Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1503 .- . e 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 CONDmONAL 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 irithe following: 2. That the General Plan classification for the subject site is "Industrial" 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 in the neighborhood. The 8S:!: 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. Maintillning 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 . . . L DiscontinuE! operations during forecast Stage IT 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 proper.ties (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-60S/Rivergrade Road interchange at Lower Azu~a 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 YES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Huang, Clark NOES: None Section S. 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: NOES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Huang, Clark None ~I i2 ~- 4.---a 6L Chaiphan, Planning Commission Cityfof Arcadia ~ S Pl~ ecretary, annmg ommlSSlOn City of Arcadia -4- 1503 . . . September 14, 1993 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE 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. Aletter from the City of El 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 El 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 impacts 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 2772 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: ENFQRCEMENT . PLANNING September 7, 1993 CITY HAI.L WEST 11333 VALLEY BLVD 2ND FLOOR EL MONTE. CALIFORNIA ~1731 FAX IBISI 580'2293 HAROLD O. JOHANSON OlRIECTOR 0' COMMUNITY OEVELOP",ENT 18181 580-20110 1;:~ :~:~ t;':':-. '7:'. 1 t.. f[:.. HAND DELIVERED :;t:P t.i 7 1993 JUAN D. MIREl.ES ASSlSTANT" QIRECTOR OJ" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT \81BI !580'20!le Honorable Chairman Arcadia City Planning Commission 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91066 .C'TY ':;JF AR;;: ....or,'\ t~~;~.~N;~';r.:. CZi'T. ROSE MARIE JAMESON A.OMlNI~TAATIVE ASSISTANT \8181 580'1070 MARK H PERSICO. AICP elT'" Pl,.ANNEA 18181 'eo. 20110 Attention: Donna Butler, Acting Planning Director JAMES W. MUSSENOEN CODE SUPERINTENDEN'T 18181 ,eO'2080 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 El 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 4S 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 t,his mailer. HAROLD HANSON Director of Community Development City of El Monte . HOJ:ms Q!1'U g'l.nJ(y B( dItlonu -- . . Ol:an.l f. s.:vll \\\lIi..Lnl Q ~~~$ 's.:ille R. .-'.ttCtl 10.1n "1. Llno C..ml 8, ')!i€::n.m Ross & Scott A PfQf-:ssicnal C~rp.:.r31Ir,1'l 520 South Granel .....v~nu~ Suite 3110 Lo. Angeles. C:Jifornia 91)Q71-~61V Td.:.phor.:: (~!:3j ~~2.1$tl! F:a~'simllc: (213) S92-151cJ ;:'i Sh<:::miln A.cnua, S..u~ 310 t'.1lo .-\Uo, CJI.f.:tnj~ '94Jl.6 1.I<phOne: ("IS) 617.;61S !".lcsimi!c; (~lS) 617.$600 Polk) AIla ()tli~ File 1-:0: 57/7 September 9, 1993 VIA TELECOPTER & CERTIFIED MAIL ~ETURN RECEJP"r REOUF.STED Ms. Donna L Butler 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 Landfill Conditional L'se Pemlit; Draft Environmental Impact Repon . Rodeffer Inert Landfill (State Clearinl!hou~e l'."o. 92041091) Dear tvfs. 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 City 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 draft environmental impact repon ("DEIR") for the proposed Rodeffer rnen Landtill. The notice deadline for written comments on the DEIR is September 24. 1993 as set forth 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 S21000 elseq.); Starbird v. County of San Benilo. 122 Cal.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 . . . Ms. Dor.na L. Bud.:r September 9, 1993 Page 2 Septembe~ 24, 1993 deadline for submission of written commentS on the DErR. Such an action would aHow for meaningful parridpil!ion in the land us.:: planning process, a declared state Iegii.lative policy (Gov. Code S65033) which is not now served because member, of the public and the City are pUt in the anomalous position of having to comment on whether the burden of proof for a CUP has been met 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 amplitied by the fact of which we have been informed by our client, that the City of Arcadia Staff Report for the Rodeffer CUP is not yet available. Given the complexity of the method of presentation of the proposed en....ironmental analysis for the Rodeffer CUP in the DEIR and the need for detailed comments on that docume!\t 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 the availability- of the City of Arcadia Staff Report with sufficient tim.:: for informed public review has occurred. Very truly yours, t.:U 'b. ~ William D. Ross WDR:nac cc: Mr. Gregory D. Korduner City of El Monte City Administrator Mr. David F. Gondek "- City of EI Monte City Attomey e . . September 14, 1993 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL 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 soil, rock, gravel and concrete. The site is an 85:1: 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 PROTECT DESCRIYTION GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: 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 85:1: acres 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-1 C South: East West: PROTECT OBTECTIVES ~ 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 Oty of Arcadia's zoning regulations. Draft EIR and c.u.P. 92-003 Planning Commission September 14,1993 Page 2 . 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 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 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 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.UP. 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. Ooerations 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 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. 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 organic 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. IUs 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 EI Monte. . . ~n-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 crushinsz 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. (Morlldetailed 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 speculative. 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 ~ Fim!ings 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 weUare 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, loadin~ 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. S. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. Conditions of Approval 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 weUare 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. 3. 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. 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 g2773.1(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 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 . Draft EIR and Cu.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 . . LEGEND Q 1 Lower Azusa Road 2 11800 Clark Street . 3 11801 Golding Road 4 5460-5500 Peck Road . .......d 5 1245 East Arrow Highway 0 .25. .5 .7S 1 MILES SOURCE: Engln4lel'IngoSc:lence Figure I-l Locadons 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 ground waters. · Plant Life: The proposed project may change the diversity or number of plant specifies. · Animal Life: 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 thescoping 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 ElR . 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 El Monte, and the Norwood Library in El 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 interes~ persons and agencies on August 20. The Planning Commission will review the Draft EIR, the Reclamation Plan and the conditional use permit along 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 scopingmeeting, 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 ES-1 of the Environmental Impact Report and included as Attachment 1 of the staff report. ~ Draft EIR and C.U.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 S. 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 Commission's next meeting, reflecting the Commission's action and setting forth the Commission's comments and recommendations on the Draft . Draft EIR and C.D.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 setJorth 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 final 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.. Summary or Potentially Significant A4verse Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Proposed Project . Po~t1aBf Slpltkant SIgo1Rcaoce after MItIgation Program ResponslbDlIy I Environmental Category Adverse Impocts MItIgation Measura Mitigation Report RecIpient Geologic Resources And ExistIng quarry walJsare unstable, Constrw:t a bunress slope, 01' ether lrl5ignificant ROlldway COlISIrUaion Company and Selsmldty posing hazards 10 adjacent properties. City approved design, aJong RodefferlnvcstmenlS/City of Arcadia. northwestern quarry boundary. Inspec:t quarry slopes, and if needed, Inslgnificanl Roadway Construaion Company and implement remedial action such 81 Rodeffer Investments/City of Arcadia. regradin& 01' covering slumping areas with p/asIlc sheeting orwire mesh and sh_e. Increased erosion from surface Direct surface fl...... rtfI18'/ from the plt Inslgnific:am Roadway Construction Company and runoff. Into flIisting drainage faci1itles. Rodeffer Investments/City of Arcadia. Steep liD slopes may databilize Maintain slopes at an angle of2:1 Inslgnific:am ROlldway Construaion Company and during a seismic event. , (horizontal or venicaJ) onbolll 2S Rodeffer Investments/City of Arcadia. ......... Fill materialize could reslria future Iimitlll8llimum dimensions of liD Inslgnific:am ROadway Constnlclion Company and devetopmenl or use 01 the sile. maIaial size to lZ inches in any Rodeffer Investments/City of Arcadia. direction; avoid nesting of Ial'Jler liD pieces. Surface Waler aod Leac:hate from the decomposition of U during BfOundwater monitoring. Inslgnificant Rodeffer Investments, Groundwa.... Quality any undetected, non-inen IandIiIJ downgnidient groundwater quaJity City of ArcadiajRWQCB, and CDHS. materials could contaminate =c:eeds both the WDR limits and groundwater. upgradient groundwater quality, groundwater shall be ctltaaedand cleaned until downgtadient groundwaler quality meets the WDR limits and upgradient water quality. Leac:hate from $Iodqri1ed reject Cover and store stockpiles on a InsignifIC81lI Rodeffer Investments/ materials may contaminate nonpcnneable surface; remove RWQCB, and CDHS. groundwaler. rejected stockpiles weekly. PSRI40 ~ . . Table ES-I (Continued) . Summary or Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures - Proposed Project Envlrcmmeatal CategOll . PoteatiBJly SlgplRcaat Adwne Impads Mll1gatlcm Measures SIgDIft_ after MltIgatlota MItigation I'ro&nm RespooslblUty I Report Redplellt Blologlcatllesmmes Traftlc aDd Circaladoo rsRl40 Inlerference with OoraIgrowtb, normal drainage patterns or conlamination of anD. Ddlruction and removal of native Dora. . Truck lraffic will add 10 aiIIlng and futll18 peal< hour congestion at Ihe I41SfRivergrade Road interchange with Lower Azusa Road. Cu/llUlative truck traffic willadel 10 cxi5ting and future peal< hour COngestiOD at the 160S/Rivergrade Road intercllange with Lower Azusa Road. Rem..... coll5lruclion waste and natural debris off-sile weekly; aU construction material IbalJ be removed one week following co_ion aaivitie$. Landscape with native Dora species, IUch as Tree of Life, bolJr-leaved cherry, IIlOllnlain mahogany, wbite sage, and California bUc:kwbeat, which a18 available from eommercial nurseries. West approach: COll5lruct an Clltduslve right-tUm lane; maintain two through lanes. East approach: restrip or widen 10 add an Cl~ righllane; maintain two through lanes. Conduct signal optlmization study 10 improve signal phasing and timing. South approach: construct an additional ",dusive rigbl-tum lane. ES-7 lasigniftcant InsIgnltlcanl Insignificant Insignificant Roadway Construction Company and Rodeffer I_ems/City of Arcadia. Roadway Construction Company and Rodeffer Il\YCIIIIlCIIls/City of Arcadia. Rodeffer I_enl/City of Arcadia, and City of Irwindale Rodeffer Investment/City of Arcadia, and City oflrwindaJe . . Table ES-l (Continued) . Summary of Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Mensures - Proposed Project Envlroomenlal Cnlegol)' Potmllall1 SlpUkant .w-Impacts Mltlpllon Measnres SlplRcance after MltlpUon M1tlpUon Program Itaponslblll1y I Report Redplmt AIr Quallly Noise I'SRI40 ConiIruclIon-reIatcd PMI0 emissions exceed SCAQMD'llhrahold levels. OpcraIionaJ ROC, N<>x. and PMIO emissions Clc:ccd SCAQ~'I threshold levels. I!xc:ccdanc:c of noise aileria for Ihe Cllies of An:adia.and EI Monle during landfill operations. DiKonlinue operaIions during f_ S1agell SmosalerlS. Malnttlin aD vehicles and equlpmenl in properlune. llncourageworken 10 carpool Use BAer on construc:lion equipmenl, indudlng retarding liming. Disconlinue operaIions during forecast S1age II Smos aIena. MalnttIin aD ""'"des and equlpmenl in proper IUne. BnalUrage workers 10 carpool. Use BAer on consllUction equipmenl, indudlng relarding liming. Keep engine RPM'I 81 low 81 possible 81 aD limes; do not rev engines unnecessarily; random Impecrions of aD Iandfl11 equipmenl for I5l8IU1ard noise control devices; and replane any missing. worn or defective noise reduction devices. E." Signifiamt Signifiamt Insignifiamt Roadway Construc:lion Company and RodeIJer Inveslnlenll/SCAQMD. Roadway Construc:lioo Company and . RodeIJer Invesrmeoll/SCAQMD. Roadway Construc:lion Company and RodeI{er Inveslmenll/CiIy of ArauIla. . . TableES-l (Continued) . SummaI)' of Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures - Proposed Project Eovlroomenlal Cnlegol)' Potenllall1 slgnIlkant Adverse Impacb MltlpUon Measnres Slgnlftcaoce after M1tlpUoo MltlplIoo Program Raponslblllty I Report Redplant Noise (CoDUnUed) ~.nce of noise crileria for the CiIies of Arcadia and EI Monle during landfill oper8Iions. . ConsllUlt al5il:-fOOl high waD or berm for any residenliaJ areas not currenIIy proIected by a solid barrier waD; ProhibIt entrance of haullructs 10 the landfill &ile prior 107:00 AM and after 5:00 PM Monday lhrough Priday, and prior 10 8:00 AM and after 5:00 PM on weekends and recognized hoUda}s. When Ihe IandmJ grade has '-n broughl up 10 a 32S-f00l elev8lion wilhin 200 feet of residential propcnies, which is apprOllimateJy in Ihe _h year of oper8Iioos, increase the CIisIing l5iI:-fOOl high waI1salong residenlia1 properties toa u..foot high noise barrier COOSIructed of cemenl, masomy, or earthen berm. Ched< Iandfi11 grade and prepare Updaled grading plans. I~c:ant Insignificant Insignificant Rodeffer Investments/City of Arcadia. RodeIJer Investments/City of Arcadia. Rodeffer Investments/City of Arcadia Source: Engineering-Science I'SRI40 ES-9 . Tab.-2 Summary or Potential Significa\lt Adverse Impacts Associated with Project Alternatives (as Compared 10 the Proposed Project) . Envlronmenlal CntegOf)' Slope Stabl1lzaUon wllb Some ....amatlon Alternative . Gronndwater Recharge Bas1n Alternative No Project GeologIc Resooras and Selsmldly Existing quarry waI1s are unslable, posing hazards 10 adjacenI properties (same). Increased erosion from surface runoff (greater). Sleep slopes may destabilize during a seismic evenl (same). Surface Water aDd Groundwater QuaIIIy Conlamin8lion of surface waler from off-site sources (greller)! Groundwater contamination from percolation of colltlUllinated surface_ (greater). Biological Rc.uw.... Inlerference wilh floral grOWlh, normal drainage p81leros or contamination of soil (same). LandVse Deslruc:lion and removal of nalive flora (same). Would not comply with City'a CIisIing land use and zoning designation ror project site (grealer). I'SRI40 I!xisIing quany waI1s are unstable, posing hazards to adjacetll properties (same). I!xisIing quarry waI1s are unstable, posing hazards 10 adjacenl properties (gre8Ier). Increased erosion from surface runoff (greater). Sleep slopes may destabillzo during a seismic event (same). Increased erosion from surface runoff (gre8Ier). Sleep slopes may destabilizo during a seismic event (greller). Contamin8lion of surface WIler from off-sile sources (greller). ConlBmination of surface wiler from off-site sources (greller). Groundwater contamination rrom percolation of contaminated surface walen (greeler). Groundwater COnlamination from percoIliIion of c:onlamin8led surface waters (gre8Iei). Inlerference with floral growth, normal drtIinage pauerns or contamin8lion of soD (same). None Destruction and removal of nalive flora (same). Would not comply with Cilis CIisIing land use and zoning designation for project aile (greller). None Would DOl comply wilh Cilia eiisIIng land use and zoning designation for project site (greller). ES . Table ES-..ntinued) SummaI)' of Potential SignificaQl Adverse Impacts Associated with Project Alternatives (as Compared to the Proposed Project) . Eovlronmenlal Cnlego.,. Tralllc and Circulation AIr QnaDIy Noise Slope Stabl1lzaUon with Some ll""'amaUon A1lernaUve Trudt uarrlC will add 10 CIisIing and future peak hour congestion 81 the I-60S/Rivergrade Road intm:bange with Lower Azusa Road (same). Construc:lion-reIatcd PMI0 emissions crc:ccd SCAQMD'. Ihreshold levels (same). Operational ROC, NO. and PMIO emissions CIc:ccd SCAQMO's Ihreshold levels (same). I!xc:ccdanc:e of noise criteria for Ihe Cities or Arcadia and HI M'1nle during slope IIabilization opennioos (same). Gronndwaler Recharge Basta A1temallve No ProJed Trudt traIIicwi1l add 10 c:zisting and fUlUre peak hour congestion 8Ilhe 1-60S/Rivergrade Road inlerchangewith Lower Azusa Road (same). Construction-rel8led PMIO emissions CIc:ccd SCAQMD'~ threshold levels (same). None None Operational ROC, NO. and PMI0 emissioosexc:eed SCAQMD'alhreshold levels (same). None Bxceedance of noise aiteria for the Cilies of Arcadia and B1 Monle during slope S1abilization operations (same). None Source: Bnginecring-Scienc:e I'SRl40 ES-ll . . . DRAFr MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring! Completion Miti2ation Report Recipient GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND SEISMIQTY To be constmcted as part Conduct a geotechnical investigation to design a Roadway Constmclion and of the Initial fill sequence stabilizing buttress 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 Inspect quarry slopes and if needed implement Roadway Constmction and during and following remedial action such as regrading or covering Rodeffer Invesbnents/ the heavy rains, until slumping areas with plastic sheeting or wire City of Arcadia buttress slope or other mesh and shotcrete design is constructed along the northwestern boundary, and through- out initial operation phases (Years 1 to 4) for all other quarry slopes . As final contours of the To avoid increased erosion from surface runoff Roadway Construction 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 Construction and size to 12 inches in any direction, avoid nesting Rodeffer Inveslmenls/ of larger fill pieces City of Arcadia On-going throughout Maintain slopes at an angle of 2:1 (horizontal Roadway Construction and operation to vertical) or about 25 degrees Rodeffer Invesbnenls/ City of Arcadia Page 1 . . . DRAFfMlTIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Tuning Measure Responsible for Monitoring! Comple1ion Mitieation Reoort Recioient WATER QUALI1Y Quarterly monitoring Ifduring groundwater monitoring, downgradient Rodeffer Investments, during operation and after groundwater quality exceeds both the WDR City of Arcadia/RWQCB closure of the landfill limits and upgradient groundwater quality, and CDHS groundwater shall be extracted and cleaned until downgradient groundwater quality meets the WDK limits and upgradient water quality. Weekly during operation Cover and store stockpiles on a nonpenneable Rodeffer Investments/RWQCB surface; remove rejected stockpiles weekly and CDHS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . Weekly during Remove construction waste and natural debris Roadway Construction and construction phase off-site weekly; all construction material shall Rodeffer Investments/ be removed one week following construction City of Arcadia activities Mter construction Landscape with native flora species, such as Roadway Construction and Tree of Life, holly-leaved cherI)', mountain Rodeffer Investments/ mahogany, white sage, and California buck- City'of Arcadia wheat, that are available from commercial nurseries TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION To be completed prior to West approach, Lower Azusa Road and 1-605 Roadway Construction and the fourth year of SB ramps/Rlvergrade Road: Construct an Rodeffer Investments/ operation exclusive right-turn lane; maintain two City of Arcadia and City of through lanes. Irwindale East approach, Lower Azusa Road and 1-605 NB ramps/Rivergrade Road: Construct an Page 2 . . . DRAFfMlTIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM TIming Measnre Responsible for Monitoring! Completion Mitigation Report Recipient exclusive right-lane; maintain two through lanes. Annually To determine the effectiveness of the mitigation Roadway Construction/ measures, conduct signal optimization study to City of Arcadia and improve signal phasing and timing by counting aty 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.m. and 4:llO-6:00 p.m. METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY Per Qx:urrence Discontinue operations during forecast Stage IT Roadway Construction and Smog alerts. Rodeffer Investments/SCAQMD Quarterly Maintain aU. vehicles and equipment in proper Roadway Construction and tune. Use BACf on construction equipment, Rodeffer Investments/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 unnecessarily; random Rodeffer Investments/ inspections of all landfill equipment for aty of Arcadia standard noise control devices; and replace any missing, worn or defective noise reduction devices. Start of operations Construct a six-foot high wall or berm for any Rodeffer Investments/ residential areas not current! y protected by a aty of Arcadia solid barrier wall. Prohibit entrance of haul trucks to the landfill Roadway Construction and Page 3 . . DRAFT MlTIGATlONMONlTORING PROGRAM . TnnIDg Completion 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 8:00 a.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! Miti2ation ReDort ReciDient Rodeffer Investments Rodeffer Invesbnents/ City of Arcadia Rodeffer Invesbnents/ City of Arcadia . . . 1975 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT SECTIONS 2772 AND 2713 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 antidpated 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. (0 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 conditioncil minimizing erosion and sedimentation will occur. (i) An assessment of the effect of implementation of the reclamation plan on future mining in the area. (j) A statement that the person submitting the plan accepts the responsibility for reclaiming the mined lands in accordance with the reclamation plan. (k) Any other information which the lead agency may required by ordinance. ~2773. (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-spedfic 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 agricu1turalland 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. 92773.1. (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 CALlFORN'A-E!'N'RONMENTAL PROTECnON AGENCY PETE WILSON. Gcwemo, CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD LOS ANGELES REGION AceNTRE PLAZA OR'Vl! .TEREY PARK. CA 917'"-2156 1213) 266-7500 FAX. (213) 266-7600 August 31, 1993 . t.:l 1'_..' Co. .~ , - i"... 1I ~:: ;i. :~ ("'-0 j';; ,J!:, .}" 1993 ern 0; '\~C^.-:..., "'l_A~',:t.;m~, DC"'T Ms. Donna Butler Planning Director city of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 DRAFT EIR - PROPOSED RODEFFER INERT IANDnLL. SCB'92041091: CITY OF ARCADIA (FILE 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 mater.ials 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 WDRs, the Regional Board will specify appropriate materials for disposal, the type and nature of the monitoring systems required, and mouitoring 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 material 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: "The 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 designated 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 Departlllent of Health Services' Maximum Contaminant Levels CHCLa). 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.2utler 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 All 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 solvents 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 number, location, and construction standards for the monitoring wells at this site. Thank you for this opportunity to review your document. Should you have any questions, please contact Blythe Ponek-Bacharowski at (213) 266-7580. W~i I-L (\;)1) &-1'\ RODNEY H. NELSON Senior Engineering Geologist cc: see mailing list ~