YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Special-Use Resolution for Quarry Denounced

December 18, 1988

We feel compelled to denounce the proposed Resolution 8547, intended to amend Special Use Permit 3546 of 1956, with respect to the quarry in the foothills. This resolution, in our assessment, not only is poorly written (and) contradictory but it appears, in practically every section, the city is offering more leeway to Azusa Rock Co.

It is (our) opinion that our council is totally ignoring its Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation to revoke Azusa Rock's permit and the overwhelming desire of Azusa residents to stop the destruction of our mountain, but instead is giving away one of our community treasures.

The initial special-use permit is specific and at least has some teeth in it, and (the) council has the power to revoke Azusa Rock's permit if they are in violation of any one of their conditions. Azusa Rock has been in violation of many of their conditions, so testimony reveals, and for years.

The use permit can be revoked, also, if council finds the operation "detrimental to the public health or safety," which council does declare, as stated in the proposed resolution in Section 2, paragraph F.

There are many changes in this resolution, including redirecting trucks into Azusa (Todd Avenue is mentioned as one truck route) and crossing the river which is designated (for) water conservation. Change in permits constitutes an environmental impact report.In addition, Section 4 on Page 6 states "the council finds that this action will have no adverse effect upon the environment." How did council arrive at that conclusion? Any intelligent person believes our environment is being affected substantially. Where is the documentation to support council's finding? In other words, where is the EIR?

In Section 4: "The City Council of the City of Azusa finds and determines that this action is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. . . . " This is confusing and appears to violate California law. We and our advisers feel this is not exempt and procedures for determining whether it is exempt have not been fully disclosed.



The Committee to Save the Foothills


Los Angeles Times Articles