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
~