Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1504 . . . RESOLUTION 1504 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1HE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING THE COMMISSION'S COMMENTS TO 1HE 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. Cu.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 Gty 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 mert 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. Publicservices 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. mcreased erosion from surface runoff. c. Steep fill slopes may destabilize during a seismic event. -2- 1504 . . . 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-60S/Rivergrade Road interchange with Lower Azusa Road. b. Cumulative truck traffic will add to existing and future peak hour congestion at the 1-60S/Rivergrade Road interchange with Lower Azusa Road. 5. Air Quality a. Construction-related PMIO emissions exceed SCAQMD's threshold levels. b. Operational ROC, NO" and PMIO emissions exceed SCAQMD's threshold levels. 6. Noise a. Exceedance of noise criteria for the Cities of Arcadia and EI 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 measures, and any unavoidable adverse impacts. Two other areas which were identified in the Nap, 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 e . . a. The Draft EIRshould 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 r.eview of the above alternatives recommended that there be more analysis regarding the use of the site as a groundwater -4- 1504 . . . 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 ona 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: A YES: 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: A YES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Huang, Oark NOES: None C airman, Plannmg Commission City of Arcadia ATTEST: Secretary, Planning City of Arcadia -5- 1504 . '. . September 14, 1993 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REPORT ON TIlE RODEFFER INERT LANDFILL PROJECT Attached for your review and comments on the Draft EIR for the Rodeffer Inert Landfill, the Reclamation Plan and C.U.P. 92-003 are: 1. A letter from the City of EI Monte requesting the Planning Commission to continue its consideration of the Draft EIR and C.U.P. 92-003 for a minimum of 30 days. 2. A letter from William D. Ross of Ross & Scott serving as special counsel for the City of EI Monte requesting a continuance of the Planning Commission public hearing until after the September 24,1993 deadline for submission of written comments on the Draft EIR. 3. The Planning Department staff report. 4. Attachment 1 - Table E5-1 a Summary of Potentially significant adverse i~pacts and mitigation measures for the proposed project. 5. Attachment 2 - Table E5-2 s Summary of the Potential Significant Adverse Impacts associated. with Project Alternatives 6. Attachment 3 - Draft Mitigation~Monitoring Program 7. Attachment 4 - Sections 2m and 2773 of SMARA 8. Attachment 5 - Comments on the Draft EIR from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - L. A. Regions COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HOUSING CODE ENFORCEMENT PLANNING September 7, 1993 CITY HALL WEST I I 3 3 3 V A.L L E. V B t V 0 2 N '0 F t,O 0 R Et MONTE. CALIFORNIA 91731 FAX 18181 580-2293 HAROLD O. JOHANSON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITV OE\lELO~MENT IBle, l580'20eo !:.~ !:~: ~.:.. :7:. ~ '\J ~:. HAND DELIVERED ~;[:p !) 7 1993 JUAN 0 MIRELES AS5ISTA;NT DIRECTOR 01" COMMUNITV DEVELOP "lENT 18181 S80.a:0l5e Honorable Chairman Arcadia City Planning Commission 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91066 CITY.,;o- M.:C,4.01!\ P!_,:.:<!t..;r".-;c'::P'T. ROSE MARIE JAMESON AOMINI'!T"ATrVE ASSISTANT 18181 :180'2070 MA~K H PERSICO. AICP CITY PLANNltR 18181 1580'20_0 Attention: Donna Butler, Acting Planning Director JAMES W MUSSENDEN CODE SUPERINTENDENT 18181 S80-a080 Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: . SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-003 The City of EI Monte recently received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Rodeffer Inert Landfill. We also received a Notice of Public Hearing for September 14, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. for consideration of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Conditional Use Permit for operation of the proposed Inert Landfill. We are informed, as of this date, that the staff report regarding the conditional use permit will not be available until Friday, September 10, 1993. El Monte City offices are closed on Friday; therefore, we will not be able to obtain the staff report until Monday, September 13,1993. This does not provide adequate time to review and 'Prepare a response to the staff report. The Draft Environmental Impact Report is a large, complex document which requires more than the minimum 45 day review period. It is therefore requested that the Arcadia Planning Commission continue its consideration of the subject items for a minimum of 30 days. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. . HAROLD HANSON Director of Community Development City of El Monte HOJ:ms Q!l.lt g.tl.ndC!J ,BC dlilonu ~ . . .' Dl3n.a p- $;,,)11 \\'lHi..m 0 R':5S ~,,!Hc: it. .-\"c~l JlJ,,]n "j". Lilia C.a;,~1 0;, s:,,-::~.)n Ross & Scott A Pt.')(:$:)i~":1.:r. C~u'~r.uil"il\ 520 South Grand Avenue Suite 3'-10 L.)s Angeles, California 9'J071.261iJ Tc:lcpnor.:: (2!3i.~~2~t;:'/2 F3.~'~in~i1c: (213) S9:!.lSllJ 1:~ -Shll~m<ln ~",cn1,l.. 5..llt 3loj FJio ;-\11<), C.d;~O:tnI2 9..;)t~6 n:fcphcnc: (~ljJ 61i.S61S facsimile: (.41$) bl:'.Sw.. Palo Alia OfT "=: fire 1'0: 57/7 September 9, 1993 VIA. TELECOPIER & CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED Ms. Donna L. Buder Acting Planning Director City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91066-0060 ~ Re: September 14, 1993 City Planning Commission Public Hearing, Rodeffer Inert LandiiII Conditional Use Permil; Draft Environmental Impact Repon . Rodeffer Inen Landfill (Stale CleariI\ihou.~e 1\'"0. 92041091) Dear Ms. Butler: .- This firm serves as special counsel to the City of El Monte ("City") with respect to the above-described matters. Since notification by the CilY on August 11, 1993 our office, in conjunction with retained consultants to the City, has been preparing written comments with respect to the adequacy of the drafl environmental impact repor:t ("DEIR") for the proposed Rodeffer Inen Landtlll. The notice deadline for written comments on the OEIR is September 24, 1993 as set fonh in your August 9, 1993 communication to Mr. Harold O. Johanson, Community Development Director of the City of El :-,{onte, Inasmuch as a decision on the conditional use permit ("CUP") would only be valid if it is accompanied by a final and valid environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code 521000 et seq.); Starbird v. Counly af San Benito, 122 Ca1.App.3d 657, 660 (1981). It is formally requested on behalf of the City that the City of Arcadia Planning Commission hearing be continued until after the - . . .\-15. Dor.na L. Butl~r Sept~mbc:r 9,1993 Pa"" , ,.~ - September 24, 1993 deadline for submission of wrinell comments on the DEIR. Such an action would allow for meaningful panidpation ill the land use planning process. a declared state legislative policy (Gov. Code 565033) whkh is nOI now serv~d because member~ (If the public and thi!: Cily are pUt in the anomalous position of having to COmment on whethi!:r the burden of proof for a CUP has been mel under City of Arcadia Municipal Code S9275.2 er seq. without the benefit of a final environmental analysis of the CL'P. This request for continuance is amplified by the fact of which we have been informed by our client, that the City of Arcadia Staff RepOrt for the Rodeifer CUP is not yet available. Given the complexity of the method of presentation of the pro?osed environmental analysis for the Rodeffer CUP in the DEIRand the need fOt detailed comments on that document the unavailability of the City of Arcadia Staff Report as of this date effectively precludes informed public participation in the September 14, 1993 hearing. Accordingly, it is requested that a recommendation for continuance of the hearing_ or a continued public hearing after the September 24, 1993 deadline and Ihe availability' of the City of Arcadia Staff Report wilh sufficient tim~ for informed public review has occurred. Very truly yours, kll b.~ William D. Ross WDR:nac cc: Mr. Gregory D. Korduner City of El Monte City Administrator Mr. David F. Gondek ~ City of E1 Monte City Attorney . . . September 14, 1993 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO orr COUNOL REGARDING DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND C.U.P. 92-003, INCLUDING THE OPERATIONS PLAN AND RECLAMATION PLAN FOR THE RODEFFER INERT LANDFILL SUMMARY The applicant Rodeffer Investments, Inc. ("Rodeffer" or "applicant") has requested approval of a reclamation plan and conditional use. permit (92-003) (including an operations plan), for a proposed inert landfill at 12321 Lower Azusa Road. The landfill will only accept uncontaminated roadway materials including soU, rock, gravel and concrete. The site is an 85:t acre depleted sand and gravel quarry. The Reclamation Plan describes the proposed reclamation activities. The Operations Plan describes the proposed inert landfill operation. The subject property is zoned M-2. All proposed uses in the M-2 zone require a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission will review the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Reclamation Plan and conditional use permit and transmit its record and recommendations in resolution form to the City Council. The City Council will be the final decision making body for purposes of certifying the final environmental impact report ("final EIR" or "FEIR"), and .approving the reclamation plan and conditional use permit including the operations plan. The staff report has been divided into three separate sections: Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Project Description (C.u.P. 92-003 and Reclamation Plan) Environmental Impact Analysis; and Recommendations and Motions Draft EIR and C.u.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14, 1993 Page 1 . '. . SECTION 1 PRomCf DESCRIPTION GENERAL INFORMATION APPUCANT: Rodeffer Investments, Inc. REQUEST: Reclamation Plan and Conditional Use permit 92-003 (including the operations plan) to operate an inert landfill LOCATION: PROJECT SIZE: 12321 Lower Azusa Road 8!nacres EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The site is a depleted sand and gravel quarry; zoned M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) The site is designated in the Arcadia General Plan as Industrial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Sand and gravel quarry located in the Oty of Irwindale: zoned M-2 Vacant property and a public storage facility located in the City of Arcadia; zoned M-2 San Gabriel River and 605 Freeway located in the City of Irwindale Developed with single-family residential uses located in the City of El Monte; zoned R-l C South: East: West: PROJECT OBJECTIVES .- The primary objectives of the proposed landfill are to: · comply with the State legislature's mandate to fill the quarry as set forth in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975; · stabilize the quarry pit slopes to reduce potential hazards to public health and safety consistent with State and local requirements; and · reclaim the property to a reusable condition consistent with the City of Arcadia's zoning regulations. Draft EIR and C.U.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14,1993 Page 2 . InSTORY 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 commenced 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. A second environmental impact report was prepared by Michael Brandman Associates. After the initial public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the applicant withdrew his application. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA, Public Resources Code 112710 et. seq.) of 1975 and as amended by Assembly Bill A747 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 which 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 conditionall.1se 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 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 . Draft EIR and C.U.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14, 1993 Page 3 . intent of SMARA is to create and maintain an effective and comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy to assure that: a. Adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition, which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses. b. The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage and aesthetic enjoyment. c. Residual hazards to public health and safety are eliminated. The Reclamation Plan addresses each of 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 of Sections 2772 and 2773 and the lead agency's surface mining ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 2774. Plans that are judged to meet the intent of this chapter shall be, approved for the purposes of this Chapter". . C.U.P. PROPOSAL The proposed project is to allow the operation of an inert landfill. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (C.u.P. 92-003) and related operations plan. Operations Plan 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 so'lid 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. Site Description The quarry is approximately 150 to 165 feet deep and contains approximately 1.1 billion gallons of standing water. Approximately 10 million cubic yards of inert . Draft EIR and c.u.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14, 1993 Page 4 . materials will be required to fill the quarry. It is estimated the operation will take between 8 to 12 years to completely fill the former quarry. Rodeffer intends to lease the site to Roadway Construction, Inc. who will operate the inert landfill. The proposed inert landfill will accept only those materials permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Solid Waste Facility Permit issued by the California Integrated Management Board. These materials would consist primarily of uncon- taminated roadway materials, including soil, rock, gravel and concrete. No or~anic or toxic materials are permitted. Trucking Activity Based upon the 8 to 12 years of operation, it is anticipated that the majority of time, (220 days per 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. It is anticipated trucks will come from within a radius of 35 to 40 miles. All trucks will access the site from the San Gabriel River Freeway (1-605). Not travel 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. No crushing of material will take place at the landfill. 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. (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 will be per- formed. Additional inspections will be performed at the tipping area. No material will be tipped directly into the ground water. Any material found not to be inert will be rejected. Provisions for handling rejected material are described on page 20 in the Draft EIR. The proposed hours and days of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. . Draft EIR and C.U.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14, 1993 Page 5 . . . To reduce fugitive dust, all active site and on-site roadways will be watered at least twice a day. Also, exposed stockpiles would 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 operations. 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. 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 adjacent to the project site and exiSting downgradient well will be tested to insure that groundwater quality is not being jeopardized by the proposed project. The Regional Water Quality Control Board will determine 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 which 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 spetu1ative. Future development of the property will require additional environmental review and would be subject to the conditional use permit process. FINDINGS AND CONDmONS OF APPROVAL . Findings In order to approve a conditional use permit, the lead agency (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. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use permit is authorized. Draft EIR and c.u.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14, 1993 Page 6 . . . 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. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. Conditions of A.pproval The conditions of approval shall include all mitigation measures as set forth in the Draft EIR required per CEQA. In addition, the Planning Department is recommending the following conditions of approval in accordance with good planning practices and to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area. 1. In accordance with the entrance enhancement program identified in the Operations Plan (page 10), the Planning Department is requesting a detailed plan showing the proposed improvements to the entry shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 2. Prior to commencing operation of the landfill, all necessary site improvements including, but not limited to improvements to the entry, design and construction of multiple stacking lanes, etc. shall be completed. The Operations Plan (page 10) notes 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 Department for review and .approval. All work shall be completed prior to commencement of the landfill operation. 3. 4. Where necessary, the wall along the westerly property line shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Planning Department prior to commencement of the landfill operation. 5. 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. Draft EIR and c.u.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14, 1993 Page 7 . . . 6. The hours of operation for the landfill operation 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 Sunday. 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/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. A plan for pavement analysis, rehabilitation, should it be necessary, and mitigation measures to offset any changes-shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to commencement of this project. 9. In accordance with ~2773.l(a) of SMARA, financial assurances shall be required in an amount to be determined by the City of Arcadia to ensure reclamation is performed in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. 10. That the applicant and/or operator as specified in the individual mitigation measures shall be held responsible for compliance with the mitigation measures and that the applicant shall be responsible for implementation of the project identified in the Final EIR and for complying with the monitoring and reporting program established by the City in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. 11. The applicant and/or operator as specified in the individual mitigation measures sh.all 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 Draft EIR and c.u.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14, 1993 Page 8 . have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program and conditions of approval. The Mitigation Monitoring Program which includes mitigation measures and project design features is attached and made a part of these conditions of approval. . ~ . Draft EIR and c.u.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14, 1993 Page 9 . I + , I AilllOVl I loNE O~I<. ..,0 . LEGEND I Lower Azusa Road Q 2 11800 Clark Street . 3 11801 Golding Road 4 S46Q.SSOO Peck Road I ~,- . 5 1245 East AIrow Highway - 0 .25 .5 .75 MILES SOURCE: Englneerlng-5clence Figure 1-1 Locations of Other Projects 9 . . . SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Prior to taking action on a project the Lead Agency must certify the adequacy of the Final EIR and certify that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving a project. In regards to this project, the City of Arcadia is the Lead Agency and the City Council is the decision making body. CEOA and the Proposed Project The environmental review process began with the filing of an application for a conditional use permit for an inert landfill on December 9,1991 by Rodeffer Investments, Inc. An Initial Study.was prepared which identified the following potential environmental impacts. · Earth (Geology and Seismicity): 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. · Air: The proposed project may result in substantial air emissions. · 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. · Plant Life: The proposed project may change the diversity or number of plant specifies. · Animal Ufe: The proposed project may change the diversity or number of animal species. ~ . Noise: The proposed project may increase existing noise levels or expose people to severe noise levels. · Transportation/Circulation: The proposed project may generate additional vehicular movement, impact existing transportation systems, and/or increase traffic hazards. · Public Services: The proposed project may impact public facilities (roads). Draft EIR and C.U.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14, 1993 Page 10 . . . . Energy: There could be additional amounts of energy required by the project, such as gas and electricity, but the amounts are not anticipated to be substantial. . Human Health: The proposed inert landfill will eliminate the existing quarry and reduce the existing risks to human health due to standing water, steep slopes and other public safety factors. The contained and low intensity nature of the proposed use should prevent any human health risks. A Notice of Preparation was circulated on February 28, 1993. On April 15, 1993 a revised Notice of Preparation describing the City's intent to require an EIR for the project and seeking comments regarding its content, was circulated to interested and responsible agencies, organization and individuals. A scoping meeting was held on March 11, 1992 at Arcadia City Hall. Notices of the scoping 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 (approximately 800 notices). Thirty-five persons attended the scoping meeting. The purpose of a scoping meeting is to assist the City in identifying and evaluating the range of issues, actions, alternatives, mitigation measures and significant environmental effects the public feels should be addressed in the EIR. On August 9,1993, copies of the Draft EIR were sent to the State Office of Planning and Research along with a Notice of Completion. Copies of the Draft EIR were hand delivered on August 10, 1993 to Harold Johanson, Community Development Director at the City of EI Monte, and the Norwood Library in EI Monte. 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 other interested agencies for a 45 day review period which ends September 24, 1993. ~ Notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the paper on August 19 and notices were mailed to all interested persons and agencies on August 20. The Planning Commission will review the Drift EIR, the Reclamation Plan and the conditional use permit aiong with all comments received prior to the Commission hearing and forward their comments to the City Council for review and consideration. Both the Notice of Completion and the Notice of Public Hearing listed locations where copies of the Draft EIR were available for public review. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Engineering Science under contract with the City and under the City's direction. The City conducted it's own Draft EIR and C.U.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14,1993 Page 11 . . . independent evaluation and analysis of the Draft EIR prior to releasing the document for public review. 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 preparation of the Draft EIR. CEQA requires that an environmental impact report address a reasonable range of alternatives. The Draft EIR looks at the following alternatives: · No project . Slope stabilization with some reclamation · Groundwater recharge basin The Draft Environmental Impact report also addresses cumulative impacts and long term implications of the proposed project. Mitigation measures have been recommended to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects for every impact identified, with the exception of Air Quality. A summary of the environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with the project is incorporated in Table E5-1 of the Environmental Impact Report and included as Attachment 1 of the staff report. ~ Draft EIR and CU.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14, 1993 Page 12 . SECTION 3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND MOTIONS The Planning Commission should review the Draft EIR for its adequacy to date. The Commission's comments and recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council with regard to the sufficiency of the Draft EIR. The Planning Department is recommending approval of the reclamation plan and conditional use permit 92-003 (including the operations plan) subject to the conditions set forth in this report and the mitigation monitoring program set forth in Attachment 3. PUBliC HEARING PROCESS While the California Environmental Quality Act does not require a public hearing on either the draft or final EIR, public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. The public review period on the Draft EIR is open through September 24. All comments submitted up to and including September 24 will be included in the Final EIR. Tonight's public hearing affords the public and the Planning Commission the opportunity to comment on the draft EIR and application for a conditional use permit and reclamation plan prior to the close of the public comment period on the draft EIR. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission proceed as follows: 1. Hear report from City staff and consultant 2. Open public hearing 3. Take public testimony from all interested parties, including the applicant. 4. Close public hearing 5. Planning Commission discussion; and 6. Planning Commission action - recommendations to the City Council. RECOMMENDED MOTION Draft EIR The Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for adoption at the Coxnmission's next meeting, reflecting the Commission's action and setting forth the Coxnmission's comments and recommendations on the Draft . Draft EIR and C.U.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14, 1993 Page 13 . . . EIR in terms of adequacy of impact analysis, mitigation measures and project alternatives. Said resolution will be forwarded to the City Council along with all other comments and responses to comments for consideration as part of the Final EIR. Reclamation Plan Review of this plan is limited to determining if the plan substantially meets the requirements set forth in SMARA. The Planning Commission should direct staff to convey the Commission's recommendations, comments and findings to the City Council. A public hearing on this plan will be held before the City Council. Conditional Use Permit 92-003 The Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for adoption at its next meeting reflecting the Commission's action and. recommendations on the conditional use permit in relation to the required findings for a C.U.P. (as set forth on page 6 and 7 of the report), the sufficiency of the conditions imposed and related issues. Said resolution will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration at a public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 92-003. It is recognized that the Commission's action is based on information to date and that the fmal decision by the City Council is contingent on a Final Certified EIR by the Council. ~ Draft EIR and C.U.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14, 1993 Page 14 - Tabl.l SummaI)' of Potentially Significant A4verse Impacts and Mitigation Mensures - Proposed Project . PotenUaDy Slp1lkant SlgnIIkance after MItlpUoo Program.RaponslblUty I Envlronmenlal Cnlegol)' Adverse Impacts Mlllpt10D Measures MltlplloD Report RecIpient Geologic Resources And Existing quany waI1s are unstable, ConsllUlt a bullress slope, or ether Insignificant ROlldway ConsllUc:liOD Company and SelsmJdly posing hazards 10 adjacenl properties. City approved design, a10ng Rodeffer Investments/City of An:adia. northwestern quarry boondaly. INpect quany slopes, and if Deeded, Insignificant Roadwny Construc:Iion Company and Implement remedial action sw:h 81 Rodeffer Investmenla/City of Arcadia. regrading or covering &lumping areas with plastlc sheeting or wire mesh and sh_e. Inaeased erosion from surface DIrect surface ".... rrway from Ihe pi! Insignifiamt Roadway Construc:lion Company and runoff. inIo CIisIing drainage lacililies. Rodeffer Investments/City of Arcadia. Steep rill slopes may NdOhilize MalnttIin slopes 81 an angle of2:1 Insignifiamt Roadway Construc:Iion Company and during a seismic event. , (borizonl81 or vertical) or abool2S Rodeffer Investments/City of Arcadia. degrees. Fill materiaJize could restriQ future UmIt maximum dimensions of fill Insignifiamt Roadway Construc:lion Company.and cIeYeIopment or use of Ihe sile. materiaJ size 10 12 inches in any Rodeffer Investments/City of Arcadia. direc:lion; avoid nesling of larger fI11 pieces. Surface WsW" sod Leachate from lhe decomposition of If during groundwaler monitoring, Insignificant Rodeffer Investmen... Grouudwaler Quality any undetected, non-inen landfill ~enl groundwaler quality City of Arcadia/RWQCB, and CDRS. materiaJs alUld conl8min8le Clceeds both Ihe WOR limits and groundw8ler. upgradientgroun_er quaUl}'. groundwaler shall be Cllralted and deaned until downgradient groundwaler quaUl}' meets Ihe WOR limits and upgmdienl water quaUty. Leachate from stockpiled reject Cover and store stockpiles on a Insignificanl Rodeffer Investments/ materials may conlamin8le nonpenneable surface; remove RWQCB, and CDRS. groundwater. rejected stockpiles weekly. rSRI40 ~ . . Table ES-l (Continued) . SummaI)' of Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures - Proposed Project Environmental CnteaOlJ . Potenllall1 SlpUkant Adverse Impacts MltlpUon Measnres Slgnlftcance after M1tlpUon MltlpUon Program Raponslblllty / Report Reclplmt BloJoslcal Resources Trame and Clrc:u1a1ioD I'SRI40 Interference wilh fioral growth, normal drainage patterns or contamination of soil Destruc:lion and removal of native flora. , Truck IraIIic will add to adsIing and fulUre peat hour congestion 811M l.alSfRivergrade Road interchange wilh Lower Azusa Road. Cumulative lruck traffIC will add 10 CIisIing and fulure peat hour congestion 8Ilhe I60S/Rivergrade Road inlerchange with Lower Azusa Road. Remove construc:lion waste and natura1.debris off-sile weekly, aD COOSIruction materiallhaD be removed one week foUowIng COnsIIUction activities. Landscape with native nora species, such 81 Tree or uro, holly-leaved cherty, mounttlin mabosany, while sage. and CaUfomia bUckwheal, which are available from commercial nurseries. West approach: construct an Cldusive righHurn.lane; mainttlin two Ihrough lanes. Bast approach: restrip or widen 10 add an c:xdl!sIve right lane; mtlinttlin two Ihrough lanes. Conduct &!goal optimiz8Ilon study 10 improve signal phasing and liming. Soulh approach: construct an additional Cldusive righHurn lane. ES.7 Insignifiamt Insignificant Insignificanl Insignificanl Roadway ConsllUc:lion Company and Rodeffer Investmenll/City of Arcadia. Roadway ConsllUction Company and Rodeffer Investments/City of Arcadia. Rodeffer Investmenl/City or Arcadia, and Cily of lrwindale Rodeffer Investment/City of Arcadia, and City oflrwindale . . . Table ES-I (Continued) . Summary of Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Mensures - Proposed Project Envlronmenlal CnIegOI)' Potenllall1 Slpl-n~ AIhene Impacts Mltlplloo Measnres SlgnIIkance after MItlpUoo MltlpUon Program Itaponslbl1lty / Report Reclplmt Air Quallly Noise PSR140 Construc:Iion-re18led PMI0 emissions Clc:ccd SCAQMD'. threshold levels. Operalional Roc, K<>x. and PMIO emissions Clc:ccd SCAQMP's threshold levels. ""-mnce of noise criteria for the Cilies of Arcadia and EI MonIC during landfill operations. DisconIinue operations during forecast Stage n Smos aIeru. MalnttIin all vehicles and equipment in proper IUne. Bncouragc wolken to carpooL Use BAer 00 COnsIIUc:lion equlpmenl, induding retarding liming. Disconlinue operations during forecast S1age n Smos aIena. Maintain aD vchides and equipmenl in proper Iune. BnalUragc worlten to carpooL Use BAer 00 consllUction equipmeol, indudlng retarding liming. Keep engine RPM's8l1ow 81 possible 81 aD limes; do not rev engines unnecessarily; random inspecIions of aD landfill equipment foutandard noise conlrol devices; and replace any missing. worn or defective noise reduction devices. E." Signifiamt Signifiamt Insignificant Roadway Construc:lion Company and Rodeffer Investmenll/SCAQMD. Roadway CollSlruction Company and . Rodeffer Investmeots/SCAQMD. Roadway Construc:lion Company and RodeI{er.lnvestments/City of An:adia. . . Table E8-1 (Continued) . Summary of Potentially Signific8Dt Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures - Proposed Project Envlronmmlal CnIegoI)' PotenllRllJ SlpUkant .w-tmpacts M1tljplUon Measnres SJgnIlIcaoce after Mltlpdon MltlplIoo Program Raponslbl1lty / Report Reclp1ant Noise (CoDIIDoed) e'~ance of noise criteria for the Cilies of An:adia and EI Monte during Iandlill operations. . CoDJIruct al5il:.foot high waD or berm for any residenlia1 areas not currenIIy proIected by a solid barrier waD; Pro1ubil entrance of haullructs to the Iandfilllile prior 10 7:00 AM and after 5:00 PM Monday through Friday, and prior 10 8:00 AM and . after 5:00 PM on weekends and recognized holida}s. When thelandnn grade has '-n brought up 10 a 325-fOOl e1evalion within 200 feet of residenlia1 properties, which is approJdmateJy in Ihe sevenIh year or operaIioos, increase the CIisIing six.fOOl high waI1s along residenlial properties to a 12-fOOlhigh noise barrier COOSIructed of cement, masomy, or earthen berm. Ched< landfill grade and prepare Updaled grading plans. ~amt Rodeffer Investments/City of ArauIia. Insignifiamt RodeIJer Investmenll/City of Arcadia. Insignific:anl Rodeffer Investments/City of Arcadia Source: Engineering-Science I'SRI40 ES-9 . Tab.2. . SummaI)' of Potential Significa\lt Adverse Impacts Associated with Project Alternatives (as Compared to the Proposed Project) Envlronmenlal CnlegOl)' Slope Slabl1lzaUon w11b Some ReclamaUoo Alternative Groundwater Redwge BasIn Alternative No Pro,Ject Geologie Resoun:es and Selsmldly BUsting quany waI1s are unstable, posing hazards 10 adjac:enl propenies (same). Increased erosion from "'rface runoff (gre8Ier). Sleep slopes may destabilize during a seismic event (same). Soria... Water and Grouodwaler QuaIIIy Contamination of surface water from off.sile sources (greal..,. Groundwaler contaminaIion from percolation of conlaminated surface waters (grealer). alologlcal Resoun:es Inlerference with DoraI growth, normal drtlinage p81lerns or conlamin8llon of soil (same). Land Use Destruc:lion and removal of n8live Dora (same). Would not comply with Cily'a CIisling land use and zoning desigoalicin for project site (grealer). I'SRI40 I!xisting quany waI1s are unstable, posing hazards 10 adjacent properties (same). Increased erosion from surface runoff (greater). Sleep slopes may destnbilize during a seismic event (same). I!sistIng quany waI1s are unstable, posing hazards 10 adjaceOl propenies (greater). Inaeased erosion rrom surface runoff (gre8Ier). Sleep slopes may destabilize during a seismic event (gre8Ier). Contamination of surface water from off...site sources (greater). Contamination of surfac:e water from off-sile sources (grealer). Groundwater contamination from percolation of contaminaled surface walen (greater). 100erference with Doral growth, normal drainage patterns or contamination of soil (same). Groundw8ler coOlamination from percolalion of conl8min8led surface walers (gre8Iei). None Destruction and r<mOYlll of n81ive Dora (same). Would not.complywilh Cily's CIisling land use and zoning designation for project site (greater). None Would not comply wilhCily's eidsting land use and zoning design8lion for project site (grealer). ES . Table ES-. entinued) SummaI)' or Potential SignificslJt Adverse Impacts Associated with Project Alternatives (as Compared to the Proposed Project) e Environmental Cntegol)' Tralllc and CIrcu1al1on AlrQua111y Noise Slope Statil1lzaUoo willi Some Pe-Jamatlon Alteruallve Truck traffic will add 10 CIisIing and luture peak hour oongestion 81 the 1.alS/Rivergrade Road interchange with Lower Azusa Road (same). Construc:lion-re18led PMIO emissioos CIc:ccd SCAQMD's threshold levels (same). Operational Roc, NO. and PMI0 emissions exceed SCAQMD'slhreshold levels (same). Exc:eedanco of noise crileria for the Cilies of Arcadia and BI M.:mte during slope stabilization operations (same). Groundwater Recbarge Basin A1eeiuatlve No Project Trucklraff".. will add 10 CIisIing and IulUre peaIt hour congestion 81 the I-liOSfRivergrade Road inlerchange with Lower Azusa Road (same). Construc:lion-reJated PMIO emissions CIc:ccd SCAQMD'~ threshold levels (same). Operational.ROC, NO. and PMIO emissionsexc:ccd SCAQMD's Ihr....old levels (same). None None None Exc:eedanc:e or noise aileria for the Cilies of Arcadia and EI Monle during slope stabilization operations (same). None Source: Engineering.saence I'SRI40 ES-Il . . . DRAFI'MlTIGATlONMONITORING PROGRAM Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoringl Completion MitiR;alion Report Recipient GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND SEISMICiTY To be constructed as part Conduct a geotechnical investigation to design a Roadway Conslnlction and of the initial fill sequence stabilizing bu ttress slope or other City approved Rodeffer Invesbnents/ to stabilize the slope alternative design along the northwestern City of Arcadia boundary of the quarry pit. Quarterly/monthly 1nspect quarry slopes and if needed implement Roadway Conslnlction and during and following remedial action such as regrading or covering Rodefff!!l" Invesbnents/ the heavy rains, until slumping areas with plastic sheeting or Wire City of Arcadia bUltressslope or other mesh and shotcrete design is conslnlcted along the northwestern boundary, and through- out initial operation phases (Years Ito 4) for all other quarry slopes , As final contours of the To avoid increased erosion from surface runoff Roadway Conslnlclion and quarry are achieved direct surface flows away from the pit into Rodeffer Invesbnents/ existing drainage facilities City of Arcadia During each lift Umit the maximum dimensions of fill material Roadway Conslnlction and size to 12 inches in any direction, avoid nesting Rodeffer Invesbnents/ of larger fill pieces City of Arcadia Qn..going throughout Maintain slopes at an angle of 2:1 (horizontal Roadway Construction and operation to vertical) orabaut 25 degrees Rodeffer Invesbnents/ City of Arcadia Page 1 . . . DRAFr MITIGAllON MONlTORlNG PROGRAM Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring{ Completion Mitijtation Report Redoient WATER QUALITY Quarterly monitoring If during groundwater monitoring. downgradient Rodeffer Invesbnents, during operation and after groundwater quality exceeds belh the WDR City of Arcadia/RWQCB closure of Ihe landfill limits and upgradient groundwater quality, and CDHS groundwater shall be extracted and cleaned until downgradient groundwater quality meets the WDRlimits and upgradient water quality. Weekly during operation Cover and .store stockpiles on a nonpenneable Rodeffer Invesbnents/RWQCB surface; remove rejected stockpiles weekly and CDHS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Weekly during Remove construction waste and natural debris Roadway Construction and construction phase off-sile weekly; all construction material shall Rodeffer Invesbnents/ be removed one week following construction City of Arcadia activities After construction Landscape with native flora species, such as Roadway Construction and Tree of Life, holly-leaved cherry, mountain Rodeffer InveSlments/ mahogany, white sage, and California buck- Oty of Arcadia wheat, Ihat are available from commercial nurseries TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION To be completed prior to West approach, Lower Azusa Road and 1-605 Roadway Construction and Ihe fourth year of SB ramps/Rivergrade Road: Construct an Rodeffer Invesbnents/ operation exclusive right-turn lane; maintain two City of Arcadia and City of through lanes. lrwindale EasUpproach, Lower Azusa Road and 1-605 NB ramps/Rivergrade Road: Construct an Page 2 . . . DRAFI'Ml"IlGATION MONrrORlNG PROGRAM l1mIng Measure Responsible for Monitorin&l Completion Miti2ation ReoortRecinient exclusive righi-lane; maintain Iwo through lanes. Annually To delennine the effectiveness of the mitigation Roadway Consln1clion/ measures, conduct signal optimization study 10 City of Arcadia and improve signal phasing and timing by counting City of Irwindale traffic volumes and/or observing peak-hour conditions at the site access driveway at Lower Azusa Road. The peaks hours include 7:15- 8:15 a.rn. and 4:00-6:00 p.rn. METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY Per Occurrence Discontinue operations during forecast Stage IT Roadway Consln1ction and Smog alerts. Rodeffer Invesbnenls/SCAQMD Quarlerly Maintain air,. vehicles and equipment in proper Roadway Consln1ction and tune. Use BACT on construction equipmenl, Rodeffer InvesbnenlS/SCAQMD including retarding the ignition timing of diesel engines. NOISE Monthly Keep engine RPM's as low as possible at all Roadway Construction and times; do not rev engines u~y; random Rodeffer Investments/ inspections of all landfill equipment for City of Arcadia standard noise control devices; and replace any missing. worn or defective noise reduction devices. Start of operations Consln1ct a six.foot high wall or berm for any Rodeffer inveStments/ residential areas not currently protected by a City of Arcadia solid barrier wall. Prohibit entrance of haulln1c\cs to the landfill Roadway Consln1ction and Page 3 . . DRAFrMITIGATION MONl1ORING PROGRAM . Timing Seventh Year of Operations (approx.) Semi-Annually Measure site prior to 7:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and prior to 8:00a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and recognized holidays. When the landfill grade has been brought up to a 325 foot elevation within 200 feet of residen- tial properties, which is approximately in the 7th year of operations, increase the existing six-foot high walls along residential properties to a 12 foot high noise barrier constructed of concrete, masonry or earthen berm. Check landfill grade and prepare updated grading plans . Page 4 Responsible for Monitoring! Mllle:ation Report Recipient Rodeffer Investments Rodeffer Investments/ City of Arcadia Rodeffer Investments/ City of Arcadia Completion . . . 1975 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACI' SEcrIONS 2772 AND 2773 Section ~2772 The reclamation plan shall include the following information and documents: (a) The name and address of the operator and the names and addresses of any persons designated by him as his agents for the service of process. (b) The anticipated quantity and type of minerals for which the surface mining operation is to be conducted. (c) The proposed dates for the initiation and termination of such operation. (d) The maximum anticipated depth of the surface mining operation. (e) The size and legal description of the lands that will be affected by such operation, a map that includes the boundaries and topographic details of such lands, a description of the general geology of the area, a detailed description of the geology of the area in which surface mining is to be conducted, the location of all streams, roads, railroads and utility facilities within, or adjacent to such lands, the location of all proposed access roads to be constructed in conducting such operation, and the names and addresses of the owners of all surface and mineral interests of such lands. (f) A description of and plan for the type of surface mining to be employed and a time schedule that will provide for the completion of surface mining on each segment of the mined lands so that reclamation can be initiated at the earliest possible time on those portions of the mined lands that will not be subject to further disturbance by the surface mining operation. (g) A description of the proposed use or potential uses of the land after reclamation and evidence that all owners of a possessory interest in the land have been notified of the proposed use or potential uses. (h) A description of the manner in which reclamation, adequate for the proposed use or potential uses will be accomplished, including: (1) a description of the manner in which contaminants will be controlled and mining waste will be disposed; and (2) a description of the manner in which rehabilitation of affected streambed ~ channels and streambanks to a conditional minimizing erosion and sedimentation will occur. (1) An assessment of the effect of implementation of the reclamation plan on future mining in the area. (j) A statement that the person submitting the plan accepts the responsibility for reclaiming the mined lands in accordance with the reclamation plan. (k) Any other information which the lead agency may required by ordinance. ~2773. (1) The reclamation plan shall be applicable to a specific piece of property or properties, and shall be based upon the character of the surrounding area and such characteristics of the property as type of overburden, soil stability, topography, geology, climate, stream characteristics, and principal mineral commodities and shall establish site-specific criteria for evaluating compliance with -1- SMARA . . . an approved reclamation plan, including topography, revegetation, and sediment and erosion control. (b) By January 1, 1992, the board shall adopt regulations specifying minimum, verifiable statewide reclamation standards. Subjects for which standards shall be set include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (1) Wildlife habitat. (2) Backfilling, regrading, slope stability, and recontouring. (3) Revegetation. (4) Drainage, diversion structures, waterways and erosion control. (5) Prime and other agricultural land reclamation. (6) Building, structure, and equipment removal. (7) Stream protection (8) Topsoil salvage, maintenance and redistribution (9) Tailing and mine waste management. These standards shall apply to each mining operation, but only to the extent that they are consistent with the planned or actual subsequent use or uses of the mining site. S2773.1. (a) Lead agencies shall require financial assurances of each surface mining operation to ensure reclamation is performed in accordance with the surface mining operation's approved reclamation plan, as set forth in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 - revised 12/92. ~ -2- SMARA STATE OF CAlIFORNIA-ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON. GowtnOt CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD . ANGELES REGION ENTRE PLAZA DRIVE TEREY PARK. CA 91754-2156 (213) 266-7500 FAX. (213) 266-7600 August 31, 1993 @ ~." .~' ,,~' ~ - '" , . r_. '.l.- "'~ ) ~_' f.... ...,: SEP :J?, 1993 en..,. l'''' .\"'~/\,~I." Pl..!".l'ml~;::-: DCPT Ms. Donna Butler Planning Director City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 DRAFT Em - PROPOSED RODEFFER :rHERT LANDPILL. SCBf92041091: CITY OF ARCADIA (PILE NO. 700.311) We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above-referenced site, and have the following comments: 1. Page 17 statement: "The proposed inert landfill will accept only those materials permitted by a Solid Waste Facility operations Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and in cooperation with the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster. These materials would consist primarily of uncontaminated roadway materials, including soil, rock, gravel and concrete." . Comment: The Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) issues "Waste Discharge Requirements" (WDRs), not a "Solid Waste Facility Permit", which is an operations permit issued by the California Integrated Waste Management Board and implemented by the acting Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). In the WORs, the Regional Board will specify appropriate materials for disposal, the type and nature of the monitoring systems required, and monitoring frequency, in order to protect the beneficial uses of ground and surface waters of the Region. . "Roadway materials" usually consist of asphalt and asphaltic concrete. Asphaltic mater.ial will not be permitted to be dumped into standing water at the landfill, nor will it be allowed to be placed within five feet of the highest anticipated ground water level. The Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, as well as other interested parties, will receive tentative WORs for this site. They are invited to submit relevant comments to the Regional Board for the Board's consideration. The Regional Board alone, however, will decide whether or not to adopt the WDRs or modify them pursuant to comments received. . . . . Ms. Butler Page 2 2. page 29 statement: liThe RWQCB, in cooperation with the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, will determine the number of monitoring wells required and the frequency of testing." Comment: As was commented in 1 above, the Regional Board alone, after hearing relevant comments from All interested parties, will approve the number of monitoring wells and the frequency of testing specified in the WDRs. 3. Page 66 statement: "The February 1992 test results [at NuWay-Owl Rock Landfill site] indicated that water quality in the ground water monitoring network desiqnated for this site did not meet- California Drinking Water standards for total dissolved solids and iron." . Comment: This sentence should be corrected to state that concentrations of total dissolved solids and iron did not meet SecondarY California Department of Health Services' Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). secondary standards, considered goals, are for constituents which may adversely affect the aesthetic quality of drinking water, such as taste, odor, color and appearance. 4. Page 69 Statement: "Leachate from the decomposition of landfill materials or from the reject stockpile may degrade the groundwater by elevating pH or increasing the concentrations of iron, copper, or zinc. Comment: Actually, leachate generated from the breakdown of soluble, decomposable materials, characteristically is acidic in nature, and lowers the pH of ground water it contacts, not "elevates" it. A higher pH generally renders metals more insoluble. Pursuant to Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 15, section 2524, inert wastes are defined as wastes that do . . . Ms. Butler Page 3 not contain hazardous waste or soluble pollutants at concentrations in excess of applicable water quality objectives, and do not contain significant quantities of decomposable waste. To this end, the Regional Board will determine what appropriate inert wastes may be discharged to this facility. 5. Page 70 Statement: "The potential impacts to groundwater from the decomposition and leaching of any undetectable non-inert landfill materials can be mitigated to insignificant levels by implementing the ground water monitoring program. A groundwater extraction and remediation plan, shall be included and performed if contamination of the groundwater resulted from the proposed project activities." Comment: Unacceptable waste can be prevented from entering the landfill through a comprehensive waste-cheCking program, which is required of .illl landfills .in the Los Angeles Region; The ground water monitoring network that will be required is a detection measure, not a "mitigation" measure. Should a mitigation measure be needed. as corrective action at this site, the Regional Board will approve the type of mitigation necessary for this site. 6. Page 70 Statement: "The groundwater monitoring program would require the installation of three upgradient monitoring wells and one downgradient monitoring well." ~ Comment: As was commented in 1 above, the Regional Board will approve the number and locations of all monitoring wells at this site. 7. Page 71 Statement: "The monitoring wells could be installed with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well screens. However, if during well construction any floating hydrocarbon products or sol vents that would react with PVC are encountered, then the monitoring wells will be constructed with stainless steel screens." . . .. . Ms. Butler Page 4 Comment: As was commented in 1 above, the Regional Board will approve the nUlllber, location, and construction standards for the monitoring wells at this site. Thank you fot' this opportunity to review your document. Should you have any questions, please contact Blythe Ponek-Bacharowski at (213) 266-7580. ~~ H. Y\t~ &M- RODNEY H. NELSON Senior Engineering Geologist cc: see mailing list .