining and Geology Board rescind or vacate the Reclamation Plan approved by the
Arcadia City Council. Her letter noted that "the concerned agencies and parties
might be better served if the reclamation plan were resubmitted to the City of
Arcadia, together with our [Rodeffer] client's application for approval of a
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 3
conditional use permit for this project." The Arcadia City Council at its November
14, 1990, meeting voted to rescind its previous approval of the Reclamation Plan.
Quarrying operations ceased in July 1990. After July, clean-up of the site that
included removal of equipment, materials and debris, was completed and all
operations ceased.
RECLAMATION PLAN
The project will fulfill requirements of the California Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) and requirements of the City of Arcadia
contained in the Mining Permits and Reclamation Plans Ordinance. SMARA
• declares that the reclamation of mined lands is necessary to prevent or minimize
adverse effects on the environment and to protect the public health and safety. The
objectives of SMARA (§2712) include:
• 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.
• Residual hazards to public health and safety are eliminated.
The Reclamation Plan addresses the requirements set forth in Public Resources
Code §2772 and 2773 including the manner in which reclamation will be
accomplished.
The lead agency's review of a reclamation plan is limited to whether the plan
substantially meets the requirements set forth in Sections 2772, 2773 and 2773.1 of
SMARA, and the lead agency's surface mining ordinance adopted pursuant to
subdivision (a) of §2774. "Reclamation plans or financial assurances determined to
substantially meet these requirements shall be approved by the lead agency for,
purposes of this chapter."
Section 9510.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code notes in part, "...that the reclamation
of mined lands is necessary to prevent or minimize adverse effects on the
environment and to protect the public health and safety." In addition, one of the
prerequisite conditions is: "That 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."
C.U.P. PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting approval of conditional use permit 92-003 and the
related operations plan.
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 4
p
■
The operations plan describes the inert landfill operations including a detailed
description of all major steps, tasks, requirements, restrictions, precautions and
activities involved in the operation of a solid waste inert landfill. It includes
material quantity, haul generation, inspection and testing procedures, acceptable fill
material description, identification of potential waste sources, on-site operation
procedures, security procedures, visual buffering improvements, reclamation and
regulatory agency involvement and implementation schedule.
Rodeffer intends to lease the site to Roadway Construction, Inc. who will operate the
inert landfill. The landfill will accept only those materials permitted by Waste
Discharge Requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), Los Angeles Region and the Solid Waste Facility Permit issued by the
California Integrated Management Board. These materials would consist primarily
of uncontaminated roadway materials, including soil; rock,gravel and concrete. No
organic or toxic materials are permitted.
Trucking Activity
For an estimated 220 days a year, approximately 150 loads of permitted materials
may be hauled to the site per day; for approximately 55 days per year, 300 loads of
permitted materials may be hauled to the facility in a day; and for 30 days per year a
maximum of 600 loads of permitted materials will be hauled to the site per day
based upon 8-12 years of operation.
All trucks will access the site from the San Gabriel River Freeway (I-605), most from
within 35 to 40 miles of the project site. No trucks will travel on residential roads in
the City of El Monte.
On-site Activity
All material transported to the landfill will be broken up at the excavation site so
that all material will fit into 12 inch lifts. On all large excavations, laboratory testing
of soils will occur prior to excavation and'visual inspection will be performed'prior
to transporting inert material to the proposed project site. Any material found not
to be inert will be rejected at the excavation site and not transported to the landfill.
All on-site field testing at the landfill will be performed by employees hired by and
responsible to the City or other assigned jurisdiction. No rock crushing will take
place at the landfill site. (More detailed information is provided in the Draft;EIR,
page 18.)
The entrance to the landfill will remain on Lower Azusa Road. Landscaping along
Lower Azusa Road will provide screening of the operations. There will be multiple
stacking lanes on site where a visual inspection and gas inspection are performed.
CC Report- Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 5
A
r
Additional inspections will be performed at the tipping area. No material will be
tipped directly into the groundwater. Any material found not to be inert will be
rejected. Provisions for handling rejected material are described in the Draft EIR
(page 20) and in the Final EIR (pages 243-245, 249-250). The proposed hours and days
of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday:
`Fvda.y an"
To reduce fugitive dust, all active work area sites and on-site roadways will be
watered at least twice a day. Also, exposed stockpiles will either be covered,
enclosed, watered twice daily or have a non-toxic soil binder applied to them.
The Operations Plan notes that the proposed landfill will be conducted as a grading
project as opposed to a typical landfill operation. After thorough inspection of
materials, fill will occur in lifts that will be compacted to a minimum compaction of
90 percent. Since the actual fill sequence is weather dependent, both a dry-fill
condition and wet fill condition scenario were evaluated in the EIR.
Groundwater
Groundwater monitoring will be initiated as part of the proposed project. Under the
direction of the City, a system of test wells will be installed upgradient immediately
next to the project site and existing downgradient wells will be tested to insure that
groundwater quality is not being jeopardized by the proposed project. The Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) will determine the location and the number
of monitoring wells required and the frequency of testing.
Prior to project operations, groundwater upgradient and downgradient of the site
will be collected and analyzed to provide a baseline for existing groundwater quality
that flows through or under the proposed project site.
Future Land Use
No permanent long-term land use is proposed at this time, nor is it considered as
part of the proposed project. Any assumptions for future uses of this site would be
speculative as this project itself is anticipated to last 8 to 12 years. Under the current
zoning designation, future development of the property would be subject to the
conditional use permit process and will require additional environmental review.
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 6
A
a }
SECTION 2
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.
The following outlines the Project's environmental process and analysis.
A. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000 et.
seq.
1. An initial study on the project was completed by the City of Arcadia in
February 1992, and in April of 1992, a revised initial study was prepared. The
initial studies identified the following potential significant adverse impacts
that could possibly occur as a result of the proposed project:
a. Earth - the proposed project has the potential for soil disruptions, changes
in topography, increases in soil erosion and the exposure of people or
property to geologic hazards.
b. Air - the proposed project may result in substantial air emissions.
c. Water - the proposed project may affect drainage patterns, the amount of
surface water in the pit, the quality of water in the pit, alter groundwater
flow or change the quantity of groundwaters.
d. Plant Life - the proposed project may change the diversity or number of
plant specifies.
e. Animal life - the proposed project may change the diversity or number of
animal species.
f. Noise - the proposed project may increase existing noise levels or expose
people to severe noise levels.
g. Transportation/Circulation - themproposed project may generate additional
vehicular movement, impact existing transportation systems and/or
increase traffic hazards.
h. Public Services - the proposed project may impact public facilities (roads).
In addition two other areas were identified in the initial study as potentially
significant: energy and human health. These topics were not analyzed in the
impact section of the EIR because upon further study were not found to b'e
significant (See Draft EIR pages 2 and 3).
CC Report- Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 7
A
1
2. On February 18, 1992, the City entered into a contract with Harland
Bartholomew and Associates and its subconsultants Engineering Science and
Barton Aschman & Associates, to assist the City in preparing the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed inert landfill. Because
of changes in the project team, the City assigned Engineering Science as
primary consultant in August 1992. Page 2 of the consultant's contract states
that the City, as lead agency shall:
"(a) independently review and analyze any report or declaration required,
pursuant to Section 21082.1 and other related sections of the Pubic Resources
Code; (b) circulate draft documents which reflect its independent judgment;
and (c) as part of the adoption of any reports or declarations, find that the
report or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency."
3. The first Notice of Preparation was circulated on February 28, 1992. A revised •
Notice of Preparation was circulated for 30 days on April 15, 1992, to interested
and responsible agencies, organizations and individuals. The NOP described
the City's intent to prepare an EIR for the proposed project and requested
comments regarding its content. Responses were received from sixteen (16)
interested persons and agencies.
4. At 6:30 p.m. on March 11, 1992, a scoping meeting was held in the Arcadia
City Hall Council Chambers. Notices of the meeting were sent to all property
owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property as well as all persons
who had submitted post cards to the City requesting notice of all public
meetings (approximately 800 persons). Thirty-five (35) persons attended the
meeting and eleven (11) persons spoke.
5. The Draft EIR was prepared by the City's consultant Engineering Science,,
Harland Bartholomew and Associates, Barton-Aschman and Associates and
the City of Arcadia staff, including the City's legal.CEQA counsel, Margaret
Sohagi.
6. On August 11, 1993, the Notice of Completion was sent to interested and
responsible agencies and persons requesting a copy of the Notice of
Completion as well as copies of the Draft E . The Notice of Completion
provided for a 45 day review period (August 11 through September 24, 1993).
7. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on September 14,
1993, on the Draft EIR (DEIR) and the Project (C.U.P. 92-003 and Reclamation
Plan) for the Rodeffer Quarry. Public hearing notices were mailed on August
20, 1993, to 800+ persons requesting notice of the project, including everyone
within the 300 foot radius. In addition, a notice of the hearing was published
on August 19, 1993, in the Arcadia, Sierra Madre, Temple City Highlander.
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 8
•
The purpose of the hearing was: (1) to review and receive public testimony
on the Draft EIR, Reclamation Plan and conditional use permit before the
close of the public comment period on the DEIR, and (2) transmit the
Commission's record and recommendations in resolution form to the City
Council.
It was noted in the staff report and at the public hearing that the City Council
would be the final decision making body for purposes of certifying the final
environmental impact report and approving the reclamation plan and the
conditional use permit including the operations plan.
On October 12, 1994, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to adopt:
Resolution 1504 expressing the Commission's comments to the City
Council on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Conditional
Use Permit 92-003 a proposed inert landfill at 12321 Lower Azusa Road.
Resolution 1503 expressing the Commission's comments and
recommendation to the City Council regarding Conditional Use Permit
92-003 for a proposed inert landfill and Reclamation Plan at 12321
Lower Azusa Road; and
8. During the 45 day review period the City received written comments from
seventeen (17) interested agencies and persons, and both written and oral
comments received during the public hearing process before the Planning
Commission. These comments have been included in the Final EIR.
9. The written responses to comments were sent to all public agencies on March
3, 1994,per Public Resources Code§ 21092.5.
10. On February 17, 1994, the Public Hearing regarding the City Council's hearing
was sent to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject site as
well as all interested persons and agencies (approximately 800+ notices).
PURPOSE OF AN EIR
Pursuant to Section 15992 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines and Section 21002.1 of the Public Resources Code the basic purposes of
CEQA are to:
• Identify and inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the
potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 9
n
0 ) 0
• Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided, mitigated or
significantly reduced.
• Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring
changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures
when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.
• Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the
project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects
are involved.
In the event that economic, social or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate
one or more significant effects of a project on the environment, the project may be
approved or carried out at the discretion of a public agency, provided that the project
is otherwise permissible under applicable laws and regulations.
CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT AND FINAL EIR
A. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) must:
1. Identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed
project.
2. Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but
not reduced to a level of insignificance. if the proposal is implemented.
3. Describe mitigation measures which could minimize significant adverse
impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption
of energy.
4. Describe a range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,
which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives.
5. Describe the relationship between local short term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity.
6. Describe any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be
involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
7. Discuss the growth inducing impact of the proposed action, i.e., ways in
which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15,,1994
Page 10
c )
the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment.
B. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) shall contain the following
(§15132 of the CEQA Guidelines):
1. The draft EIR
2. Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim
or in summary.
3. A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft
EIR.
4. The responses of the Lead Agency to substantive environmental comments
raised throughout the public review process.
SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROTECT
The following is a list of the potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the
FEW for this project. Following each impact is a summary of mitigation measures
to avoid or significantly lessen the significant impact and identification of the
person(s) or agency(s) responsible for the mitigation measures. A list of these
impacts and mitigation measures are identified in Table 1-1 of the Executive
Summary (beginning on Page 6 of the FEIR).
The mitigation measures outlined will be included are included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and are included in the conditions of approval
for the project. All significant adverse impacts can be mitigated with the exception
of Air Quality.
If a significant adverse impact cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, the
City Council must balance the benefits of the proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project.
If an impact cannot be mitigated or reduced to an acceptable level, the City Council is
required to make a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific
reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the
record.
Geologic Resources and Seismicity (pages 30-50 of the DEIR)
A. Existing quarry walls are unstable, posing hazards to adjacent properties.
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 11
M
rte`
\ J
Mitigation Measures
1. Construct a buttress slope, or other City approved design, along the
northwestern quarry boundary.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
2. Inspect quarry slopes, and if needed, implement remedial action such as
regrading or covering slumping areas with plastic sheeting or wire mesh and
shotcrete.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
B. Increased Erosion from surface runoff.
Mitigation Measure(s)
1. Direct surface flows away from the pit into existing drainage facilities.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
C. Steep fill slopes may destabilize during a seismic event.
Mitigation Measure(s)
1. Maintain slopes at an angle of 2:1 (horizontal or vertical) or about 25 degrees.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
D. Fill material size could restrict future development or use of the site.
Mitigation Measure(s)
1. Limit maximum dimensions of fill material size to 12 inches in any direction;
avoid nesting of larger fill pieces.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
Surface Water and Groundwater Quality (pages 51-72 of the DEIR)
A. Leachate from the decomposition of any undetected non-inert landfill materials,
could contaminate groundwater.
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 12
r J
Groundwater contamination is a controversial issue based upon the comments
received on the Draft EIR and during the Planning Commission's public hearing
process. The major concerns were that the "inert material" will contain
contaminated materials that will get into the water table and the ability of the
City to guarantee that this will not happen.
Responses regarding groundwater quality and protection are set forth in the Draft
EIR (pages 70-71) and in more detail in the Final EIR. In addition, the following.
mitigation measures are recommended.
Mitigation Measure(s)
1. If during groundwater monitoring, downgradient groundwater quality
exceeds both the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) limits and
upgradient groundwater quality, groundwater shall be extracted and cleaned
until downgradient groundwater quality meets the WDR limits and
upgradient water quality.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
B. Leachate from stockpiled reject materials may contaminate groundwater.
Mitigation Measure(s)
1. Cover and store stockpiles on a nonpermeable surface; remove rejected
stockpiles weekly.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
Biological Resources (pages 73-79 of the DEIR)
A. Interference with floral growth or noimal drainage patterns, or contamination of
soil.
Mitigation Measure(s)
1. Remove construction waste and natural debris off-site weekly; all
construction material shall be removed one week following construction
activities.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
B. Destruction and removal of native flora.
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 13
t '
(-)
Mitigation Measure(s)
1. Landscape with native flora species, such as Tree of Life, holly leaved cherry,
mountain mahogany, white sage and California buckwheat, which are
available from commercial nurseries.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
Traffic and Circulation (pages 85-127 of the DEIR)
A. Truck traffic will add to existing and future peak hour congestion at the
I-605/Rivergrade Road interchange with Lower Azusa Road.
Mitigation Measure(s)
1. West approach: construct an exclusive right turn lane; maintain two through
lanes.
2. East approach: restripe or widen to add an exclusive right lane; maintain two
through lanes.
3. Conduct signal optimization study to improve signal phasing and timing.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
B. Cumulative truck traffic will add to existing and future peak hour congestion at
the I 605/Rivergrade Road interchange with Lower Azusa Road.
Mitigation Measure(s)
1. South approach: construct an additional exclusive right-turn lane.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
Air Quality (pages 128-151 of the DEIR)
Site access improvements involve covering approximately 54,000 sq. ft. of an
existing unpaved road with asphalt. This construction-related activity would take
place in two separate phases. Phase 1 is the preparation of the area which would
occur over three days. Phase 2 includes asphalt delivery, pouring and paving
activities which is anticipated to take two days.
The Draft EIR identified significant unavoidable PM10 (particulate matter under 10
microns in diameter) air quality impacts during the two-day Phase 2 construction
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 14
S
period. To mitigate the PM10 emissions to insignificance, the current number of 45
trucks delivering asphalt per day will be limited to 15 trucks per day and Phase 2
construction will be extended from two days to six days of activity (page 271 of the
FEIR).
The air contaminant emissions from the operational phase of the project will exceed
the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) threshold levels
for NOx (nitrogen oxides), ROC (reactive organic compounds) and PM10 resulting in
unavoidable adverse impacts. Over 80% of NOx emissions, and over 90% of the
project's total generated ROC and PM10 emissions would result from on and off-site
truck movement, i.e., grading and landfill equipment as well as on and off-site,'truck
travel. (See page 149 of the DEER)
There are no single or combination of mitigation measures available to reduce the
project's emissions from truck movement to a level of insignificance. However, the
following mitigation measures would partially ameliorate the air quality impacts of
the proposed project.
A. Operational ROC, NOx, and PM10 emissions exceed SCAQMD's threshold levels;
and
Mitigation Measure(s) - Air Emission Impacts cannot be reduced to an acceptable
level of significance; however, the following may be done to reduce the impacts.
1." Discontinue operations during forecast Stage II Smog alerts. Maintain all
vehicles and equipment in proper tune. Use BACT on construction
equipment, including retarding timing.
Significance after Mitigation - Significant
The Draft EIR concludes that cumulative air quality impacts are significant with or
without implementation of the proposed project. These significant impacts to air
quality result from mobile source emissions. There are no directly applicable
mitigation measures available to reduce emissions from mobile sources, aside from
ensuring that vehicles are in proper running condition. (Page 148, Draft EIR). The
following mitigation measures would partially ameliorate the air quality impacts of
from cumulative projects.
A. Operational ROC, NOx, and PM10 emissions exceed SCAQMD's threshold levels;
and
Mitigation Measure(s) - Air Emission Impacts cannot be reduced.to an acceptable
level of significance; however, the following may be done to reduce the impacts.
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 15
n
)
)
1. Discontinue operations during forecast Stage II Smog alerts. Maintain all
vehicles and equipment in proper tune. Use BACT on construction
equipment, including retarding timing.
Significance after Mitigation - Significant
Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines notes in part that if an impact cannot be
mitigated or reduced to an acceptable level, the City Council is required to make a
statement of overriding considerations noting the specific reasons to support its
action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.
In addition §21002.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act states: "In the
event that economic, social or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or
more significant effects of a project on the environment, such project may
nonetheless be approved or carried out at the discretion of a public agency, provided
that the project is otherwise permissible under applicable laws and regulations."
The primary objective of this project is to comply with both the State Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 and Chapter 5, Part 1 of the Arcadia Municipal
Code relating to Mining Permits and Reclamation Plans (see page 4 of the staff
report).
If this project is not approved, the City is not satisfying the legal requirements under
both SMARA and the Arcadia Municipal Code.
Noise (page 152-169 of the Draft EIR)
A. Exceedance of Noise criteria for the City.of Arcadia and El Monte during landfill
operations.
Mitigation Measure(s)
1. Keep engine RPM's as low as possible at all times; do not rev engines
unnecessarily; random inspections of all landfill equipment for standard
noise control devices; and replace any missing, worn or defective noise j
reduction devices.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
2. Maximum recommended noise level for each piece of landfill equipment is
75 dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 16
h
7 i
3. Construct a six-foot high wall or berm for any residential areas not currently
protected by a solid barrier wall; prohibit entrance of haul trucks to the
landfill site prior to 7:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and
prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on weekends and recognized holidays.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
4. When the landfill grade has been brought up to a 325 foot elevation within
200 feet of residential properties, which is approximately in the seventh year
of operations, increase the existing six foot high walls along residential
properties to a 12 foot high noise barrier constructed of cement, masonry, or
earthen berm.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
5. Check landfill grade and prepare updated grading plans.
Significance after Mitigation - Insignificant
ALTERNATIVES
CEQA and case law require the lead agency to examine a reasonable range of
alternatives to the project itself, including the "no project" alternative. The
following are a summary of the alternatives outlined in the DEIR.
A. No Project Alternative (pages 170-172 of the DEW)
Under this alternative the quarry would not be used as an inert landfill and the
site would remain in its current condition.
Strengths
The no project alternative would not create any impacts on the following:
• Short-term or long-term traffic impacts;
• Air quality;
• Noise;
• Biological. resources
Weaknesses
This impact does not comply with either the Arcadia Municipal Code or
SMARA. Public safety issues associated with the presence of an unsupervised,
deep water filled pit located in proximity to a residential area would remain a
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 17
7 r
concern. Contamination of water in the pit may result from off site sources and
could percolate into the groundwater and impact water quality. This alternative
does not address the water quality concern nor does it address concerns regarding
slope stability. (See pages 170-172 -Draft EIR)
In staffs opinion this alternative is infeasible because it does not satisfy the
project objectives.
B. Slope Stabilization with some Reclamation Alternative (pages 172-175 of the
DEIR)
Under this alternative, it is estimated that approximately 3 million cubic yards of
material would be required to stabilize the slopes along the west bank next to the
residential property and would take approximately 3 years to fill. The banks
would be regraded to no more than a 2:1 slope (25 degrees). Fill would be '
compacted and graded for slope stabilization. After the slopes are stabilized; fill
activities would cease.
Strengths
i
This alternative meets the project objective of slope stabilization and would
require less fill. However, the basic fill operations as described in the EIR would
still occur, but for a shorter period of time (approximately 3 years). The potential
impacts and required mitigation measures would remain the same, but the
following impacts would be reduced:
• Truck impacts
• Noise Impacts
• Air Quality
• Biological resources
The site would continue to be exposed to existing seismic hazards. The potential
for future development to be exposed to seismic hazards would be eliminated
because the partially filled pit could not be developed for future uses. (Page 175 of
the DEIR)
Weaknesses
This project would not meet the project objective of reclaiming the property to a
reusable condition consistent with the City's General Plan designation of
Industrial and the current M-2 zoning of the property.
In addition, public safety issues associated with the presence of an unsupervised,
deep, water-filled pit located in proximity to a residential area would remain a
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 18
n
t i
concern. Contamination of water in the pit may result from off site sources,:and
could percolate into the groundwater and impact water quality.
Watershed protection measures to ensure that the water in the pit does not
become contaminated would be required.
In staffs opinion this alternative is infeasible because it does not satisfy the
project objectives.
C. Groundwater Recharge Basin Alternative (pages 175-176 of the DEER)
This alternative involves using the quarry as a dedicated spreading basin for
groundwater recharge. The quarry slopes would be filled, compacted and graded
for stabilization as with the Slope Stabilization with Some Reclamation
Alternative, however, the pit would not be completely filled. A conveyance
system transporting water to the pit to increase the volume of water in the
spreading basin would be necessary to make this option viable. Watershed
protection measures would also be required to insure the water in the basin does
not become contaminated by off site sources.
In addition, a water agency or operator would have to buy the property to use the
site as a groundwater recharge basin. This alternative also requires approval
from other agencies induding the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster.
Strengths
This alternative meets the objective of slope stabilization. In addition the
following impacts would be reduced:
• Truck impacts
• Noise Impacts
• Air Quality
• Biological resources
Weaknesses
This project would not meet the project objective of reclaiming the property to a
reusable condition consistent with the City of Arcadia's general plan and.zoning
regulations. In addition, increased groundwater recharge within the
groundwater basin would raise the groundwater level. If the groundwater levels
rose to a high enough level by this and other existing recharge facilities, the
following secondary impacts may occur:
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 19
n
1) Groundwater may intrude into adjacent existing mining operations thereby
reducing the economic feasibility of recovering remaining sand and gravel
resources.
2) Flooding may occur in downgradient surface and/or subsurface facilities.
3) Seismic hazards may increase including liquefaction and ground shaking
which intensify as the groundwater level moves closer to the surface.
4) Changes in downstream groundwater flow patterns may occur. This could
affect the local, area distribution and migration of contaminated groundwater
plumes within the basin.
Brian Brubaker, Operations Manager for Livingston Graham commented in his
September 23 letter on the Draft EIR:
"We agree with the conclusion within the EIR that the 'Groundwater Recharge
Basin Alternative' will result in adverse impacts on our industry due to the
intrusion of groundwater into existing mining operations in the area, thereby
reducing the economic feasibility of recovering sand and gravel resources. This
would further harm the recovery of the important natural in-situ resources of
this area, which is designated by the State of California as a Regionally Significant
Construction Aggregate Resource Area."
In staff's opinion this alternative is infeasible because it does not satisfy the
project objectives.
In addition to the above, the following alternatives were suggested in comments to
the Draft EIR:
A. Lockman Sr Associates, Consulting Engineers and Planners have suggested'as an
alternative, excavating the existing land bridge that separates the Rodeffer site
from the Livingston Graham property to the North for the purpose of creating
one contiguous lake. An approved Redamation Plan for the Livingston-
Graham site was adopted which calls for beautification and development of the
site into a recreational lake with an adjacent commercial and recreational
community.
This suggested alternative is infeasible because the quarry operations at the
Livingston-Graham site will continue into the next century according to Mr.
Brubaker of Livingston-Graham. This alternative would not meet the project
objective of redaiming the property to a reusable condition consistent with the
City of Arcadia's General Plan and zoning regulations. An EIR has not been
prepared for the Livingston-Graham quarry Reclamation Plan and there could be
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 20
unacceptable impacts on water quality and drainage, slope stability, air quality
and traffic.
B. Another alternative suggested was to consider the partial reclamation of the
quarry pit for eventual use as a recreational area.
Partial reclamation was in fact evaluated as part of the Slope Stabilization with
some Reclamation alternative and the Groundwater Recharge Basin alternative.
Eventual use of a recreation area was not examined because the future use of the
quarry is not part of the "project".
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 21
SECTION 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
CEQA requires a lead agency to adopt a monitoring program for mitigation
measures that are adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate
significant effects.
The reporting or monitoring program must ensure compliance with mitigation
measures during the life of the project. If mitigation measures have been requested
by an agency that has jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the
project, then the Lead or Responsible Agency may request that agency to prepare a
• proposed monitoring or reporting program for those mitigation measures.
The objectives of environmental monitoring are:
• To ensure implementation of mitigation measures during project
implementation.
• To provide feedback to agency staff and decision makers about the effectiveness
of their actions.
• To identify the need for enforcement action before irreversible,environmental
damage occurs.
The Monitoring program identifies who will be responsible for monitoring the
progress of mitigation measures adopted by the City, when and how often the
monitoring shall be done and a discussion of monitoring and reporting procedures.
The City Council must adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program if it
approves the project.
Attached is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15,.1994
Page 22
R
SECTION 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission at its September 14, 1993, meeting held a public hearing
for the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Reclamation Plan and
conditional use permit 92-003 for the Rodeffer Inert Landfill. This meeting was
scheduled during the public comment period on the Draft EIR. The purpose of the
public hearing was to allow the public and the Planning Commission the
opportunity to comment on the above issues. The Commissions' comments and
recommendations are set forth in Resolutions 1503 and 1504 (attached) and adopted
by the Planning Commission at its October 12, 1993, meeting.
The Planning Commission did not review the comments and responses set forth in
the Final EIR or the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.
Resolution 1503 expresses the Commission's comments and recommendations to
the City Council regarding Conditional Use Permit 92-003. The Commission
recommended to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the
proposed inert landfill subject to,the conditions set forth in the Resolution.
Resolution 1504 expresses the Commission's comments to the City Council on the
Draft EIR for Conditional Use Permit 92-003. The Planning Commission in !
adopting this resolution determined that the significant environmental impacts of
the project were dearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both
the short-term and long-term effects, subject to the following recommendations:
• The EIR should investigate if the impacts on the adjoining properties relating to
noise, traffic and air pollution would be significantly reduced if the hours of
operation were changed to 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
In the response to comments (7-37, page 261) it was noted that although the
hours of operation could be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., it would not
reduce the overall impacts of the operation of the landfill and would extend the
life of the project, resulting in continued air, noise and traffic impacts for a
longer period of time.
• The EIR should address what the potential impacts might be if the proposed
landfill operates longer than 12 years.
It is not anticipated that there will be slow downs in construction (see response to
comment 7-38 on page 261).
• More explanation and clarification of what is considered "inert material" and
what is the "content of natural dirt".
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 23
The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region will specify the
appropriate materials for disposal, the type and nature of the monitoring systems
required, water quality parameters to be monitored and the monitoring
frequency through the WDR application; however, page 17 of the Draft EIR states
that only uncontaminated materials, including soil, rock and concrete will be
accepted at the site. (See response to comment 1-1, page 242)
Unacceptable materials include:
Any putrescent waste Asphalt
Any infectious waste Metals
Any water soluble waste Woods
Any liquid waste Tires
Any hazardous waste
Non-metallic containers of any kind
Radioactive materials (generator responsible for initial testing)
Volatile organic compounds (generator responsible for initial testing)
Heavy metals (generator responsible for initial testing)
• There should be more discussion and analysis regarding "who is ultimately
responsible for the cleanup of any possible damage to the groundwater table, if
the developer and/or applicant are not here or in a position to do the cleanup."
The mitigation measure regarding the extraction and cleaning of contaminated
groundwater was too general and should be more specific.
The project proponent will be responsible if groundwater contamination occurs
as a result of operating the inert landfill. (See response to comments 7-33, page
260 and 7-18,page 259)
• The Draft EIR should be more specific concerning who is responsible for
enforcing the specific mitigation measures proposed.
Persons and/or agencies responsible are outlined in the EIR and in the
monitoring program. Also, the City is responsible for ensuring compliance with
all mitigation measures and conditions of approval. In addition, the City will
hire the inspectors for the landfill operation.
1 .
. I
The Planning Commission made the finding that the mitigation measures set forth
in the Draft EIR should minimize the significant adverse environmental impacts,
with the exception of air quality. The Commission recommended that further
analysis be conducted regarding the following:
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 24
A
Alternatives
The Commission in its review of the alternatives identified in the Draft EIR
recommended that there be more analysis regarding the use of the site as a
groundwater recharge basin and why the use of the site as a water discharge basin
was not considered an acceptable alternative.
This alternative has been more thoroughly discussed in the Alternative Section of
this report (page 19).
MISCELLANEOUS
The CEQA process requires only a once-around review system. Public review is
required only at the draft EIR stage. The final EIR can be submitted directly to the
decision making body of an agency for consideration.
Section 15089 of the CEQA Guidelines states:
a) The Lead Agency (City of Arcadia) shall prepare a final EIR before approving the
project.
b) Lead Agencies may provide an opportunity,for review of the final EIR by the
public or by commenting agencies before approving the project. The review of a
final EIR should focus on the responses to comments on the draft EIR
Tonight's public hearing allows the public an additional opportunity to comment
on the Final EIR.
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 25
SECTION 5
RECOMMENDATIONS, ACTIONS AND FINDINGS
A letter has been filed by William D. Ross, special counsel for the City of El Monte
(attached), requesting that the public hearing, "if held and opened, be continued to a
date certain in the future or continued in the first instance to allow for meaningful
public participation on the complex issues associated with the project."
The City Council should open the public hearing and receive all testimony relating
to the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the draft EIR, the conditional use
permit and reclamation plan.
The City Council should make separate findings and motions on the
Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Conditional Use Permit and the Reclamation Plan as set forth below.
FINAL EIR-CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS AND MOTION
Findings,
Based upon the Council's review of the Final EIR, the Planning Commission's'
review and recommendations, testimony presented at various public hearings and
all other information provided during the decision making process, the City
Council finds:
1. That the final EIR for the Rodeffer Inert Landfill (Clearinghouse #92041091) has
been completed in compliance with CEQA; and
2. That the final EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Arcadia and
that the Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the final
EIR prior to approving the project; anc4
3. That changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as to:
• Geological resources and seismicity
• Surface Water and groundwater quality
• Biological Resources
• Traffic and Circulation
• Noise
4. That the project alternatives examined in the Final EIR are infeasible as they do
not meet the defined project objectives; and
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 26
,,I
((>1'
17k/k
a j
5. That despite the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts relating
to air quality there remains unavoidable significantly adverse impacts upon air
quality. Having balances the substantial legal, technical and economic and other
considerations against the project impact on air quality, the Council finds that
the project benefits override the identified significant adverse environmental
effects; and
6. That the Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgment of the
City; and
7. That all documents and records which constitute the records and proceedings
thus far, are currently located in the Planning Division of Arcadia City Hall, 240
West Huntington Drive, Arcadia.
Motion
The City Council should direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution setting
forth the Councils' findings including the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Finding #5) and decisions.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM-FINDINGS AND
MOTION
Finding
The City Council shall make the finding that the mitigation monitoring and
reporting program complies with the requirements of CEQA.
Motion
Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-FINDINGS AND MOTION
Findings
In order to approve a conditional use permit, the City Council shall make the.
following findings:
1. That the granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the
public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
zone or vicinity subject to the conditions of approval set forth in this report.
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 27
��
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a
Conditional Use permit is authorized.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and
other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the
neighborhood.
4. 1 That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type
VN to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
Y 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
t) comprehensive general plan.
1 Conditions of Approval
nn rl
XV
i q The conditions of approval shall include all mitigation measures adopted by the
y�, ., I Council as part of the certified Final EIR. In addition, the Planning Division is,
recommending the following conditions of approval in accordance with good
'),-, rii.i
planning practices and to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the
ti surrounding area.
A1. As per the entrance enhancement program identified in the Operations Plan
(page 10), a detailed plan showing the proposed improvements to the entry
shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval.
2. The Operations Plan (page 10) indicates that a landscaped earthen berm is
proposed for the perimeter of the property along Lower Azusa Road. A
detailed landscape and irrigation plan for the proposed berm shall be submitted
to the Planning Division for review and approval. All work shall be completed
prior to commencement of the landfill operation. i
3. Where necessary, the wall along the westerly property line shall be repaired to
the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to commencement of the
landfill operation. .
4. The planting area along the westerly property line and adjacent to the wall
shall be cleared of all debris prior to commencement of the landfill operation
and shall be maintained on an ongoing basis.
5. Prior to beginning operation of the landfill, all necessary site improvements
including, but not limited to improvements to the entry, design and
construction of multiple stacking lanes, landscaping, etc., shall be completed.
*:CC Report - Final EIR
'Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 28
6. The hours of operation for the landfill shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The landfill
shall not operate on Sundays or legal holidays.
7. No on-site grading activities, equipment operation, compacting, spreading; etc.
shall take place after the hours of operation set forth above.
8. The following conditions set forth by the Department of Public Works shall be
complied with to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
a. Prior to commencement of the landfill operation, the Public Works
Department shall review and approve the applicant's plans for design of
the ingress and egress driveway on Lower Azusa Road and parking
improvements along the roadway frontage.
b. The applicant shall submit a detailed plan on the control of dust, dirt and
other debris in the public right-of-way along Lower Azusa Road. Said plan
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for its review and
approval prior to commencement of the proposed landfill operation.
c. A wash rack shall be required for all trucks exiting the site, to reduce the
PM10 and fugitive dust.
d. Because of the increased truck traffic on Lower Azusa Road, the existing
pavement structure will be affected. The applicant shall submit a
mitigation strategy acceptable to the Director of Public Works addressing
how the roadway will be maintained. In the absence of a mutually
acceptable mitigation strategy, the applicant, as a minimum, shall be
required to maintain the roadway surface and pavement structure in
satisfactory to the Director of Public Works throughout the
duration of the landfill operation. No maintenance, rehabilitation or
reconstruction work within the Lower Azusa Road right-of-way shall be
performed without approval of the Director of Public Works and issuance
of a required permit. All required work shall be done at the expense of the
applicant.
9. In accordance with §2773.1(a) of SMARA, financial assurances shall be required
in an amount to be determined by the City of Arcadia to ensure redamation is
performed in accordance with the approved redamation plan.
10. The applicant and/or operator as specified in the individual mitigation
measures shall be held responsible for:
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 29
n
i
a. Compliance with the mitigation measures and implementation of the;
project identified in the Final EIR;
b. Compliance with the monitoring and reporting program established by the
City per Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.
11. The applicant and/or operator as specified in the individual mitigation
measures shall be responsible for any direct costs associated with the
monitoring and reporting required to ensure implementation of those
mitigation measures and project design features identified in the Final EIR that
have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and conditions of approval.
12. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which includes mitigation
measures and project design features is attached and made a part of these
conditions of approval.
13. An on-site manager shall be present during all operating hours.
14. The operator shall be responsible for the route and safe operation of all trucks
coming to or leaving the site. All trucks shall be maintained such that there
are no "leaks" from which dirt or gravel can spill onto public streets or
highways. The operator will be responsible for the removal of all spill on
public streets associated with this project, at his own expense. Such removal
must occur within 30 minutes of notification by the City of any safety hazard
caused by such spill. The operator will be responsible for the cost of any work
by the City to remove such spill material.
15. All gates shall be closed and locked when the site is not in use.
16. The applicant shall indemnify the City against any legal claims made against
the City of Arcadia and shall execute an agreement which meets with the
approval of the City Attorney. 0.
17. The project shall be conducted in accordance with the operations plan
submitted to the City.
18. The applicant shall be,responsible for ensuring a safe traffic flow without
congestion or "stacking" of trucks or cars on Lower Azusa Road. In carrying
out this responsibility, a flagman must be provided within 24 hours afters
requested by the Public Works Director. After 24 hours, the City will provide a
flagman at the expense of the applicant, Such flagman will keep a daily count
of the traffic volume into the site.
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 30
l /
19. That all traffic to and from this site must abide by all vehicle and City codes of
both the City of Arcadia and the City of El Monte.
20. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs incurred pursuant to the
monitoring and reporting program. Said costs shall be subject to deposit
requirements to be specified by the City Attorney.
Motion
The City Council should direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for
adoption at its next meeting reflecting the Council's action and recommendations on
the conditional use permit in relation to the required findings for the conditional
use permit, the sufficiency of the conditions imposed and related issues.
RECLAMATION PLAN-FINDINGS AND MOTION
Findings
Section 2770(d) of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Plan notes:
"The lead agency's review of reclamation plans submitted pursuant to
subdivision (b) or of financial assurances pursuant to subdivision (c) is limited to
whether the plan or the financial assurances substantially meet the applicable
requirements of Sections 2772, 2773 and 2773.1 and the lead agency surface Mining
ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 2774, but in any event,
the lead agency shall require that financial assurances for reclamation be
sufficient to perform reclamation of lands remaining disturbed."
Motion
The City Council should direct staff to include in the Resolution for the conditional
use permit a finding that the plan substantially meets the requirements set forth in
Sections 2772, 2773 and 2773.1 of SMARA and Chapter 5 of the Arcadia Municipal
Code relating to Mining Permits and Reclamation Plans and as per Condition 9 of
the Conditions of Approval, the applicant shall be required to provide said financial
assurances, the amount of which will be determined by the City,,and approve the
Reclamation Plan. ,at Arcs d1`e-
APPROVED: Ler
William Kelly, Acting City Manager
Attachments: Letter from Ross & Scott
Resolutions 1503 and 1504
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CC Report - Final EIR
Rodeffer Inert Landfill
March 15, 1994
Page 31
1994
CITY CF ARCACIA
P!:NN NG JFPT.
Diana P. Scott Ross & Scott Palo Alto Office:
William 1). Ross ;\ Professional Corporation
Nellie R. Ancel 520 South Grand Avenue 425 Sherman Avenue.Suite 310
Carol 13. Sherman Suite 300 Palo Alto, California 94306
Diane C. DeFelice Los Angeles, California 90071-2610 'telephone: (415) 617-5678
'Telephone: (213) 892-1592 Facsimile: (415)617-5680
Facsimile: (213) 892-151')
File No: 57/7
February 28, 1994
VIA TELECOPIER & U.S. MAIL
Ms. Donna L. Butler
Assistant Community Development Director, Planning
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California 91066-0060
Re: March 15, 1994 City Council Public Hearing; Final
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse
No. 92041091); Rodeffer Inert Landfill Conditional Use
Permit 92-003; Reclamation Plan for Rodeffer Quarry
Dear Ms. Butler:
This firm serves as special counsel ta the City of El Monte ("City") with respect to
fesn matters. We are : f of C: Arcadia the above-described may",rs. �.v uJ�, in receipt J. the City of ATCaC1id iiGilce dated
February 17, 1994, received by our office on February 18, 1994 (the "Notice") which
indicates that the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") with responsive
comments for the Rodeffer Inert Landfill Project (the "Project") would he made
available for public review on March 2, 1994, thirteen (13) days before the City Council
meeting to consider certification of the FEIR on March 15, 1994.1
Our office, in conjunction with retained consultants to the City, submitted written
comments with respect to the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the
proposed responses to which it is assumed will be included in the FEIR.
The Notice also indicates that the City Council will hear the substantive land use
authorization on March 15, 1993: (1) Rodeffer Inert Landfill Conditional Use Permit 92-
003 (the "CUP"); and, 2) the Reclamation Plan for the Rodeffer Quarry (the "Plan").
•
' \ i
Ms. Donna L. Butler
February 28, 1994
Page 2
The proposals for reuse of the Rodeffer site and the adequacy of the City of
Arcadia Plan have been the subject of various development proposals and analysis for
over nine years. Any development authorizations for the subject property present
numerous complicated legal, technical and public health and safety issues. Given the
complexity of the issues associated with the adequacy of the FEIR and the requirements
of the doctrine of administrative remedies, which has been codified in Public Resources
Code section 21177, a continuance of the March 15, 1994 meeting and hearing, or a
continued hearing and meeting, if public comment is received on March 15, 1994 in
order to receive all public comment on the FEIR and the Project entitlements is
necessary and requested.
Again, such an action would allow for meaningful public participation in the land
use planning process, consistent with State legislative policy (Gov. Code §65033) and
ensure that the adequacy of the environmental analysis of the Project before the City of
Arcadia City Council complies with applicable law.
Accordingly, it is formally requested by the City that the City of Arcadia meeting
and hearing currently scheduled for March 15, 1994, for consideration of certification of
the Project FEIR and the Project entitlements, including the CUP and the Plan, if held
and opened, be continued to a date certain in the future or continued in the first
instance to allow for meaningful public participation on the complex issues associated
with the Project.
Very truly yours,
William D. Ross
WDR:nac
cc: State Clearinghouse
Mr. Gregory D. Korduner
City of El Monte City Administrator
Mr. David F. Gondek
City of El Monte City Attorney
A
A �
•
RESOLUTION 1503
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING THE COMMISSION'S
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-003 FOR A PROPOSED
INERT LANDFILL AT 12321 LOWER AZUSA ROAD
WHEREAS, on December 9, 1991 an application was filed by Rodeffer Investments,
Inc., to operate an inert landfill, Planning Department Case No. C.U.P. 92-003, at 12321
Lower Azusa Road, more particularly described in attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 14, 1993, at which time
all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is to provide a recommended
decision to the City Council, which body is to make a final decision; and
WHEREAS, a primary goal and purpose of the conditional use permit is to
comply with the State Legislature's mandate to reclaim the quarry to a usable
condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses as set forth in the 1975
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Commission has reviewed and considered all
information set forth in the staff report, the Draft EIR, responses to the Notice of
Completion received as of the date of the public hearing, and material submitted as
part of the public testimony and documentation at the Planning Commission public
hearing.
Section 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper use for which
a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by the Arcadia Municipal Code, is consistent
with the General Plan and the health, safety and welfare as set forth in the
following:
2. That the General Plan classification for the subject site is "Industrial"i and
that the proposed inert landfill operation is consistent with this designation and
will not adversely effect the General Plan because of the following:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan lists the following Objectives
relating to gravel quarries:
-1- 1503
•
•
a. "Require existing and new gravel mining operations to comply with City
regulations and the 1975 California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act."
b. "Reclaim depleted gravel mining sites so that they may be developed with
uses consistent with the zoning regulations."
In addition the following Policy is set forth in the Land Use Element: "Insure
that any future uses or gravel quarries, e.g., landfills, recreational areas, ground
water recharge areas, etc., provide for the protection of water quality and minimize
to the extent possible, the impact on adjacent land uses. The development of future
uses on reclaimed sites should take into consideration the surrounding land uses
and minimize to the extent possible any adverse impacts."
The project as proposed, including all the specific conditions set forth in this
resolution, including the proposed mitigation monitoring program with any
necessary modifications, would comply with the objectives and policies set forth in
the general plan by returning the site to a usable condition for future use.
3. That the project as proposed because of all conditions of approval and
mitigation measures, and the mitigation monitoring plan will not be detrimental to
the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such
zone or vicinity.
4. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use and parking and adjust said use with the land and uses the
neighborhood. The 85± acre site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate:the
proposed landfill operation which includes multiple stacking lanes for all trucks
based on the worst case trucking scenario. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan includes
measures to reduce potential impacts on adjoining properties, including but not
limited to:
a. Buttressing the northwestern slopes
b. Directing surface flows away from the pit into existing drainage facilities.
c. Maintaining slopes at an angle of 2:1 or about 25 degrees.
d. Limiting maximum dimensions of fill material size to 12 inches in any
direction and avoid nesting of larger fill pieces.
e. Extract and clean contaminated groundwater until downgradient
groundwater quality meets the WDR limits and upgradient water quality.
f. Cover and store stockpiles on a nonpermeable surface and remove weekly
g. Remove construct waste and natural debris off-site weekly
h. Landscape with native flora species.
-2- 1503
A
i. Discontinue operations during forecast Stage II Smog alerts and maintain
all vehicles and equipment in proper tune.
j. Construct a six-foot high wall or berm adjacent to any residential areas not
currently existing protected by a solid barrier.
k. When the landfill grade has been brought up to a 325 foot elevation
within 200 feet of residential properties (approximately the 7th year of operations),
increase the existing six-foot high walls along residential properties to a 12 foot high
noise barrier constructed of cement, masonry, or earthen berm.
5. Lower Azusa Road is designated in the General Plan as a major arterial
and is capable of handling the truck capacity anticipated in the operations plan, The
Draft EIR recommends specific mitigation measures to offset any potential impacts
on the I-605/Rivergrade Road interchange at Lower Azusa Road and, therefore, the
site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement to carry the kind of
traffic generated by the proposed use.
Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons the Commission recommends;to
the City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed inert landfill
upon the following conditions:
1. Imposition and compliance with all conditions set forth in the September
14, 1993 staff report subject to potential consideration of changing the hours of
operation from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday (Condition 6).
2. That the Drraft E.I.R. is finalized with full consideration by the City
Council of all comments and concerns raised through the environmental review
process including those transmitted by this Resolution and the minutes of the
Planning Commission. The Commission's recommendation is based on
information presented to date and the Commission recognizes that the final
decision by the City Council is contingent on a Final Environmental Impact Report
being certified by the Council.
3. That subject Conditional Use Permit shall expire consistent with Arcadia
Municipal Code Section 9275.2.13 (one year). For purposes of determining whether
the permitted use on the property has not occurred or is abandoned or discontinued
pursuant to said code section, the primary criteria shall be whether the permitted
use is undertaken in a regular, reoccurring manner consistent with standard
operating procedures for similar uses, exclusive of interference by Acts of God, labor
or job actions, and similar unforeseen events.
Section 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution
reflect the Commission's action of September 14, 1993 and the following vote:
-3- 1503
A
i
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Huang, Clark
NOES: None
Section 5_ The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and
shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of October, 1993 by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Huang, Clark
NOES: None
Chairman, Planning Commission
City/of Arcadia
ATT
i
Secretary, Planning ommission
City of Arcadia
•
-4- 1503
•
RESOLUTION 1504
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING THE COMMISSION'S
COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CONDITIONAL USE '
PERMIT 92-003 A PROPOSED INERT LANDFILL AT 12321 LOWER
AZUSA ROAD
WHEREAS, on December 9, 1991 an application was filed by Rodeffer
Investments, Inc., to operate an inert landfill, Planning Department Case No.
C.U.P. 92-003, at 12321 Lower Azusa Road. A primary purpose of the
conditional use permit is to comply with the State Legislature's mandate to
reclaim the quarry to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for
alternative land uses as set forth in the 1975 Surface Mining and Reclamation.
Act.
WHEREAS, in response to the application, the following environmental
process has been undertaken.
1. A Notice of Preparation was circulated on February 28, 1992. On
April 15, 1992 a revised Notice of Preparation describing the City's intent to
require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and requesting!
comments regarding its content was circulated to interested and responsible
agencies, organizations and individuals.
2. A scoping meeting was held on March 11, 1992 at Arcadia City Hall:
Notices of said meeting were sent to all property owners within a 300 foot
radius of the subject property and to all persons submitting post cards to the City
requesting notice of any meetings. °.
3. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Engineering
Science under contract to the City and under the City's direction. Based upon
the issues identified in the initial study, responses to the notice of preparation
and comments received during the scoping meeting, the consultants
commenced work.
4. Prior to releasing the document for public review, the City conducted
its own independent evaluation and analysis of the Draft EIR.
5. The Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15150) and City Council
Resolution 5157.
-1- 1504
•
6. The City of Arcadia is the lead agency for this EIR and has supervised
its preparation and has independently reviewed the consultants' work. The EIR
must be certified as complying with CEQA by the City prior to approval of any
subsequent permitting by the City and other public agencies.
7. On August 11, 1993, the City of Arcadia, as Lead Agency circulated the
Notice of Completion and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Rodeffer Inert Landfill to all interested agencies for a 45 day review period
which ended September 24, 1993.
8. During the 45 day review period, a public hearing was held on '
September 14, 1993, to allow the Planning Commission and the public an
opportunity to comment on both the Draft EIR and proposed Conditional Use
Permit 92-003 at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity,
to be heard and to present evidence. This is in accordance with section 15025(c)
of the CEQA guidelines which states: "Where an advisory body such as a
planning commission is required to make a recommendation on a project to
the decision-making body, the advisory body shall also review and consider the
EIR or Negative Declaration in draft or final form."
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Based upon an initial study completed in February, 1993,
potential environmental impacts were identified on the following issues:
a. Earth, geology and seismicity
b. Air
c. Water
d. . Plant Life
e. Animal Life
f. Noise
g. Transportation/circulation
h. Public services
i. Energy
j. Human Health
Section 2. Based on the information set forth in the initial study, the
Draft EIR analyzed the following potentially significant adverse impacts:
1. Geologic Resources and Seismicity.
a. Existing quarry walls are unstable, posing hazards to adjacent
properties.
b. Increased erosion from surface runoff.
c. Steep fill slopes may destabilize during a seismic event.
-2- 1504
4 A
2. Surface water and groundwater quality.
a. Leachate from the decomposition of any undetected, non-inert
landfill materials could contaminate groundwater.
b. Leachate from stockpiled reject materials may contaminate
groundwater. '.
3. Biological Resources
a. Interference with floral growth, normal drainage patterns or
contamination of soil.
b. Destruction and removal of native flora.
4. Traffic and Circulation
a. Truck traffic will add to existing and future peak hour congestion
at the I-605/Rivergrade Road interchange with Lower Azusa Road.
b. Cumulative truck traffic will add to existing and future peak hour
congestion at the I-605/Rivergrade Road interchange with Lower Azusa Road.
5. Air Quality
a. Construction-related PM10 emissions exceed SCAQMD's threshold
levels.
b. Operational ROC, NOx and PM10 emissions exceed SCAQMD's
threshold levels.
6. Noise •
a. Exceedance of noise criteria for the Cities of Arcadia and El Monte
during landfill operations. -
In analyzing the above issues, the Draft EIR reviews the existing
conditions, sets forth significance criteria and discusses the potential impacts,;
cumulative impacts, mitigation measurek and any unavoidable adverse
impacts.
Two other areas which were identified in the NOP, as potentially
significant, energy and human health were not analyzed in the impact section
because they were found to be significant.
Section 3. The Planning Commission noted that with the exception of
the impacts set forth below, the significant environmental effects of the project
were clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the
short-term and long-term effects. The Commission recommended that further
study and analysis of the issues set forth below be addressed prior to the Final
EIR being presented to the City Council:
-3- 1504
a. The Draft EIR should investigate if the impacts on the adjoining
properties relating to noise, traffic and air pollution would be significantly
reduced if the hours of operation were changed to 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
b. The Draft EIR should address what the potential impacts might be if
the proposed landfill operates longer than 12 years.
c. More explanation and clarification of what is considered "inert
material" and what is the "content of natural dirt".
d. There should be more discussion and analysis regarding "who is
ultimately responsible for the cleanup of any possible damage to the
groundwater table if the developer and/or applicant are not here or in a
position to do the cleanup."
Section 4. The Commission commented that the mitigation measures set
forth in the Draft EIR and Conditional Use Permit 92-003 should minimize the
significant adverse impacts. The Commission recommended that further
analysis be conducted regarding the following:
a. The Draft EIR should be more specific in regards to who is responsible
for enforcing the specific mitigation measures proposed.
b. That the mitigation measure regarding the extraction and cleaning of
contaminated groundwater was too general and should be more specific. The
measure should address who is ultimately responsible for the cleanup of any
possible damage to the groundwater table if the developer and/or applicant are
not here or in a position to do the cleanup. The consultant should examine this
recommendation and be more specific regarding the method of
implementation.
c. Address the issue if a change in the hours of operation to 8:00 a.m.
through 3:00 p.m. provide a better mitigation measure than the current
proposed hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on the traffic, noise and resulting air
pollution, etc.
Section.5.. Per Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR lists
the following alternatives to the project:
a. Slope stabilization with some reclamation alternative;
b. Groundwater Recharge Basin alternative, and
c. No project.
The Commission in its review of the above alternatives recommended
that there be more analysis regarding the use of the site as a groundwater
-4- 1504
•
n
(�_
recharge basin and why the use of the site as a water discharge basin was not
considered.
Section 6. The Commission's comments and recommendations set forth in
this Resolution are based on information presented to date and the Commission
recognizes that the comment period was not complete as of the date of the public
hearing; that the final decision by the City Council is contingent on a Final
Environmental Impact Report being certified by the Council and the Council should
consider all comments including those set forth in the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting of September 14, 1993 and those received subsequent to the
Planning Commission hearing.
Section 7. The recommendations contained in this Resolution reflect the
Commission's action of September 14, 1993 and the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Huang, Clark
NOES: None
Section 8. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution,
and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of October,
1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Huang, Clark
NOES: None
! . ,
C airman, Planni g Commission
City of Arcadia
i
' ATTEST:
1
`/ U/�!�r -
Secretary, Planning ommission
City of Arcadia '.
-5- 1504
•
MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
for the
RODEFFER INERT LANDFILL
State Clearinghouse Number 92041091
Prepared by:
CITY OF ARCADIA O
240 West Huntington Drive 41111111111hy
Arcadia, CA 91007 O
aivor
eia
MARCH 1994
r c °a°
o-* D
a„z.amaUen PORATF
With assistance from:
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE 4Ps
DESIGN • RESEARCH • PLANNING t. • Printed on
r99 S. LOS!loaves AVEN(JE•PO. BOX 7056•PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91109
Wt. Recycled Paper
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE RODEFFER INERT LANDFILL PROJECT 1
Background and Purpose of the Project 1
Project Description 3
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES,
AND MITIGATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITIES 5
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11
Geologic Resources and Seismicity 11
Surface Water and Groundwater Quality 13
Biological Resources . 13
Traffic and Circulation 14
Air Quality 15
Noise 16
APPENDICES
A References
B Sample Mitigation Monitoring Report Form
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Potentially Significant Impacts, ' 6
Mitigation Measures, and Parties Responsible for
Mitigation Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Rodeffer Inert Landfill Vicinity Map 2
u
PSR14o
.
r
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE RODEFFER INERT LANDFILL
INTRODUCTION
Public Resource Code 21080.6, enacted by passage of AB 3180 (Cortese), requires that
public agencies approving projects with significant environmental impacts adopt a
mitigation monitoring/reporting program. The purpose of this program is to ensure that
mitigation measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant impacts identified in the
Environmental Impact Report (Em) are implemented in a timely manner. A decision-
making agency, however, is not obligated to design a monitoring/reporting program for
those particular mitigations that are the responsibility of another lead agency or that are
infeasible (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 [b] and (c]).
In accordance with AB 3180, this mitigation monitoring and reporting program ensures
implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Rodeffer Inert Landfill EIR
(Arcadia, City of, 1994). This document includes a brief description of the; project; a
summary of the project's significant impacts,mitigation measures for those impacts, and
the parties responsible for the mitigation program; and a detailed discussion of monitoring
and reporting procedures for each mitigation measure.
DESCRIPTION OF THE RODEFFER INERT LANDFILL PROJECT
Background and Purpose of the Project
The 85-acre project site is owned by Rodeffer Investments (Rodeffer), and is located in
the City of Arcadia (City) at 12321 Lower Azusa Road. The site is bordered by the City of
Irwindale on the north, the San Gabriel River on the east,Lower Azusa Road on the south,
and the City of El Monte on the west (Figure 1). Sand and gravel extraction occurred at
this site from 1967 to 1990, During this period of quarry operations, over ten million cubic
yards of sand and gravel were removed Operations continued until aggregate depletion
and groundwater intrusion rendered it economically infeasible to utilize the site as a
quarry. Quarry operations ceased in July 1990. After July 1990, minor activities related to
closure of the site were performed.
The purpose of this project is to reclaim the quarry to fulfill requirements of the
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), Public Resources
Code, Division II, Chapter 9, Section 2710, and requirements of the City of Arcadia as
contained in the Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan adopted June 5, 1979 (Municipal
Code, Article IX, Chapter 5, Parts 1 and 2, Sections 9510 through 9528). The'reclamation
of mined lands is of statewide significance as evidenced by the State's adoption of
regulations requiring reclamation plans. SMARA requires the reclamation of mined lands
to prevent or minimize adverse effects on the environment and to protect the public health
and safety.
1
PQR11fl
A
-ti
Monrovia 0 . 4
Q ,
i�
Longden Ave 2 ow HYY 4
ca Arr
g Ave
Arcadia 04k
uve lifr® �`�
Oak
�
4 Irwindale
....tte.c
e /(.%
- 4# /'. CI- ,
•
,c°
et cI
PROJECT
SITE . .' .: ' / •
_' 44.. Baldwin
'S� i.'sM1 i. •
Park
Lower .EP>€H:<. y`,, Los Anteles St An- l
041 ''x.
i: '' � ,
/ke CO
4b
1fJ
UU z
El Monte I. Vd
Ramona
0' 1 car 2000'
SOURCE; Planning and Design Solutions, 1991a 2'1 _, ro•FX
Figure 1 Rodeffer Inert Landfill Vicinity Map
2
The Land Use Element in the City's General Plan, as adopted December 4, 1990,
requires existing and new gravel mining operations to comply with City regulations and
SMARA, and to reclaim depleted gravel mining sites so that they may be developed for
uses consistent with zoning regulations. The project would meet these objectives by
returning the site to its original grade. Once the site is reclaimed, it would be available for
future use.
Project Description
This project consists of the establishment and operation of an inert landfill on a
depleted sand and gravel quarry site. This quarry is approximately 150 to 165 feet deep,
and presently contains approximately 1.1 billion gallons of standing water.
Approximately ten million cubic yards of inert material will be required to fill the
quarry. It is estimated that operation of the inert landfill will require between 8 and
12 years to completely fill the former quarry.
An Operations Plan and a Reclamation Plan have been prepared for the Rodeffer sand
and gravel quarry. These plans fulfill the requirements of both the State Division of Mines
and Geology, as defined by SMARA, and the City of Arcadia's Mining Permit and
Reclamation Plan. The Operations Plan describes the inert landfill operations that will be
conducted (Arcadia, City of, 1991a). The Reclamation Plan describes the former mining
operations and the reclamation activities (Arcadia, City of, 1991b).
The project applicant intends to lease the site to Roadway Construction, Inc:, who will
operate the inert landfill. However, in the event that this site is leased to a different
operator, the Conditional Use Permit (C.U,P.), Operations Plan, Reclamation,Plan, and
EIR would still apply to the project. A new operator would have to follow all procedures,
mitigations, and recommendations set out in these documents.
The inert landfill will accept only those materials permitted by a Waste .Discharge
Requirement (WDR) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The
California Integrated Waste Management Board will issue a Solid Waste Facility
Operations Permit for landfill operations. A tentative WDR will be submitted to the Main
San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, as well as other interested parties, for their comments.
The landfill will operate six days per week, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Approximately 3,500 tons of inert fill per
day are expected at the landfill. Roadway operates 100 haul trucks, eighty of which are
bottom dump trucks. Trucks transporting material to the site will hold a' combined
compressed load of approximately 14 cubic yards. All trucks operated by Roadway are
diesel. Based upon the 8 to 12 years of operation, it is anticipated for no more than 30 days
per year, a maximum of 600 loads of excavated material from various transportation facility
construction sites would be hauled to the project site. This equates to a worst case day
maximum of 600 inbound and 600 outbound (1,200 total) trips per day. This scenario may
occur over 10 percent of the project's lifetime. For approximately 55 days per year, or 18
percent of the project's lifetime, 300 loads of excavated material may be hauled to the
facility per day. However, for the majority of the time, 220 days per year, approximately
150 loads of excavated material may be hauled to the site per day. This scenario would
comprise the remaining 72 percent of the project's lifetime.
3
PSR14fl
I
0
It is anticipated that trucks will come from a maximum radius distance travell d by
miles
surrounding the project site (Arcadia, City of, 1991a). The average
each truck is estimated at 25 to 30 miles one way. Alma Roadloff-ramp.eT�� would
San not travel along residential oads in the City of Monte.
not Crave rig so that all
Prior to loading trucks at, excavation sites, material would
material eke place at
material will fit into 12-inch lifts at the landfill. No crushing
the landfill, Laboratory testing will be run on all for the
sites where suspected
contamination. A visual inspection of each load transporting presence of both non-inert inert material to the project
hazardous materials will be performed prior to transp g , Upon
site. Any material found not to be inert will be rejected t which states what the k is
completion of these inspections, a freight bill (a document
carrying, that the load was inspected and where it originated from) would be completed
and trucks would proceed to the landfill. If any suspicious materials are found during the
inspection, they would be sent to a laboratory for analysis. •
The entrance to the landfill will remain on Lower Azusa of Landscaping salons
Lower Azusa Road, included in the project, would provide
from the surrounding area. Trucks would enter th site,uproceed eto the
and multiple gle lane
stacking area where the freight bill will be reviewed.
radiation inspection will be performed on the load. This inspection an responsible is approximately
130 feet wide. The inspector at the landfill will be hired by City
or other assigned jurisdiction. The landfill operator would provide funds to the City to
cover the employment costs of this inspector.
After the preliminary inspection at the landfill, trucks d would p oc a Zdutio the dumping
point where they would unload their material and spree
operation would require approximately 25 to 30 linear feet,g operation.tck. The tipping
S
undergoes an additional visual and gas inspection during o the thereby
inspection area would accommodate 10 to loads of material found not to beainert y would be i rejected.
allowing multiple inspections. Any material
(1) organic materials will be
Provisions for handling rejected material are as follows: (ro appropriate landfill, (2); any load removed and stockpiled onsite for weekly removal to an app p
found to contain toxic materials will be suit to the
sent back to site,its�ori3gi)aano material to ar
too bulky to spread and compact in inert fill appropriate landfill. Once inspected, final
stockpiled onsite for weekly removal to an app ro p
disposition of materials would occur using crawler tractors that 0 o��push materials to
designated areas in the landfill. Inert material will be spree
inches prior to compaction.
To reduce fugitive dust emissions at the landfill,sed sa active Iles wou d eithertbe covered,
would be watered at least twice per day. Also, exposed kP
enclosed,watered twice daily, or have a non-toxic soil binder applied to them.
grading project, as opposed to typical
The inert landfill operation will be conducted as a gr ng P j the as op drought years,typical
when
landfill operations. The original fill sequence was designed during during e Wet seasons
water in the pit was low. However, due to above-average
(October 1 through April 30) of 1991-92 and 1992-93, the water level in the pit has
increased reased from the time the original fill sequence was designed.. Accesl roads to the
southwest corner are impassable at this time, so consideration was
4
n
• � 1 1
required. A wet fill condition sequence was developed. Both of these sequences are
described below.
Since the actual fill sequence is weather-dependent, it is difficult to predict the exact fill
sequence that will be used with certainty. d wet fu Senanas.ncTherefore, oreanalysis
scenario, or a combination of both the dry
purposes,both the dry and wet fill sequences are evaluated.
Dry Fill Condition
During dry fill conditions, when water in the pit is low, the pond in the southwest'corner
of the quarry will be filled first. Fill activities will then progress eastward to the pond in the
northwest area. Once this pond has been filled, the pond in the northeast area will be
filled. After all the ponds have been filled to �e northern edge oft a property� is
established,fill will be placed against the slope along
Wet Fill Condition
The wet fill condition plan would be implemented if water levels do not drop prior to
filling. Fill would begin in the northeast corner of the property until that pond is filled. Fill
would then progress northward to the pond in the northwest corner. Then if conditions
allow, the pond in the southwest corner would be filled. After the pond has been filled to
an equal depth and a firm surface is established, the grading plans for dry fill conditions,
years 4 through 12,would be followed.
All fill would occur in 12-inch lifts (depth of fill) and would be compacted to a minimum
of 90 percent. All compaction testing would be conducted �al� independent covered company.by y.a
Upon completion of quarry reclamation, compacted material It anticipated that
minimum of three feet of granular, non-expansive fill material.
approximately 387,000 cubic yards of cover material would be required.
The project is expected to require a minimum of ten employees: one Scale House
(Inspection) staff person, six operators, one truck monitor,landf l woul
one d include:man/monitor,water foreman. Equipment required for operation of the
two 824 rubber tire dozers, two D-8 caterpillar dozers, one loader/grader, one
sheep's foot compactor, one Bee Gee (used for compaction), 100 haul trucks (80 bottom
dump), and one water tower.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS,MITIGATION MEASURES,AND
MITIGATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITIES
Table 1 summarizes significant environmental impacts associated with eth onsiblaffer
Inert Landfill Project, mitigation measures for those impacts,�the
agencies that will bleefor
implementing and reporting on mitigation programs,
mitigation program reports. Impacts in environmental areas not shown in the table were
found to be insignificant in the EIR.
5
Table 1
Significant Impacts,b itigttion Measures,and Parties
Summary PotentiPotentially maY!of Potentially
Responsible for Mitigation Implementation,Monitoring,and gepoiting.
aifiauce altar on Program lespeasil I
Potentially Significant Measures IMIi6ptios< ]Report Recipient
Mitigation amtul Category Adverse Impacts
Geologic Resources and Existing quarry walls are unstable, 1-1)Construct a buftress slope, Roadway
Construction
.'
and
Seismicity posing hazards to atqacent quarry Rodger Investments/City
of Arcadia
and if Insignificant Roadway Construction
1-2) Inspect quarry slopes,. Company and
needed,nape Rodefan Investments/City
action such as regrading or of Arcadia
+ 9 coming slumping areas with
plastic sheeting or wire mesh and
shotaate.
Increased erosion from surface 1-3)Direct surface lows away Insignificant Roadway Cow
runoff. from the pit into misting drainage Company and faciIties. Rodeffer I
/
CSty
of Arcadia
Steep fill slopes may Roadway Cow i���
destabilize 1-4)Maintain slopes at an angle � y and
during a seismic event. of 2:1(horizontal to vertical)or Rodeffer I s[ments/mil'
about 25 degrees. of Arcadia
Roadway Construction
Fill material si could restrict 1-5)limit maximum d Insignificant
Company future devdtio�t or use oldie of fill material w e to 12 inches in r Investme nts/Qty sitz. any direction;avoid nesting of of Arcadia
larger fiR pieces.6
PSRlao
Table 1(Continued)
Summary of Potentially Significant Impacts,Mitigation Measures,and Parties
Responsible for Mitigation Implementation,Monitoring,and Reporting
Significance after Mitigation Program RespeamM1
" +4y/
Environmental Psteulilfy Slg�ca� � Mitigation Measures Mitigation Report Recipient
Category Adverse Impacts
Surface Water and Leaciate from the decomposition 2-1)If during groundwater Insig°ifi`amt Rodetler Investments, - ,
Graff'Quality of any non-inert monitoring, City of Arcada/RW )
landfill materials could groundwater q°al'ty exceeds both and CDHS-
�
contaminate groundwater. the WDR limits and upgradient
groundwater quality,groundwater
shall be extracted and cleaned .
until dovnogradent groundwater
quality meets the WDR limits and
upgradieat wager quality. ,
reject 2-2)Cover and store stockpiles on Insignificant Rodeffer Investments/Laterite from stockpiled contaminate monpermeable surface;remove RWQCB and CDHS
materials may groundwater. rejected stockpiles weekly. Construction
as 3-1)Remove construction waste Roadway
B[olo�ca!Resources Interference with floral growth } Company and Rodefcr
normal drainage or and natural debris off-sale weekly; Investments/City of Arcadia
contamination of sod. all construction material shall be
removed one week following
construction activities. -
with native flora In�oufcant Roadway Construction
Destruction and removal of native 3-2)Landscape Company and Rodeffier
flora. species,such as Tree of Life, Investments/City of Arcadia.
holly-leaved cherry,mountain
mahogany,white sage,and
California buckwheat,which are
available from commercial
nurseries.
7
PSR140 .
•
Table I (Continued)
Summary of Potentially Significant Impacts,Mitigation Measures,and Parties
Responsible for Mitigation Implementation,Monitoring,and Reporting
rcaaae after Mazatlan Program Responsibility/
Potentially Mitigation ei res Report Recipient
Traffic Environmental�t� Aa.+cr�Impacts
4-1)West approach: construct an Insignificant Rodeffer Investment/City of )
and is z Truck traffic rep peak add to ng sting ) Arcadia and City of
and future peak hour congestion exclusive right-rum lane;maintain ale
at the I-605/Rivergrade Road two through lanes. East
interchange with Lower Azusa approach: rest ripe or widen to
Road. add an exclusive right lain
maintain two through lanes.
4-2)Conduct signal optimization Insignificant Rodeffer Investment/City of
study to improve signal phasing City of
v and timing,
Cumulative truck traffic will add 4-3)South oaeh construct %significant Rodeffer Investment/City of
Arcadia and City of
to existing and future peak hour an additional exclusive right-turn Aced Irwindale
lion at the I-605/ lane.
de Road interchange with
Lower Azusa Road.
Air Quality Operational ROC,NOr and 5-1)Discontinue° � Roadway Construction
PM0 emceed during II
and Rodelfer -
Imvrstrncais/S(�iQMD
SCAQMIrs threshold levels. alerts. Maintain all vehicles and
equipment in proper tune. Use
RAC'on construction
. equipment,including
retarding timing.
8
rsR1ao
•
Table I (Continued)
Summary of Potentially Significant Impacts,Mitigation Measures,and Parties
Responsible for Mitigation Implementation,Monitoring,and Reporting
Significance after Mitigation Program�' ` '
Potentim�Significant Mitigation Revert Recipient B�vu�onmeutal Category Adverse bipeds
RPM's as low as Insignificant Roadway Coasts
Noise Faocoedanc�e of noise aria for 6-1)Keep engine d
Company and Rodeffer -
Compo ,�
the Cities of Arcadia and possible at all times;do not rev fgt a Arcadia
• El Monte during landfill engines unnecessarily;random
operation& inspections of all landfill
equipment for standard noise
control devices;and replace any
missing;worn or defective noise
reduction devices.
6-2)Maximum recommended Insignificant Roadway Construction
Company and Rodeffer
r noise level for each piece of [ /ay of Arcadia
landfill equipment is 75 dBA
when measured at a distance of 50
feet.
6-3)Construct a six-foot high wall Insign ificant Rodeffer Inv s/C ty
or berm for any residential areas of Arcadia
not currendy protected by a solid
barrier wail;Proinliit entrance of ✓/
haul trucks to the landfill site
prior to 7110 AM and after 5110
PM Monday through Friday,and
prior to 5:00 AM and after 5:00
PM on weekends and recognized
holidays.
•
9
PSR14o
Table I (Continued)
Summary of Potentially Significant Impacts,Mitigation Measures,and Parties
Responsible for Mitigation Implementation,Monitoring,and Reporting
Potent%Ry Significant
Environmental Category Ad sc m Significance after Mitigation propane Respnosibinty/
Noise(Gleamed/ Mitigation Report Recipient
64)When the landfill grade has Insignificant Rodeffer Inve nt
been brought up to a 325-foot of Arcadia /Cu3►
elevation within 200 feet of
residential properties,which is
approximately in the seventh year
of operations,increase the
existing sic-foot high walk along
residential properties to a 12-foot
high noise barrier ducted of
• cement,masonry,or earthen
•
6-5)Check landfill grade and Insignificant Rodeller Invesbnents/CuY
prepare updated grading plans, of Arr.adia
Source: Engineering-Science
PSRr40 10
1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The mitigation measures required for the project will be carried out by Rodeffer and
Roadway Construction Company, and will be monitored by the City of Arcadia. 'Mitigation
monitoring reporting forms will be affixed to project construction and operation permits.
These checklists will be used by inspectors from the City, RWQCB, South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Department of Health Services
(CDHS), and the City of Irwindale to verify report compliance,
Mitigation Monitoring Report Forms will be used: (1) to report completion of or
compliance with mitigation measures by Rodeffer, (2) to report the results of field
inspections for completion or compliance with mitigation measures, or (3) other uses as
required by specific mitigation measures to monitor and/or report compliance, A sample
Mitigation Monitoring Report Form is included in Appendix B,
Mitigation Monitoring Report, the "Name and Title of Person Completing Form" line shall
be certified by an individual who has direct knowledge that the work described was
performed. On the "Name and Title of Responsible Person" line of the aforementioned
form, the individual certifying the form shall be a manager of the person who is authorized
to sign on behalf of the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure(s),
Once completed, copies of these reports will be kept in the project file by the City of
Arcadia or other responsible agencies to demonstrate compliance with Public Resources
Code 21080.6.
Geologic Resources and Seismicity
Mitigation Measure 1-1: Construct a Buttress Slope, or Other City Approved Design,
Along Northwestern Quarry Boundary
Prior to commencing landfill operations, Rodeffer Mitigation Monitoring Report Form with the slope stabilization shall
plans to thehCity.
appropriate
P
The City shall review the slope stabilization plans for compliance with City
requirements. If the plans meet slope stabilization criteria as set forth by the City; the City
will so indicate by checking "Yes" in the Compliance Accepted Block, They will fill in the
Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form,
the plans do not meet the criteria as set for hh byte City,the form in will indicate l that
compliance is not acceptable by checking "No" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They
will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and return the,'plans to
Rodeffer to be corrected and resubmitted. The City will also require Rodeffer to submit
Mitigation Monitoring Forms to indicate that the slope stabilization measures are
completed as specified in the buttressing plans.
Mitigation Measure 1-2: Inspect Quarry Slopes and,if Needed,Implement Remedial
Action Such as Regrading or Covering Slumping Areas with Plastic Sheeting or Wire
Mesh and Shotcrete
Starting from the commencement of landfill operations, Rodeffer shall submit the
appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form of inspection results to the City quarterly,
during dry weather, and monthly, during and following heavy rains. Inspections of quarry
slopes and implementation of remedial actions to minimize erosion of quarry slopes will
continue until a buttress slope or other design is constructed along the northwestern
11
PSR140
- I
boundary, and throughout the initial operational phases (Years 1 to 4) for all other quarry
slopes.
The City will review the report submitted for the condition of quarry slopes and, if
needed, implementation of remedial actions to minimize erosion of quarry slopes. If the
report is acceptable, the City will so indicate by checking "Yes" in the Compliance
Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and
file the form in the project file. If it is not acceptable, the City will indicate that compliance
is not acceptable by checking "No" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the
Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and return the report to Rodeffer to be
corrected and resubmitted.
Mitigation Measure 1.3: Direct Surface Flows Away from the Pit into Existing
Drainage Facilities
Rodeffer shall submit the. appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form, with lans
for surface drainage of the site after final site contours have been achieved, to the City.
The City shall review the surface drainage plans to ensure that the plans will reduce the
risk of increased erosion from undirected surface runoff, which formerly collected in the
bottom of the quarry, and for compatibility with existing drainage facilities. If the plans are
compatible, the City will so indicate by checking "Yes" in the Compliance Accepted'Block.
They will fill In the Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and file the form in
the project file. If it is not acceptable, the City will indicate that compliance is not
acceptable by checking "No" in the Compliance.Accepted Block. They will fill in the
Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and return the plans to Rodeffer to be
corrected and resubmitted.
Mitigation Measure 1.4: Maintain Slopes at an Angle of 2:1 (Horizontal to Vertical) or
about 25 Degrees
Starting from the commencement of landfill operations, Rodeffer shall submit the
appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, annually, certifying that they
are maintaining the quarry slopes at an angle of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or about 25
degrees.
The City shall review the report. If the report is acceptable, the City will so indicate by
checking "Yes" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title,
and Date sections of the form, and file the form in the project file. If it is not acceptable,
the City will indicate that compliance is not acceptable by checking"No" in the Compliance
Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and
return the report to Rodeffer to be corrected and resubmitted.
Mitigation Measure 1-5: Limit Maximum Dimensions of Fill Material Size to 12 Inches
in any Direction;Avoid Nesting of Larger Fill Pieces
Starting from the commencement of landfill operations, Rodeffer shall submit the
appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, quarterly, certifying that fill
materials in each lift did not exceed the maximum lift height of 12 inches.
The City shall review the report. If the repent is acceptable,the€t "Agee ate isy
checking "Yes" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title,
12
PSR140
. •
and Date sections of the form, and file the form in the project file. If it is not acceptable,
the City will indicate that compliance is not acceptable by checking "No" in the Compliance
Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and
return the report to Rodeffer to be corrected and resubmitted.
Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
Mitigation Measure 2-1: If During Groundwater Monitoring, Downgradient
Groundwater Quality Exceeds both the WDR Limits and Upgradient Groundwater
Quality, Groundwater shall be Extracted and Cleaned until Downgradient
Groundwater Quality Meets the WDR Limits and Upgradient Water Quality
Starting from the commencement of landfill operations, Rodeffer shall submit the
appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, quarterly, stating whether the
results of groundwater monitoring meet or exceed the WDR limits or the downgradient
groundwater quality.
The City will review and submit copies of the report to RWQCB and CDHS for their
reviews. If the report is acceptable, the RWQCB and CDHS will so indicate by checking •
"Yes" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date
sections of the form, and submit a copy to the City to file in the project file. If it is not
acceptable, the RWQCB and CDHS will so indicate by checking "No" in the Compliance
Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By,Title, and Date sections of the form, and
return the report to Rodeffer to be corrected and resubmitted.
Mitigation Measure 2-2: Cover and Store Stockpiles on an Impermeable Surface;
Remove Rejected Stockpiles Weekly
Starting from the commencement of landfill operations, Rodeffer shall submit the
appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, quarterly during the operation
phase, stating the operational status of reject material stockpiles.
The City will review and submit copies of the report to RWQCB and CDHS for their
reviews. If the report is acceptable, the RWQCB and CDHS will so indicate by checking
"Yes" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date
sections of the form, and forward a copy to the City to file in the project file. If it is not
acceptable, the RWQCB and CDHS shall indicate that compliance is not acceptable by
checking "No" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title,
and Date sections of the form, and return the report to Rodeffer to be corrected and
resubmitted.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 3-1: Remove Construction Waste and Natural Debris Off Site
Weekly; all Construction Material shall be Removed One Week following
Construction Activities
Four weeks after the completion of construction activities, Rodeffer shall submit the
appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, stating the disposal record of
wastes generated during the construction phase.
The City shall review the report. If the report is acceptable, the City will so indicate by
13
PSR140
0
checking"Yes" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By,1 Title,
and Date sections of the form, and file the form in the project file. If it is not acceptable,
the City will indicate that compliance is not acceptable by checking "No" in the Compliance
Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By,Title, and Date sections of the form, and
return the report to Rodeffer to be corrected and resubmitted,
Mitigation Measure 34: Landscape with Native Flora Species such as Tree of Life,
Holly-leaved Cherry,Mountain Mahogany,White Sage, and California Buckwheat,
which are Available from Commercial Nurseries
Four weeks following the completion of construction, Rodeffer .shall submit the
appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City,with plans for landscaping the
areas disturbed by construction activities using native flora.
The City shall review the landscape plans for appropriate native flora. If the plans are
acceptable, the City will so indicate by checking "Yes" in the Compliance Accepted Block.
They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and file the form in
the project file. If it is not acceptable, the City will indicate that compliance is not
acceptable by checking "No" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the
Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and return the plans to Rodeffer to be
corrected and resubmitted.
Traffic and Circulation
Mitigation Measure 4-1: West Approach • Construct an Exclusive Right-turn Lane;
Maintain Two through Lanes. East Approach - Restripe or Widen to Add an
Exclusive Right Lane;Maintain Two through Lanes
Prior to commencing landfill operations, Rodeffer shall submit the appropriate
Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, with plans to construct an exclusive right
turn lane on the west approach. This report will also include plans to restripe or widen the
roadway to add an exclusive right lane on the east approach to the I-605/Rivergrade
interchange with Lower Azusa Road.
The City shall review and submit the plan&to the City of Irwindale for their review. The
cities will review the plans for compliance ,with current and 1997 anticipated levels of
service and intersection capacity utilization for these intersections during the peak hours of-
7:15 to 8:15 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM. If the plans are acceptable, the City of Irwindale.will
so indicate by checking "Yes" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the
Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and submit a copy to the City to; file in
the project file. If it is not acceptable, the City of Irwindale will indicate that compliance is
not acceptable by checking "No" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the
Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and return the plans to Rodeffer to be
corrected and resubmitted.
Mitigation Measure 4-2: Conduct Signal Optimization Study to Improve Signal
Phasing and Timing
Prior to commencing landfill operations, Rodeffer shall submit the appropriate
Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, with the results of a signal optimization
study.
14
neniAn
A
•
The City shall review and submit the study to the City of Irwindale for their review. If
the study is acceptable, the City of Irwindale will so indicate by checking "Yes" in the
Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date sections of
the form, and submit a copy to the City to file in the project file. If it is not acceptable, the
City of Irwindale will indicate that compliance is not acceptable by checking "No" in the
Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date sections of
the form, and return the study to Rodeffer to be corrected and resubmitted.
Mitigation Measure 4-3: South Approach - Construct an Additional Exclusive Right-
turn Lane
Prior to commencing landfill operations, Rodeffer shall submit the , appropriate
Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, with plans to construct an additional
exclusive right-turn lane on the south approach to the I-605/Rivergrade interchange with
Lower Azusa Road.
The City shall review and submit the plans to the City of Irwindale for their review. The
cities will review the plans for compliance with 1997 anticipated levels of service and
intersection capacity utilization for cumulative traffic conditions at this intersection during
the peak hours of 7:15 to 8:15 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM. If the plans are acceptable, the
City of Irwindale will so indicate by checking "Yes" in the Compliance Accepted ,Block.
They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and submit a copy to
the City to file in the project file. If it is not acceptable, the City of Irwindale will indicate
that compliance is not acceptable by checking "No" in the Compliance Accepted (Block.
They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and return the plans
to Rodeffer to be corrected and resubmitted.
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure 5-1: Discontinue Operations During Forecast Stage II Smog;
Alerts; Maintain Equipment and use Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) on
Construction Equipment
Starting from the commencement of landfill operations, Rodeffer shall submit the
appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, quarterly, during the duration
of the operational phase, certifying that operations were discontinued on days with forecast
Stage II Smog alerts, construction vehicles and equipment have been maintained in proper
tune, and BACTs have been used on construction equipment. These mitigation measures V
will partially reduce the impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. This impact
requires adoption of Overriding Considerations as a condition of project approval.
The City will review and submit the report to the SCAQMD for their review.i If the
report is acceptable, SCAQMD will so indicate by checking "Yes" in the Compliance
Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By,Title, and Date sections of the form, and
submit a copy to the City to file in the project file, If the report is not acceptable,
SCAQMD will so indicate by checking "No" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will
fill in the Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and return the report to
Rodeffer to be corrected and resubmitted.
15
PSR140
Noise
Mitigation Measure 6.1: Keep Engine RPM's as low as Possible at all Times; do not
Rev Engines Unnecessarily; Random Inspections of all Landfill Equipment for
Standard Noise Control Devices;Replace any Missing,Worn or Defective Noise
Reduction Devices
Starting from the commencement of landfill operations, Rodeffer shall bmit the
appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, monthly, stating the essults of
the random inspections for standard noise control devices.
The City shall review the report. If the report is acceptable, the City will so indicate by
checking "Yes" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title,
and Date sections of the form, and file the form in the ro ect file. If the City will indicate that compliance is not acceptable.by checking "No"in the compliance
Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form and
return the report to Rodeffer to be corrected and resubmitted, ! '
Mitigation Measure 6-
S 6-2: Maximum Recommended Noise Level for Each Piece of
Landfill Equipment is 75 dBA when Measured at a Distance of 50 Feet
Starting from the commencement of landfill operations, Rodeffer shall submit the
appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, monthly,with the noise levels
for each piece of landfill equipment measured at a distance of 50 feet.
The City shall review the report for compliance with the 75 dBA recommended noise
level for each piece of landfill equipment when measured at a distance of 50 feet. If the
report is acceptable, the City will so indicate by checking "Yes" in the Compliance
Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date sections of the'form, and
file the form in the project file. If it is not acceptable, the City will indicate that compliance
is not acceptable by checking "No" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They willi fill in the
Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and return the report to Rodeffer to be
corrected and resubmitted.
Mitigation Measure 6-3: Construct a Six-foot High Wall or Berm for any Residential
Areas not Currently Protected by a Salid Barrier Wall; Prohibit Entrance of Haul
'Ducks to the Landfill Site Prior to 7:00 a.m. and After 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday, and Prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on Weekends and Recognized
Holidays
Prior to commencing landfill operations, Rodeffer shall submit the a
Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, with plans to construct a six oothigh
sound barrier and procedures for enforcing the operational hours of the landfill.
The City shall review the plans and procedure for compliance with the ',55 dBA
residential noise regulation in the Cities of Arcadia and El Monte. If the plans and
procedure are acceptable, the City will so indicate by checking "Yes" in the Compliance
Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By,Title, and Date sections of the form, and
file the form in the project file. If it is not acceptable, the City will indicate that compliance
is not acceptable by checking "No" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the
Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and return the plans and procedure to
Rodeffer to be corrected and resubmitted.
16
PSR140
Mitigation Measure 6-4: When the Landfill Grade has been Brought Up to a 325-foot
Elevation within 200 Feet of Residential Properties,which is Approximately in the
Seventh Year of Operations,Increase the Existing Six-foot High Walls along
Residential Properties to a 12-foot High Noise Barrier Constructed of Cement, ,
Masonry,or Earthen Berm
In the seventh year of landfill operation, or when the landfill grade has reached an
elevation of 325 feet within 200 feet of residential properties, Rodeffer shall submit the
appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, with a plan to construct a 12-
foot high sound barrier along residential properties.
The City shall review the plan for compliance with the 55 dBA residential noise
regulation in the Cities of Arcadia and El Monte. If the plan is acceptable, the City'will so
indicate by checking "Yes" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill !in the
Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and file the form in the project file. If it
is not acceptable, the City will indicate that compliance is not acceptable by checking "No"
in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the c R Received
and, Title, and
resubmitted. Date
sections of the form, and return the plan to Rodeffe
Mitigation Measure 6.5 - Check Landfill Grade and Prepare Updated Grading Plans
Starting from the commencement of landfill operations, Rodeffer shall submit the
appropriate Mitigation Monitoring Report Form to the City, semi-annually, with updated
landfill grades and updated landfill grading plans.
The City shall review the updated plans. If the plans are acceptable, the City will so
indicate by checking "Yes" in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the
Received By, Title, and Date sections of the form, and file the form in the project file. If it
is not acceptable, the City will indicate that compliance is not acceptable by checking "No"
in the Compliance Accepted Block. They will fill in the Received By, Title, and Date
sections of the form, and return the plans to Rodeffer to be corrected and resubmitted.
17
.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
I. i ` {
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES
Arcadia, City of, 1991a. Operations Plan for the Proposed Rodeffer Inert Arcadia, California. Prepared by Planning and Design Solutions. December.1�
199 lb. Reclamation Plan for the Former Rodeffer Quarry
Prepared by Planning and Design Solutions. Dece ' Arcadia,
�,
1994, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rode er Inert No. 92041091. Prepared for the City of caaldia t b
Engineering-Science, Inc., Pasadena, California. y
o-
• t t ►
a ' > • �� r
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT FORM ,
. w ,
i r p•
1
MITIGATION MONITOR'INGREPORT
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive '
P.O, Box 60021 Page Cl''
Arcadia,California 91086-8021 _
Facility ` Environmental Assessment Log Number•
Project Stets Clearinghouse Number
•
I location File Number
Psrmtt/Entltiement No. I Date Permit issued Date Permit Expires 1
Mitigation Measure(Category/Number/Description)
•
•
•
Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
Monitoring/Reporting Requirement
•
•
1 .
In accordance with the California Public Resources Code,Section 21081.8,I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the Information
contained herein Is true and correct to the beat of my knowledge.
Name and Title of Person Completing Form Signature I Date •
Name end Title of Responsible Person Signature }Date
•
.:.:.:::.,..:: A:•.;,:.. .:>::::•• .: :;>: d:..',••. : I:..: �co teal';
:Earnt�ecA1►!�d.:bkr>i;Stll�;u4��C�h�Y�:;:�•:.;.:•:..;:��.►..;::.• .:........ . . ..::..:: t>�:.1� .. .����rtip�arlGA�ic.....p.
::te ..
:-Fr
D o: E tere!d:in t .Com d:; ?C::00: witoYi:00;: °.a`.:•'li+l Rit400.: 0:i. .):0:.CG` 5n:: tirAp#r.,;
>*t:,�cid,;,:;;. : : ;:C�!t!�.:.f�,...,.:�:,.:G:�s•::::;���p�.I4�:..;:::,P�f�..•... ..p..... .Q .p•:. . rl?j?I,.�?;.;...:.:.;.:
YAb N i.o., •
M!TIf1ATN.WK+(JOBD!SK4)HO M!rigiPIon Mar!tv!ng Farm!?ps