HomeMy WebLinkAbout5779
RESOLUTION 5779
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AS ADEQUATE FOR C.U.P. 92-003 A PROPOSED INERT
LANDFILL (INCLUDING THE OPERATIONS PLAN) AND THE
RECLAMATION PLAN AT 12321 LOWER AZUSA ROAD AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA RESOLVES
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby finds as follows:
A. A Conditional Use Permit application (including Operations Plan) and 4tc<-
Reclamation Plan for an inert landfill were filed by Rodeffer Investments, -w., on 1>> '11?
December 9, 1991, Planning Department Case No. C.U.P. 92-003 (commonly known as
the "Project and incorporated herein by reference), at 12321 Lower Azusa Road, more
particularly described in Exhibit A; and
B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., "CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code
of Regulations 15000 et seq.), and the City of Arcadia CEQA Guidelines (City Council
Resolution 5157), the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the Project
entitled "Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Rodeffer Inert Landfill
("DEIR")", State Clearinghouse Number 92041091; and
C. The Planning Commission after giving the required notice which was
mailed on August 20, 1993, conducted a duly advertised public hearing on September
14,1993 to consider the DEIR, the Conditional Use Permit and Reclamation Plan; and
D. Following the public comment on the DEIR (August 11 through September
24, 1993), the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Project was
prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines
and City of Arcadia Resolution 5157; and
E. On March 15, 1994, the City Council of the City of Arcadia conducted a duly
noticed public hearing and heard and considered all evidence and testimony by all
interested parties concerning the FEIR for the Project; and
F. The FEIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Arcadia who
reviewed and considered the information contained within the FEIR prior to taking
action on the Project; and
-1-
5779
G. Based upon such evidence and testimony and staff reports for the Project,
including all oral presentations and testimony, all letters, information and material
submitted as part of the public testimony and documentation submitted during the
public hearing on March 15, 1994, this City Council makes the following additional
findings:
Section 2. Project Description. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The proposed Project consists of the establishment and operation of an
inert landfill on a depleted sand and gravel quarry site. The 85 acre site was used for
sand and gravel extraction from 1967 to 1990. Operation continued until aggregate
depletion and groundwater intrusion rendered it economically infeasible to use the
site as a quarry. The proposed landfill will accept only inert material, such as soils,
rock and concrete.
It is estimated the quarry pit is between 150 and 165 feet deep and contains
approximately 1.1 billion gallons of standing water. Currently the bottom of the
quarry is under approximately 40 feet of water. It is estimated that 10 million cubic
yards of inert materials will be required to fill the quarry to its pre 1967 surface
elevations and take approximately 8 to 12 years to completely fill. The Project site is
currently designated industrial in the City's General Plan and is zoned M-2 (heavy
industrial). No permanent long term land uses are proposed at this time.
B. The primary objectives of the Project are to:
1. Stabilize the quarry slopes to reduce hazards to public health and safety
consistent with State and local requirements; and
2. Reclaim the property to a reusable condition consistent with the City of
Arcadia's General Plan and zoning regulations; and
3. Comply with the requirements of the City of Arcadia as contained in the
Mining and Reclamation Plan adopted June 5, 1979; and
4. Comply with the objectives of the 1975 California Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act including to ensure: (1) 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 and (2) residual hazards to public
health and safety are eliminated.
A more detailed Project description is contained in Page 1 of the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (the entire document is hereby incorporated by
this reference).
Section 3. Environmental Review Process. The City Council finds as follows:
-2-
5779
A. The City of Arcadia prepared and circulated the first Notice of Preparation
(NOP) for the EIR on February 28, 1992. A revised Notice of Preparation was
circulated on April 15, 1992. The Notice identified the following significant adverse
impacts: Earth, Air, Water, Plant Life, Animal Life, Noise, Transportation and
Circulation, Public Services and adverse cumulative impacts relating to air and
transportation.
Two other areas identified in the NOP as potentially significant were energy
and human health. These impacts were found to be insignificant based on the
following: (1) Project related diesel fuel consumption represents less than 0.03
percent of the daily diesel consumption in California. The amount of diesel fuel
required for the Proposed Project would not impact the regional supply and therefore
is not significant. (2) Project related gasoline consumption represents only 0.0003
percent of the annual consumption in Los Angeles County. This usage would not
impact regional supplies and therefore, is not significant. (3) Electrical usage will be
primarily for lighting at the load inspection platforms and is not expected to increase
over the past electrical usage during quarrying operations and therefore it is not
significant.
In regards to human health, existing risks to human health due to standing
water and steep unstable slopes will be eliminated by reclaiming the pit. The Project
as proposed will not result in the creation of any potential or actual health hazards,
but will eliminate health hazards. Therefore, there is no significant impact. Specific
human health issues related to geology, water quality and air quality are analyzed in
the specific environmental disciplines.
B. On March 11, 1992 a Scoping Meeting was held in the Arcadia City Hall
Council Chambers to receive input from interested citizens and jurisdictions
concerning issues they felt should be addressed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR and
Notice of Completion were released on August 11, 1993 for the 45 day public review
period (August 11 through September 24, 1993). The public hearing before the
Planning Commission was held on September 14, 1993, during the public comment
period for the DEIR, to allow the Commission to comment on the Project, including
the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission's comments, record and
recommendations were transmitted in Resolutions 1503 and 1504 to the City
Council. Responses to comments were prepared by the City, copies of which were
sent to all commenting public agencies on March 3, 1994 per Public Resources Code
~21092.5. Public hearing notices regarding the City Council's hearing were mailed on
-3-
5779
February 17, 1994. On March 15, 1994, the City Council held a public hearing to
consider the FEIR, C.U.P. 92-003 (including the operations plan), the Reclamation
Plan and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
C. The FEIR contains the mandatory topics identified in the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State and City's CEQA Guidelines, including
an analysis of Project impacts, mitigation measures and Project alternatives. The
FEIR contains the responses to comments on the Draft EIR and when combined with
the Draft EIR and other portions of the decision-making record, the total package
constitutes the Final EIR for certification by the City of Arcadia.
Section 4. Review and Independent Judgment. The City Council finds and
certifies:
A. That the Final EIR for the Rodeffer Inert Landfill (Clearinghouse
#92041091) has been completed in compliance with CEQA. as more particularly
described in Sections 1 through 3 above; and
B. That the Final EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Arcadia
and that the Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the final
EIR prior to approving said Project, as more particularly described in Sections 1
through 3 above; and
C. That the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City in that the
City contracted with the environmental consulting firm of Harland Bartholomew
and Associates and Engineering Science, Inc. and its subconsuItants (collectively
"Consultants) to assist the City in preparing the EIR, that the Consultants' work and
conclusions were independent of those of the applicant and the applicant's
consultants by terms of a contract with applicant, that all work done by Consultants
was reviewed by City staff, including the Community Development Department, the
City Attorney and the City's special legal counsel; and
D. That all documents and records which constitute the records and
proceedings, are currently located in the Planning Division of Arcadia city Hall, 240
West Huntington Drive, Arcadia.
Section 5. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Each of the potentially significant, but mitigable, effects of the proposed Project
are described below in association with the findings and factual substantiation from
the Project record, including the FEIR and associated technical documents.
-4-
5779
The City Council hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR as follows:
A. Geologic Resources and Seismicity
1. The Final EIR identifies that existing quarry walls are unstable, posing
threats to adjacent properties; that increased erosion is resulting from surface runoff;
that steep fill slopes may destabilize during a seismic event and that fill materials
could restrict future development or use of the site as more fully explained on pages
30-50 of the DElR, hereby incorporated by this reference. The City Council hereby
finds that:
(a) To reduce erosion once final contours are achieved, surface runoff
shall be directed into existing drainage facilities; this requirement is a feasible
mitigation measure and hereby adopted.
(b) To minimize hazards associated with seismically induced
landslides, slopes shall be maintained at an angle of 2:1 (horizontal or vertical) or
about 25 degrees; this requirement is a feasible mitigation measure and hereby
adopted.
(c) To obtain proper compaction and to prevent erroneous compaction
testing results, nesting of larger fill pieces shall be avoided; the maximum
dimensions of fill material size shall not exceed 12 inches in any direction; this
requirement is a feasible mitigation measure and hereby adopted.
(d) To stabilize slopes during the initial phase of the Project, a
geotechnical investigation shall be performed to properly design a stabilizing
buttress slope, or other City approved alternative design along the northwestern
boundary of the quarry pit. This buttress shall be constructed as part of the initial fill
sequence to stabilize the slope. This requirement is a feasible mitigation measure
and hereby adopted.
(e) To reduce erosion, inspection of quarry slopes shall be done on a
quarterly basis during implementation of the temporary remedial measures. These
inspections should continue until the buttress slope, or other City approved
mitigation method is constructed. Inspections should be conducted on a monthly
basis during the wet season between October 1 to April 30. Implementation of
remedial action such as regrading or covering slumping areas with plastic sheeting
or wire mesh and shotcrete would reduce adverse slope stability impacts to an
-5-
5779
insignificant level. This requirement is a feasible mitigation measure and hereby
adopted.
2. Based on the above mitigation measures which have been
incorporated into the Project, the City concludes that the potential for geological
hazards to adversely affect the proposed Project or the surrounding neighborhood
has been reduced below a significant level in accordance with standard engineering
and design practices.
B. Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
1. The Final EIR identifies that the potential impacts to water quality with
the Project include the impacts related to the initial construction activities for
activation of the landfill (including construction of load inspection lanes/platforms
and roads), contamination of storm water runoff from rejected stockpiles during
operation of the landfill, erosion and subsequent degradation of surface water
quality resulting from earth moving activities and impacts associated with
contaminant migration from materials deposited in the landfill more fully
explained in pages 51-72 of the DEIR, hereby incorporated by this reference.
2. The City Council hereby finds that: (1) the Operations Plan limits the
Project to inert materials including soils, rock and concrete; (2) in regard to the
possibility of leachate from the decomposition of any undetected non-inert landfill
materials, which could contaminate groundwater, if during groundwater
monitoring, downgradient groundwater quality exceeds both the Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDR) limits and upgradient groundwater quality, groundwater
shall be extracted and cleaned until down gradient groundwater quality meets the
WDR limits and upgradient water quality; and (3) to avoid leachate from stockpiled
reject materials contaminating groundwater, all rejected stockpiles shall be covered
and stored on a nonpermeable surface and removed weekly. These mitigation
measures will reduce the significant environmental impact to an insignificant level
and are hereby adopted.
3. The City Council further finds that it does not have the legal authority
to impose Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for landfill projects. That WDR's
are the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). In the WDR, the RWQCB will specify appropriate materials for disposal,
the type and nature of the monitoring systems required, water quality parameters to
be monitored, and the monitoring frequency. The type and nature of the
-6-
5779
monitoring system includes the number, location and construction standards of
monitoring wells.
C. Biological Resources
1. The Final EIR identifies that the storage of debris associated with
construction activities on site may result in significant impacts if storage interferes
with floral growth, normal drainage patterns, or contaminates the soil. Biological
resources are fully discussed on pages 73-79 of the DEIR.
2. The City Council hereby finds that to avoid interference with floral
growth or normal drainage patterns, or contamination of soil construction waste
and natural debris should be removed off-site weekly; all construction material shall
be removed one week following construction activities. This requirement is a
feasible mitigation measure and hereby adopted.
All faunal habitat which currently occurs on the 85 acre site may be
incidentally and intentionally altered, removed or buried during operation
activities. Faunal species affected will be forced to disperse to other habitats in order
to survive. The findings of the winter surveys show that this site does not function
as a significant drop-off point for migratory waterfowl.
3. The City Council hereby finds that upon completion of the Project, the
site and any areas disturbed during construction should be landscaped with native
flora species, such as Tree of Life, holly-leaved cherry, mountain mahogany, white
sage and California buckwheat, which are available from commercial nurseries.
This requirement is a feasible mitigation measure and hereby adopted.
D. Traffic and Circulation
1. The Final EIR identifies that trip generation for the Rodeffer Landfill
operation is based on projected inert landfill operations to fill the depleted quarry
with 10 million cubic yards of material. Approximately 3,500 tons of inert fill
material are expected to arrive at the landfill on an average day. On a yearly basis, it
is anticipated that 150 trucks would visit the site 220 days out of 305 days a year
(72%); approximately 300 trucks per day are anticipated 55 days a year (18%); and
approximately 600 trucks are anticipated for a maximum of 30 days a year (10%). Fill
operations are projected to span an 8 to 12 year period. Traffic and circulation are
more fully discussed on pages 85-127 of the DEIR and hereby incorporated by this
reference. The left turn volumes at this location for 1997 Project conditions is 565
vehicles during the 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. peak hour and reflects the worst-case conditions
for this left turn movement. Of the 565 left turning vehicles, 20 vehicles (or 3.5%)
-7-
5779
are Project trips while the remaining 545 vehicles (or 96.5%) are background trips.
2. The Final EIR identifies that truck traffic will add to existing and future
peak hour congestion at the 1-605/Rivergrade Road interchange with Lower Azusa
Road. The City Council hereby finds that to reduce levels of service below a level of
significance due to Project-related impacts, the following mitigation measures are
required: (1) construct an exclusive right-turn lane and maintain two through lanes
at the west approach of Lower Azusa Road and 1-605 southbound ramps/Rivergrade
Road; (2) restripe or widen the east approach at the intersection of Lower Azusa
Road at the northbound I-60S ramp to add an exclusive right lane and maintain two
through lanes; and (3) conduct a signal optimization study to improve signal
phasing and timing. These mitigation measures not only reduce Project impacts to
a level of insignificance, but help to reduce the congestion due to background traffic.
The mitigation measures further reduce the volume to capacity ratio (V /C) by 0.05
during the a.m. peak hour and by 0.04 during both p.m. peak hours. These
improvements are clearly significant. Selection of the appropriate mitigation
measures was based upon the critical movement, i.e., the highest traffic volume
which requires the most signal time and, therefore, has the most impact on the
intersection's operation. In all cases, including the scenario for background
volumes which do not include the Project, the critical movement is the east
approach of the intersection of Lower Azusa Road at the northbound I-60S ramp.
Therefore, the mitigation measure selected for the east approach was based upon its
ability to provide relief to the most critical problem at the intersection. This
mitigation measure is very effective and is physically and economically feasible.
These requirements are feasible mitigation measures and hereby adopted.
Caltrans' suggestion to improve the existing high left turn volumes
would be to upgrade the existing traffic sign system from a fixed time to a real time
system. Although this would improve operation of the intersection, it is not
necessary or required in order to mitigate Project trips.
3. Cumulative truck traffic will add to existing and future peak hour
congestion at the I-605/Rivergrade Road interchange with Lower Azusa Road.
The results of the ICU analysis shows that the intersection of Lower Azusa
Road and the I-60S Northbound ramps/Rivergrade Road would operate at level of
service F during the three peak hours. The intersection of Lower Azusa Road and
the I-60S SB ramps/Rivergrade Road would operate at level of service E or F during
the PM peak hours.
-8-
5779
4. The City Council finds that the proposed Project mitigation measures
set forth in (1) above, not only mitigate the Project's traffic impacts but will also
reduce the Project-related cumulative impact to a level of insignificance.
E. Noise
1. The Final EIR identifies the following two types of environmental
noise impacts associated with the proposed landfill which has the potential to
exceed the noise criteria for the Cities of Arcadia and El Monte during the landfill
operations: (1) noise produced by haul truck traffic and construction type equipment
(dozers, loader/grader, compactor, water truck) used in landfill operations, and (2)
noise produced from roadway traffic, as more fully explained in pages 152-169 of the
DEIR.
2. The City Council hereby finds that to reduce noise levels to an
acceptable level the following mitigation measures are required: (1) the maximum
noise level for each piece of landfill equipment shall be 75 dBA when measured at a
distance of 50 feet; (2) construct a six-foot high wall or berm for any residential areas
not currently protected by a solid barrier wall; (3) prohibit entrance of haul trucks to
the landfill site prior to 7:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and
prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. on weekends and recognized holidays; (4) when
the landfill grade has been brought up to a 325 foot elevation within 200 feet of
residential properties, which is approximately in the seventh year of operations,
increase the existing six foot high walls along residential properties to a 12 foot high
noise barrier constructed of cement, masonry or earthen berm; (5) check landfill
grades and prepare updated grading plans and submit updated grading plans to the
City every six months and (6) keep engine RPM's as low as possible at all times; do
not rev engines unnecessarily; conduct random inspections of all landfill
equipment for standard noise control devices; and replace any missing, worn or
defective noise reduction devices. The City Council finds that the above
requirements are feasible mitigation measures and are hereby adopted.
Section 6. Unavoidable Adverse Impact. The City Council finds:
That the Project, as approved, despite the incorporation of the following
mitigation measures into the Project, will have a significant effect on the
environment with regard to air quality and cumulative impacts upon air quality
during the Project's operations phase as explained in pages 128-151 of the DEIR. The
impacts and mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impacts to the greatest
degree feasible are as follows:
-9-
5779
A. Air Ouality
1. Site access improvements involve covering approximately 54,000 sq. ft.
of an existing unpaved road with asphalt. This construction-related activity would
take place in two separate phases. Phase 1 is the preparation of the area which
would occur over three days. Phase 2 includes asphalt delivery, pouring and paving
activities which is anticipated to take two days.
The Draft EIR identified significant unavoidable PMI0 (particulate matter
under 10 microns in diameter) air quality impacts during the two-day Phase 2
construction period.
2. The City Council hereby finds that to mitigate the PMI0 emissions to
insignificance, the current number of 45 trucks delivering asphalt per day will be
limited to 15 trucks per day and Phase 2 construction will be extended from two days
to six days of activity (page 271 of the FEIR). The City Council finds that the above
requirement is a feasible mitigation measure and is hereby adopted.
3. The air contaminant emissions from the operational phase of the
Project will exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's)
threshold levels for NOx (nitrogen oxides), ROC (reactive organic compounds) and
PMI0 resulting in unavoidable adverse impacts. Over 80% of NOx emissions, and
over 90% of the Project's total generated ROC and PMlO emissions would result
from on-and off-site truck movement, i.e., grading and landfill equipment as well as
on-and off-site truck travel. (See page 149 of the DEIR)
Operational ROC, NOx, and PMI0 emissions exceed SCAQMD's threshold
levels during the operational phase. The City Council hereby finds that the
following mitigation measures are feasible and would partially ameliorate the air
quality impacts of the proposed Project and are hereby adopted:
(1) Discontinue operations during forecast Stage II Smog alerts; (2) use
BACT on construction equipment, including retarding timing, and (3) maintain all
vehicles and equipment in proper running condition.
B. Air Quality Cumulative Impacts.
1. The Draft EIR concludes that cumulative air quality impacts are
significant with or without implementation of the proposed Project. These
significant impacts to air quality result from mobile source emissions. There are no
directly applicable mitigation measures available to reduce emissions from mobile
sources, aside from ensuring that vehicles are in proper running condition. (Page
148, Draft EIR).
-10-
5779
2. The City Council hereby finds that the following mitigation measures
would partially ameliorate the air quality impacts from cumulative projects relating
to Operational ROC, NOx, and PMI0 emissions which exceed SCAQMD's threshold
levels. However, air emission impacts cannot be reduced to an acceptable level of
significance; The following measures may be done to reduce the impacts: (1)
discontinue operations during forecast Stage II Smog alerts; (2) use BACT on
construction equipment, including retarding timing, and (3) maintain all vehicles
and equipment in proper running condition.
Section 7. Alternatives.
In accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and case law, the FEIR
examined a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project which could feasibly
attain the basic objectives of the Project, and evaluated the comparative merits of
the alternatives including the No Project alternative. The following findings are
supported by the record on this Project, including but not limited to the facts
contained in the FEIR and staff reports on the Project, (hereby incorporated by this
reference). The following are a summary of the alternatives outlined in the DEIR.
A. No Proiect Alternative. Under this alternative the quarry would not be
used as an inert landfill and the site would remain in its current condition. The no
Project alternative would not create any impacts on the following:
. Short-term or long-term traffic impacts;
· Air quality;
· Noise;
. Biological resources
The City Council hereby finds that the No Project Alternative is infeasible
because it does not meet the Project objectives; specifically, it does not comply with
either the Arcadia Municipal Code or SMARA in that the quarry would not be
reclaimed to a usable condition. Furthermore, if the gravel quarry remains as it is,
no mitigation measures would be implemented; public safety issues associated with
the presence of an unsupervised, deep water filled pit located in proximity to a
residential area and unstable slopes would remain a concern. Contamination of
water in the pit may result from off-site sources and could percolate into the
groundwater and impact water quality. The City Council thereby finds this is not an
environmentally superior alternative.
B. Slope Stabilization with some Reclamation Alternative. Under this
alternative, it is estimated that approximately 3 million cubic yards of material
-11-
5779
would be required to stabilize the slopes along the west bank next to the residential
property, and would take approximately 3 years to fill. The banks would be regraded
to no more than a 2:1 slope (25 degrees). Fill would be compacted and graded for
slope stabilization. After the slopes are stabilized, fill activities would cease.
This alternative meets the Project objective of slope stabilization and would
require less fill. However, the basic fill operations as described in the EIR would still
occur, but for a shorter period of time (approximately 3 years). The potential impacts
and required mitigation measures would remain the same, but the following
impacts would be reduced:
· Truck impacts
. Noise Impacts
· Air Quality
. Biological resources
The site would continue to be exposed to existing seismic hazards. The
potential for future development to be exposed to seismic hazards, however, would
be eliminated because the partially filled pit could not be developed for future uses.
This project would not meet the Project objective of reclaiming the property
to a reusable condition consistent with the City's General Plan designation of
Industrial and the current M-2 zoning of the property.
In addition, public health and safety issues associated with the presence of an
unsupervised, deep, water-filled pit located in proximity to a residential area would
remain a concern. Contamination of water in the pit may result from off-site
sources, and could percolate into the groundwater and impact water quality.
The City Council finds that this Project alternative is infeasible because it does
not satisfy the Project objectives to reclaim the property to a usable condition or
alleviate public health and safety concerns. The City Council thereby finds this is
not an environmentally superior alternative.
C. Groundwater Recharge Basin Alternative. This alternative involves
using the quarry as a dedicated spreading basin for groundwater recharge. The
quarry slopes would be filled, compacted and graded for stabilization as with the
Slope Stabilization with Some Reclamation Alternative, however, the pit would
not be completely filled. A conveyance system transporting water to the pit to
increase the volume of water in the spreading basin would be necessary. Watershed
protection measures would also be required to insure the water in the basin does not
become contaminated by off site sources.
-12-
5779
In addition, a water agency or operator would have to buy the property to use
the site as a groundwater recharge basin. This alternative also requires approval
from other agencies including the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster.
This alternative meets the objective of slope stabilization. In addition the
following impacts would be reduced:
· Truck impacts
· Noise Impacts
· Air Quality
· Biological resources
This project does not meet the Project objective of reclaiming the property to
a reusable condition consistent with the City of Arcadia's general plan and zoning
regulations. In addition, increased groundwater recharge within the groundwater
basin would raise the groundwater level. If the groundwater levels rose to a high
enough level by this and other existing recharge facilities, the following secondary
impacts may occur:
1) Groundwater may intrude into adjacent existing mining operations
thereby reducing the economic feasibility of recovering remaining sand and gravel
resources.
2) Flooding may occur in downgradient surface and/or subsurface
facili ties.
3) Seismic hazards may increase including liquefaction and ground
shaking which intensify as the groundwater level moves closer to the surface.
4) Changes in downstream groundwater flow patterns may occur. This
could affect the local, area distribution and migration of contaminated groundwater
plumes within the basin.
The City Council finds that this Project Alternative is not feasible because the
property would have a negative impact on other existing mining operations in the
area as noted above; does not satisfy the Project objectives of reclaiming the property
to a usable condition and would have to be purchased by a water agency or operator.
Section 8. Alternatives recommended during the Draft EIR process.
In addition to the alternatives described above, two project alternatives were
recommended in the comments on the DEIR as follows:
A. Lockman & Associates, Consulting Engineers and Planners suggested as
an alternative, excavating the existing land bridge that separates the Rodeffer site
-13-
5779
from the Livingston Graham property to the north for the purpose of creating one
contiguous lake. An approved Reclamation Plan for the Livingston-Graham site
was adopted which calls for beautification and development of the site into a
recreational lake with an adjacent commercial and recreational community.
The City Council hereby finds that the suggested alternative is infeasible
because the quarry operations at the Livingston-Graham site will continue into the
next century according to Mr. Brubaker of Livingston-Graham. This alternative
would not meet the Project objective of reclaiming the property to a reusable
condition consistent with the City of Arcadia's General Plan and zoning regulations.
An EIR has not been prepared for the Livingston-Graham quarry Reclamation Plan
and there could be unacceptable impacts on water quality and drainage, slope
stability, air quality and traffic.
B. Another alternative suggested was to consider the partial reclamation of
the quarry pit for eventual use as a recreational area.
The City Council finds that the suggested alternative is infeasible because,
partial reclamation was evaluated as part of the Slope Stabilization with some
Reclamation alternative and the Groundwater Recharge Basin alternative and
found to be infeasible. Eventual use of a recreation area was not examined because
the future use of the quarry is not part of the "Project".
Section 9. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
A. The City Council has considered the environmental facts and findings for
the proposed Project as summarized above and presented in detail in the Project
record. Despite the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts relating
to air quality and cumulative impacts relating thereto, there remains unavoidable
significantly adverse impacts on air quality and unavoidable significant cumulative
impacts during the Project's operations' phase upon air quality. In its role as
decision maker, the City Council has balanced these benefits against the Project's
unavoidable impacts and finds for the reasons set forth below that the benefits of the
Project outweigh the unavoidable air quality and cumulative air quality impacts.
B. Benefits from the Project, including those set forth as Project objectives are
as follows:
1. The Project satisfies the City of Arcadia's legal mandate pursuant to the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act "SMARA" (Public Resources Code 92710 et
seq.) to reclaim the quarry to a usable condition, readily adaptable for alternative
land uses.
-14-
5779
2. The Project satisfies the requirement of SMARA to reclaim mined
lands to protect the public health and safety.
3. The Project satisfies the City of Arcadia's legal obligation pursuant to
the City's Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan (Municipal Code, Article IX,
Chapter 5) which requires that adverse environmental effects be prevented or
minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition.
4. The Project satisfies the requirement set forth in the Land Use Element
of the City's General Plan to reclaim depleted gravel mining sites.
5. The Project eliminates public health and safety concerns relating to the
existing site which is an unsupervised, deep, water-filled pit in proximity to a
residential area.
6. The Project stabilizes the quarry slopes to reduce hazards to public
health and safety.
7. The Project provides economic benefits to the City in that it returns the
site to an enhanced economically viable condition.
Section 10. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The City Council of the City of Arcadia adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (hereby incorporated by reference) for this Project in accordance
with Public Resources Code Section g21081.6 to ensure that all mitigation measures
adopted for the Project are fully implemented. In addition:
1. The mitigation measures embodied in the FEIR relating to this Project
shall be conditions of Project approval.
2. All of the mitigation measures shall be monitored or reported upon
under the direction of the Assistant Community Development Director for the City
of Arcadia.
Section 11. The above recitals are incorporated as findings of this resolution.
Section 12. Based upon the above facts and findings, the City Council of the
City of Arcadia hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Assistant
Community Development Director is directed to file a Notice of Determination as
required by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
-15-
5779
Passed, approved and adopted this 5t
Arcadia
ATTEST:
~A)
City erk of the
Arcadia
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JUNE D. ALFORD, city Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 5779 was passed and
adopted by the city Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the
Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of
said council held on the 5th day of April, 1994 and that said
Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmember Fasching, Lojeski, Margett and Ciraulo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmember Harbicht
,Jj.'.~U .&~_~
Clerk of t City of Arcadia
-l6-
5779
"
-.-
---
EXHIBIT A
\
That certain real property located at 12321 Lower Azusa Road in
the city of Arcadia described as follows:
That portion of Lot 1 of Tract No. 10369, in the city of Arcadia,
county of, Los Angeles, state of california, as per map recorded
in Book 149, Pages 95 and 96 of Maps, in the office of the County
Recorder of said County, lying westerly and northwesterly of the
westerly line of the land described in the Condemnation Action,
Case No. 574211, Superior Court of said County, a certified copy
of the Judgment had in said action being recorded in Book 38373,
page 153, Official Records of said County,
EXCEPT therefrom that portion thereof lying southeasterly of the
line described in Parcel 578 in the Final Order of Condemnation
in Case No. 740724, Superior Court of said county, recorded in
Book 03802, page 284 of said Official Records.
QP0 u... .
p
,""'" , -'17
Parcel 2: " ~
t portion of Lot 2, Tract No. 10369, per maPJeCOI:~ed in Book 149, Pages 95
and ,of maps, bounded on the nor.thwest by the" southwesterly line of
Lower usa Road, formerly_EI-rvloitle and Covina Road, 50 feet wide, as
shown on s i~rbOliiiCled on the southwest by that ~tain boundary line
of said ..19t-2 s~wn on said map as having a bearing a~d-.!:ngth of "N
~'55' west a dtstance of 1,287.40 feet" and bounded e~ly. and
southeasterly by th~~st~rly line of the land described in th~
mentioned condemnation~tion.
"0\ 1\<\ ,~\
\U
~b--
9oh/~1
-,
,
I
,
EXHIBIT "A"
5779