Loading...
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