HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 10-C30RESOLUTION NO. 10-C30
ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF. AZUSA,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE AZUSA ROCK QUARRY REVISED CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, RECLAMATION PLAN, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT;
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Azusa Rock Quarry Revised Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") and
Reclamation Plan, and Development Agreement (collectively, the "Project' or "Proposed
Project' has been proposed to the City of Azusa by the owner of the Azusa Rock Quarry
("Vulcan," "VMC," or "the Applicant'); and
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project, which would modify the areas of the Azusa Rock
Quarry on which mining is allowed and develop a reclamation plan for such areas, is located in
the northwest portion of the City of Azusa, within the County of Los Angeles; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, §§
21000 et seq) ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.)
the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared pursuant
to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the Proposed
Project; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") on a Draft EIR on or about
May 13, 2009 and circulated the NOP until July 3, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City solicited comments from potential responsible and trustee agencies
and members of the public; and
WHEREAS, the City held a scoping meeting on May 27, 2009 to gather public comments
on the Proposed Project and its potential impacts on the physical environment; and
WHEREAS, the City received nine (9) written comments in response to the NOP, which
assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on or about December 23, 2009, the City initiated a 45 -day public review
period by filing a Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and
Research and releasing the Draft EIR for public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the public review and comment period for the Draft EIR was subsequently
extended to February 20, 2010 at the request of the public; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted with
and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and
others during the 60 -day comment period; and
WHEREAS, the City received 653 written comments during the public review period for
the original Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a noticed public study session on
January 13, 2010, which featured public testimony on the Proposed Project to the Commission;
and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on
January 27, 2010, opened a public hearing on the Proposed Project at which public testimony on
the Proposed Project was received and continued the hearing to February 10, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on
February 10, 2010, heard continued public testimony as part of the Proposed Project's public
hearing, closed the public comment portion of the hearing, and continued the hearing to February
24, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission's scheduled public meeting for February 24,
2010 was cancelled for lack of a quorum; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on
March 10, 2010, heard further public testimony from the public concerning the Proposed Project
during the general comment period of the meeting, took up the continued public hearing on the
Proposed Project, and recommended to the City Council that the EIR be certified, the CUP and
Reclamation Plan amendments approved, and the Development Agreement be denied; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final EIR, consisting of written responses to
comments received during the 60 -day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR and
revisions and errata to the Draft EIR. For the purposes of this Resolution, the "EIR" shall refer
to the Draft EIR, as revised by Final EIR's errata section, together with the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa ("City Council"), at its regularly
scheduled public meeting on April 19, 2010, held a public hearing on the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on May 17,
2010, held a public hearing on the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the
basis for its decision on the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been .
satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially
significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Proposed Project sufficiently
analyzes both the feasible Mitigation Measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the
Project's potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of
eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines;
and
2
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to
this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not
based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City finds are less
than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but
which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of
feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 3
hereof; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but
which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the
imposition of all feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are
described in Section 4 hereof; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce
significant environmental impacts are described in Section 8 hereof; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with,
reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including
the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is
deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public bearings conducted by the City or any
additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information
requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section
15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS.
At a session assembled on May 17, 2010, the City Council determined that, based on all
of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the EIR, written and oral testimony given
at meetings and hearings, and the submission of testimony from the public, organizations and
regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: (1)
less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant but will be
avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified Mitigation Measures; or (3)
significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be
substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified Mitigation Measures.
3
SECTION 2: RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT
REQUIRING MITIGATION.
The City Council hereby finds that'the following potential environmental impacts of the
Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures.
A. AESTHETICS
1. Impact: The Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on scenic
vistas from Viewpoints 1 through 4. (EIR 4.1-17 - 41.) The DEIR analyzes scenic vistas from
five different viewpoints. (EIR 4.1-17 — 41.) Scenic vistas from Viewpoint 5 would have
environmental impacts not mitigated to a level of less than significance, and are discussed in
Section 4, below.
Scenic Vistas from Viewpoint 1 -) San Gabriel River Trail
Supporting Explanation: Foreground views from this viewpoint include the
riparian vegetation located along the San Gabriel River. (EIR 4.1-17; EIR Figure 4.1-9.) The
background views include the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, and a pronounced view of
the Project Site. (]bid.) The primary visual difference as seen from the trail, between the
existing conditions and proposed future conditions is the portion of the Project Site where the
landscaping looks more natural as opposed to clear cut. (EIR 4.1-18; EIR Figure 4.1-9.)
The view in the existing condition has been rated at 11 to 12 points. (Ibid.) It clearly
shows the stark, linear benches that have been constructed as currently approved for site
reclamation. (Ibid.) The view shown in the Proposed Project Final Reclamation condition
simulation has been rated at 13 points. (EIR 4.1-19.) It shows the more naturalized slopes,
drainage paths and vegetation patterns that are characteristic of the micro -benching technique.
(Ibid.)
Potential views of the site from the San Gabriel River Trail will be improved by 1 to 2
points as a result of the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) This impact is therefore considered less than
significant. (Ibid.)
Scenic Vistas from Viewpoint 2 4 Various City of Azusa Public Parks
Supporting Explanation: Foreground views from this viewpoint include the park
stadiums, associated buildings, and various tall trees. (EIR 4.1-23; EIR Figure 4.1-13.)
Background views include the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. (Ibid.) The notable
difference between the existing conditions and the Proposed Project as viewed from this location,
is mining activity on the West Side of the Project Site and the reclaimed East Side quarry slopes
as shown in the center of the photos. (Ibid.)
The view in the existing condition simulation has been rated at 10 points. (Ibid.) It
shows the stark, linear benches that are presently permitted for the site. (Ibid.) The view shown
in the proposed condition simulation has been rated at I1 points. (EIR 4.1-24.) Although the
distance reduces the impact of the change, there is some difference resulting from the more
naturalized slopes and drainage paths typical of the micro benching technique, and the increased
vegetation that will occur under this condition. (Ibid.)
17
Potential views of the site from Memorial Park will be improved by 1 (one) point as a
result of the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) This impact is therefore considered less than significant.
(Ibid.)
• Scenic Vistas from Viewpoint 3 4 City of Duarte's Encanto Park
Supporting Explanation: Foreground views from this viewpoint include the
grassy fields and tall trees surrounding the park. (EIR 4.1-24; EIR Figure 4.1-17.) The
background views include the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, and a clear view of the
Project Site's east slope face ("Mayan Steps"). (Ibid.) Changes in the two views relate to
Project Site roads, mining activities on the west side and reclamation activities on the east side.
(Ibid.)
The view in the existing condition has been rated at 11 points. (Ibid.) It shows the stark,
linear benches that are presently permitted for the site. (Ibid.) The view shown in the Proposed
Project simulation has been rated at 12 points. (EIR p. 4.1-29.) It shows the more naturalized
slopes, drainage paths and vegetation patterns that are characteristic of the micro -benching
technique on the East Side. (Ibid.)
Potential views of the site from Encanto Park will be improved by 1 point as a result of
the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) This impact is therefore considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
• Scenic Vistas from Viewpoint 4 4 Various Azusa Residences
Supporting Explanation: Foreground views from this viewpoint (south-southeast of the
Project Site) include homes and various tall trees. (EIR 4.1-29; EIR Figure 4.1-18.) The
background views include the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, and views of the Project
Site's west quarry slope face. (Ibid.) The only visual difference between the existing and
Proposed Project conditions is more natural looking hillside. (Ibid.)
Views of the Project Site from the Mountain Cove community include homes and
native/ornamental vegetation. (Ibid.; EIR Figure 4.1-19.) The background views include the
steep slopes of the canyon, as well as the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. (Ibid.) The
West Side quarry slopes of the Project Site are visible. (Ibid.)
The view in the existing condition has been rated at 13 points. (EIR 4.1-32.) It shows
the stark, linear benches that are currently permitted for the Project Site. (Ibid.) The view shown
in the proposed condition simulation has been rated at 15 points. (Ibid.) It shows improvements
in the naturalization of slopes, drainage paths and vegetation patterns resulting from the micro -
benching technique. (Ibid.)
Potential views of the Project Site from Azusa residences will be improved by 1 point as
a result of the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) This impact is therefore considered less than significant.
(Ibid.)
Potential views of the Project Site from Mountain Cove will be improved by 2 points as a
result of the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) This impact is therefore considered less than significant.
(Ibid.)
5
2. Impact: The Proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway. (EIR 4.1-41 — 4.1-43.) Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
■ Highway 39 Scenic Roadwav
Supporting Explanation: Foreground views from Highway 39 include houses and
tall trees along San Gabriel Canyon Road. (EIR 4.1-41; EIR Figure 4.1-27.) Background views
include the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. (Ibid.)
The view in the existing condition has been rated at 12 points. (Ibid.) It shows the stark,
linear benches that are presently permitted for the site reclamation. (Ibid.) The view shown in
the proposed condition simulation has been rated 13 points. (Ibid.) It shows the more
naturalized slopes and drainage paths typical of the micro -benching technique, and the increased
vegetation that will occur under this condition. (EIR 4.1-43.)
Potential views of the site from Highway 39 will be improved by 1 point as a result of the
Proposed Project. (Ibid.) This impact is therefore considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
■ Foothill Boulevard/Alosta Avenue Historic Route 66 Corridor
Supporting Explanation: Foreground views include the commercial buildings and
various tall trees along Alosta Avenue. (EIR 4.1-43; EIR EIR Figure 4.1-28.) Background
views include the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. (Ibid.) The visual difference between
the existing and Proposed Project conditions is the west side of the Project Site shown in the
center of the photos. (Ibid.)
The view in the existing condition has been rated at 13 points. (Ibid.) It shows the stark,
linear benches that are presently permitted for the site. (Ibid.) The view shown in the Proposed
Project condition simulation has been rated at 14 points. (Ibid.) It shows the more naturalized
slopes and drainage paths typical of the micro -benching technique, and the increased vegetation
that will occur under this condition. (Ibid.)
Potential views of the site from Foothill Boulevard/Alosta Avenue will be improved by 1
point as a result of the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) This impact is therefore considered less than
significant. (Ibid.)
3. Impact: The Proposed Project would not substantially degrade existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings. (EIR 4.1-45.) No impact is expected. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site has been mined continuously since the
1920s. (Ibid.) Disturbance has occurred throughout the East and West Side quarry areas. (Ibid.)
Portions of the East Side have been reclaimed and revegetated. (Ibid.)
Views of the Proposed Project from within the perimeter of the Project Site will be
similar until the existing reclamation or proposed reclamation is completed on the East Side.
(Ibid.) The overall impact of the Proposed Project will be beneficial compared to the permitted
project, due to improved reclamation techniques and the elimination of the existed stepped
benches, therefore no impact is expected. (Ibid.)
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact: The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation
of an applicable air quality plan (i.e. SCAQMD AQMP). (EIR 4.2-22.) Therefore, impacts are
less than significant. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The Azusa Rock Quarry has been a permitted operation
since 1956 and therefore, the quarry activities have been included in subsequent Air Quality
Management Plans (AQMP). (Ibid.) Vulcan Materials Corporation ("VMC") is permitted to
quarry up to 10.8 mtpy (or up to 900,000 tons per month) in accordance with South Coast Air
Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") permits to operate the on-site processing plants.
(Ibid.) The Proposed Project is for a maximum of 6 mtpy of aggregate production and transfer
on the overland conveyor which is less than that currently incorporated in the AQMP. (Ibid.)
The SCAQMD AQMP is updated about once every five years to develop a strategy for
bringing the South Coast Air Basin ("SCAB") into attainment with the State and Federal ambient
air quality standards. (Ibid.) The AQMP estimates future growth of emissions and then presents
emission reduction strategies sufficient to reach attainment. (Ibid.)
The most recent final AQMP, adopted in 2007, included growth assumptions from 2002
to 2020 of 22 percent for population, 23 percent for housing units, 21 percent for employment,
and 19 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled. (Ibid.) The AQMP baseline amounts are very
large, and thus the emissions associated with the forecast growth rates are also very large
compared to the proposed Azusa Rock Quarry emissions. (Ibid.) Likewise, the growth
assumptions in the 2007 AQMP include emissions associated with activities necessary to meet
the growth demand for aggregate, concrete, and other building materials. (Ibid.) The Proposed
Project would be accommodated within those growth assumptions. (Ibid.) In addition, the
Proposed Project would be in compliance with all of the applicable SCAQMD rules and
permitting and operation requirements. (Ibid.) Therefore, the impact would be less than
significant. (Ibid.)
2. Impact: The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR-4.2-31 — 35.)
Supporting Explanation: A health risk assessment ("HRA") was prepared to
determine the potential for health effects from the dispersion of the Proposed Project's toxic air
contaminant ("TAC") emissions. (EIR 4.2-31.)
TAC emissions were calculated for the peak hour (1,800 tons for acute risk) and the peak
year (6 million tons for chronic and cancer risks). (Ibid.) The first year of Proposed Project
operations was modeled as the engines are the least efficient/clean and the haul distances are the
longest. (Ibid.)
Proposed Project throughput and off-road equipment activity levels were used to
calculate emissions for all scenarios. (Ibid.) Off-road diesel emissions are the main source of
cancer risk (a multi-year impact) and are calculated based on the level of effort required to mine
the remaining aggregate reserves through the year 2038. (Ibid.)
7
The following thresholds for maximum incremental cancer risk, and non -cancer acute
and chronic hazard indices ("HI") from project emissions of TACs have been established by the
SCAQMD:
■ Cancer Risk -an increased cancer risk greater than 10 in I million
• Chronic Hazard Index - The project impact would be considered significant if the
cumulative increase in total chronic HI for any target organ system due to total
emissions from the project would exceed 1.0 at any receptor location.
• Acute Hazard Index - The project impact would be considered significant if the
cumulative increase in total acute HI for any target organ system due to a
maximum one hour concentration of a TAC from the project would exceed 1.0 at
any receptor location. (EIR 4.2-32.)
The maximum 30 -year cancer risk is 5.4 in 1 million, less than the 10 in a million
threshold and the maximum chronic risk is 0.01, less than the 1.0 threshold. (Ibid.) Therefore,
carcinogenic and chronic health risk impacts from the Proposed Project to sensitive receptors are
expected to be less than significant. (Ibid.) Acute and chronic risk isopleths are not presented as
there are no off-site locations where these health risk impacts are significant. (Ibid.) The
maximum acute hazard index is 0.06, less than the threshold of 1.0. (EIR 4.2-35.) No activity
related to the Proposed Project would emit significant levels of any toxic air pollutants that have
short-term acute health effects. (Ibid.) Therefore, the potential for short-term acute exposure
from project -related toxic emissions is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
3. Impact: The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR 4.2-35.)
Supporting Explanation: The nearest residence to the Project Site is located
approximately 0.3 miles away to the southwest. (Ibid.) The manufacturing of asphalt does not
occur at the Project Site and is not a part of the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) Asphalt plants have
been routinely associated with aggregate plants as the source of objectionable odors. (Ibid.)
Aggregate plants typically do not generate objectionable odors. (Ibid.)
Therefore, objectionable odors from the Proposed Project are not anticipated. (Ibid.) The
Proposed Project does not include the burning of any hazardous, medical or municipal waste.
(Ibid.) Therefore, the Project Site would not generate objectionable odors. (Ibid.) Less than
significant impact is anticipated. (Ibid.)
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Impact: The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on the following candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Brauton's Milk Vetch, Slender mariposa
lily, Plummer's mariposa lily, Slender -horned spineflower, San Gabriel mountain dudleya,
Many -stemmed dudleya, San Gabriel bedstraw, Mesa horkelia, Robinson's pepper -grass,
Bedling's orange -throated whiptail, San Diego coast horned lizard, Southern California rufous -
crowned sparrow, Black swift, Osprey, Pallid bat, Western mastiff bat, San Diego black -tailed
jackrabbit, Yuman myons, Big free -tailed bat, and American badger. (EIR 4.3-21 — 30.)
Therefore, impacts to these species would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
8
Supporting Explanation:
Special Status Plants
Braunton's Milk Vetch (Astragalus brauntonii). A federally endangered species, and a
CNPS 113.2 listed plant, is found in coniferous forest, chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands
and coastal sage scrub habitats, up to 2,100 feet amsl. (EIR 4.3-23.) The plant was not seen
during plant surveys, and areas of the Project Site that were not accessible due to rough terrain
were accessed through binoculars, therefore no impact is anticipated. (Ibid.)
Slender mariposa lily (Calochorrtus clavatus var. gracilis). A CNPS 113.2 listed plant,
the slender mariposa lily is found in chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat between 1,200 and
3,300 feet amsl. (Ibid.) The plant was not seen during plant surveys, and areas that were not
accessible due to rough terrain were accessed through binoculars, therefore, no impact is
anticipated. (Ibid.)
Plummer's mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae). A CNPS 113.2 listed plant,
Plummer's mariposa lily is found in chaparral, coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill
grasslands between 300 and 5,200 feet amsl. (Ibid.) The plant was not seen during plant
surveys, and areas that were not accessible due to rough terrain were accessed through
binoculars, therefore, no impact is anticipated. (Ibid.)
Slender -homed spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceres). A federal and state endangered
plant, the slender -horned spineflower is found in cismontane woodland, chaparral, and coastal
sage scrub between 660 to 2,290 feet amsl. (Ibid.) The plant was not seen during plant surveys,
and areas that were not accessible due to rough terrain were accessed through binoculars,
therefore, no impact is anticipated. (Ibid.)
San Gabriel mountain dudleva (Dudleva densiflora). A CNPS 113.1 listed plant, San
Gabriel mountain dudleya is found in chaparral, coastal sage scrub and lower mountain
coniferous forest between 985 and 1,700 feet amsl. (Ibid.) The plant was not seen during plant
surveys, and areas that were not accessible due to rough terrain were accessed through
binoculars, therefore no impact is anticipated. (Ibid.)
Many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleva multicaulis). A CNPS 113.2 listed plant, many -
stemmed dudleya is found in chaparral, coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grasslands up
to 2,590feet amsl. (Ibid.) The plant requires heavy soils such as clay which are found on-site.
(Ibid.) The plant was not seen during plant surveys, and areas that were not accessible due to
rough terrain were accessed through binoculars, therefore, no impact is anticipated. (Ibid.)
San Gabriel bedstraw (Galium grande). A CNPS 113.2 listed plant, San Gabriel bedstraw
is found in cismontane woodland, chaparral, and lower montane coniferous forests between
1,400 to 5,000 feet. (EIR 4.3-24.) The plant was not seen during plant surveys, and areas that
were not accessible due to rough terrain were accessed through binoculars, therefore, no impact
is anticipated. (Ibid.)
Mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula). A CNPS 113.1 listed plant, mesa
borkelia is found in cismontane woodland, chaparral, and coastal sage scrub between 230 to
2,660 feet amsl. (Ibid.) The plant was not seen during plant surveys, and areas that were not
accessible due to rough terrain were accessed through binoculars, therefore, no impact is
anticipated. (Ibid.)
9
Robinson's pepper -grass (Lepidium virzinicum var. robinsonii). A CNPS 113.2 listed
plant, Robinson's pepper -grass is found in chaparral, coastal sage scrub up to 3,100 feet amsl.
(Ibid.) The plant was not seen during plant surveys, and areas that were not accessible due to
rough terrain were accessed through binoculars, therefore, no impact is anticipated. (Ibid.)
Special Status Wildlife
--Reptiles
Belding's orange -throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra beldingi) is a CSC species.
(EIR 4.3-26.) This species has a moderate potential to occur in the sandy areas or openings in
the chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and mule fat scrub habitats. (Ibid.) It was not observed during
the surveys. (Ibid.) Less than significant impact is expected with establishment of preserved
lands and implementation of the revegetation plan, which will restore vegetation and habitat.
(Ibid.)
San Diego coast horned lizard (Phrvnosoma coronatum blainvillei) is a CSC species.
(Ibid.) The chaparral habitat present on the Project Site is unlikely to provide suitable habitat,
therefore this species only has a moderate potential for occurrence. (Ibid.) Less than significant
impact is expected with establishment of preserved lands and implementation of the revegetation
plan, which will restore vegetation and habitat. (Ibid.)
--Birds
Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophils ruftceps canescens) is a CSC
species. (EIR 4.3-27.) This species was observed in the coastal sage scrub habitat at several
locations in the east side reclamation area and canyon bottom. (Ibid.) This species likely moves
around and utilizes the vegetation on the rocky slopes. (Ibid.) Less than significant impact is
expected with establishment of preserved lands and implementation of the revegetation plan,
which will restore vegetation and habitat. (Ibid.)
Black swift (Cypseloides niter) is a CSC species and has a low potential to occur due to
the fact that wet cliffs are not present within the boundaries of the Project Site, therefore no
impact is anticipated. (Ibid.)
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) is a CSC species when nesting only. (Ibid.) This species
occurs near open water and almost exclusively feeds on fish. Small rodents, birds, crustaceans,
and other small vertebrates may also be prey items. (EIR 4.3-28.) Ospreys nest directly adjacent
to or above open water in dead snags, live trees, utility poles, channel buoys, etc. (Ibid.) This
species is migratory throughout the interior of southern California and is a permanent resident
along the coast; it has been observed flying over the Project Site, however there is no suitable
nesting habitat known on the Project Site. (Ibid.) No impact is expected. (Ibid.)
--Mammals
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) is listed as a CSC species. (EIR 4.3-29.) The pallid bat
roosts in dry, open habitats. (Ibid.) It occurs in desert, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and
forests with close proximity to water and rocky outcrops. (Ibid.) This species has a moderate
potential to occur on the Project Site. (Ibid.) Less than significant impact is expected with
establishment of preserved lands, abundant surrounding open lands for the species to forage,
roost and disperse, and implementation of the Proposed Project's reclamation plan. (Ibid.)
10
Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis call ornicus) is a CSC species. (Ibid.) This species
has a high potential to occur due to the presence of suitable rocky outcrops. (Ibid.) Less than
significant impact is expected with establishment of preserved lands, abundant surrounding open
lands for the species to forage, roost and disperse, and implementation of the Proposed Project's
reclamation plan. (Ibid.)
San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) is a CSC species. (Ibid.)
This species has a moderate potential for occurrence due to the presence of potentially suitable
habitat on the Project Site in the coastal sage scrub communities. (Ibid.) Less than significant
impact is expected with establishment of preserved lands, abundant surrounding open lands for
the species to forage, roost and disperse, and implementation of the Proposed Project's
reclamation plan. (Ibid.)
Yuma myotis (Myotis vumanensis) is a CSC species. (Ibid.) This species has a moderate
potential to occur due to the presence of suitable rocky outcrops. (Ibid.) Less than significant
impact is expected with establishment of preserved lands, abundant surrounding open lands for
the species to forage, roost and disperse, and implementation of the Proposed Project's
reclamation plan. (Ibid.)
Big free -tailed bat (Nvctinomops macrotis) is a CSC species. (Ibid.) This species was
documented approximately 5 km (3 mi) southeast of the Project Site (CNDDB 2008), but due to
the lack of suitable roosting habitat, this species has a moderate potential for occurrence on the
Project Site. (EIR 4.3-30.) Less than significant impact is expected with establishment of
preserved lands, abundant surrounding open lands for the species to forage, roost and disperse,
and implementation of the Proposed Project's reclamation plan. (Ibid.)
American badger (Taxidea taxus) is a CSC species. (Ibid.) Due to the lack of suitable
habitat on the Project Site, the American badger has a low potential to occur. Less than
significant impact is expected with establishment of preserved lands, abundant surrounding open
lands for the species to disperse, and implementation of the Proposed Project's reclamation plan.
(Ibid.)
Indirect and Off -Site Effects
--Runofffrom Siltation and Pollutants
An increase in either siltation or pollutant content in Fish Creek could adversely affect
aquatic or riparian species on the Project Site and downstream in the San Gabriel River including
state or federally listed threatened or endangered species. (EIR 4.3-31.) The Proposed Project
could cause sediment or pollutant increases by increasing water erosion from runoff from the
mining and reclamation slopes, along access roads, or by spilling toxic materials (e.g., fuels,
lubricants, or solvents) that might eventually migrate through the soil or groundwater into the
river. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project is subject to water quality standards that regulate erosion and
hazardous materials handling. (Ibid.)
The Project Site currently operates under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System ("NPDES") permit issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
and is compliant with applicable water quality standards and discharge requirements. (Ibid.)
The control of pollutants associated with the quarry and processing activities that may affect the
11
quality of storm water discharges is identified in the Project Site's Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan ("SWPPP"). (Ibid.) The Azusa Rock Quarry SWPPP contains site-specific Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that are implemented to minimize storm water impac% to water
quality. (Ibid.) The SWPPP requires regular monitoring, inspections, and record keeping
evaluating the effectiveness of BMPs and the need for updating the. SWPPP. (Ibid.) The Project
Site also operates under a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which contains basic information
on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed
of on-site. (Ibid.) A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan is in place to address
potential spills of certain hazardous materials and includes spill response instructions. (Ibid.)
The water runoff from the final mine configuration of the Proposed Project could
substantially degrade water quality if bare or unvegetated slopes were a source of abnormal
erosion and sediment discharge. (Ibid.) To mitigate the potentially adverse effects of abnormal
erosion of bare slopes, the Proposed Project design features include enlarging the on-site storm
water detention basin to handle increased flows as determined by hydrology studies, direct
drainage from planned mining and reclamation areas into the storm water detention basin, and
micro -benching and revegetation to prevent the adverse effects of bare soil on surface water
runoff. (Ibid.) After reclamation of the slopes and the backfilling of the detention basins, water
runoff from the revegetated open space will be allowed to flow directly into Fish Creek. (Ibid.)
Water runoff from the revegetated, open space site will not differ appreciably from existing
runoff from the adjacent open space, and thus will not degrade water quality or impact any
biological resources.-(Ibid.)
Compliance with existing rules and regulations, the Project Design Features and
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, below, would ensure that potential impacts to water quality and
biological resources from storm water runoff and the use of hazardous materials to Fish Creek
and the San Gabriel River would be less than significant. (Ibid.) No additional mitigation
measures are required. (Ibid.)
--Reduction in Runoff into Van Tassel Creek
Approximately 55 acres of the West Side of the Project Site currently drain westward
either as sheet flow or into Drainage 1 which in tum flows west off-site and into Van Tassel
Creek approximately 500 feet west of the Project Site. (EIR 4.3-32.) Van Tassel Creek flows
south into disturbed areas about 500 feet south as it flows through horse stables and then is
channelized before reaching the San Gabriel River about 3,500 feet southeast. (Ibid.)
Of the on-site approximate 55 acres of the drainage, approximately 45 acres will be
impacted by mining effectively changing its runoff to the east towards Fish Creek. (Ibid.) This
area represents approximately 4.5 percent of the estimated 1,010 -acre Van Tassel Creek
watershed (ECORP 2009). (Ibid.)
Running water was observed off-site within Van Tassel Creek west of the Project Site
boundary approximately 300 feet upstream of the confluence of the drainage from the Project
Site. (Ibid.) At the confluence of the drainage from the Project Site with Van Tassel Creek, no
surface water or riparian vegetation was observed. (Ibid.) In terms of habitat, Van Tassel Creek
is best described as canyon bottom, with the dominant species observed wild grape (Vitis
girdiana). (Ibid.)
12
There were no tributaries to Van Tassel Creek between the flowing water area and the
drainage off of the Project Site to contribute flow therefore the water present in the creek was
likely from a spring or ground water seep. (Ibid.) No surface flow was observed from the on-
site drainage, which confirms the original profile for the drainage as ephemeral. (Ibid.) When it
rains, overland runoff concentrates in the drainage and produces a stream where one would not
otherwise exist. (Ibid.)
Based on this field review, the potential for Van Tassel Creek to experience downstream
or upstream watershed impacts from the loss of the ephemeral drainage from the Project' Site is
minimal. (Ibid.) Biological resources on Van Tassel Creek should not be significantly impacted
by the Proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Impact to the San Gabriel River
Potential impacts of storm water or on-site pollution to the water quality and possibly
biological resources within the San Gabriel River are discussed above. (See also EIR 4.3-33.)
Impacts were determined to be less than significant with compliance with existing rules and
regulations and implementation of Project design Features and Mitigation Measure HWQ-1.
(Ibid.)
2. Impact: The Proposed Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (EIR 4.3-35 — 39.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site includes coastal sage scrub and other
native plant communities. (Ibid.)_The Project Site is split into three distinct areas as described
below. (EIR 4.3-35.)
(1) East Side Reclamation
Reclamation of the East Side will commence immediately upon approval of the Proposed
Project and should be completed in approximately seven years. (Ibid.) Reclamation will include
the terraced benches (the "Mayan Steps") located at the southern portion of the East Side and the
previously mined slope and the habitat areas located around the north and east sides of the
disturbed slope. (Ibid.)
The reclamation activities will primarily include approximately 21.5 acres of barren
slopes and remove approximately 5 acres of coastal sage scrub, 1.6 acres of disturbed coastal
sage scrub, and 4.3 acres of revegetated coastal sage scrub to facilitate the micro -benching (see
Table 4.3-5). (EIR 4.3-36.)
After the reclamation is completed, the micro -benches will be replanted with a native
seed mix collected on and off-site and commercially purchased mix that includes plant species
from both the coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities. (Ibid.) The proposed reclamation
should result in a gain of approximately 22 acres of native plant communities because the
disturbed areas and the ornamental plantings will be revegetated with native plant species.
(Ibid.) A total of approximately 58 acres of native vegetation will be preserved within the East
Side including approximately 26 acres of coastal sage scrub, approximately 10 acres of disturbed
or revegetated coastal sage scrub, and approximately 21 acres of chaparral. (Ibid.)
13
(2) West Side Mining and Reclamation
The West Side is dominated by actively and previously mined slopes (approximately 47
acres), undisturbed chaparral (approximately 86 acres), and approximately 11 acres of existing
and revegetated coastal sage scrub. (EIR 4.3-37.) The coastal sage scrub is found mainly in the
south portion of the existing mining area. (Ibid.) Approximately 2.3 acres of DFG jurisdiction
riparian areas are included within the northern mixed chaparral. (Ibid.)
The mining and reclamation activities of the Proposed Project will occur on
approximately 47 acres of barren slopes and disturbed vegetation and remove approximately 74
acres of chaparral, 8 acres of coastal sage scrub, and 3 acres of revegetated coastal sage scrub.
(Ibid.)
Reclamation will be conducted immediately following completion of each mining phase
on the West Side working from the top down to the quarry floor. (Ibid.) After the reclamation is
completed, the micro -benches will be replanted with a seed mix that includes plant species from
both the coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities. (Ibid.) Restoring the West Side with
micro -benches will be more favorable for successful revegetation to native plant communities.
(Ibid.) The removal of native vegetation followed by reclamation and revegetation is considered
a less than significant impact with implementation of the Reclamation Plan. (Ibid.)
(3) Canyon Bottom and Fish Creek
The Canyon Bottom is dominated by approximately 22 acres of disturbed areas from
current mining and processing and approximately 13 acres of existing and restored channel and
riparian areas along Fish Creek. (EIR 4.3-38.) The reclamation activities in the Canyon Bottom
will primarily involve the final grading of the disturbed areas and replanting with a seed mix that
includes plant species from both the coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities. (Ibid.)
Following the completion of the reclamation activities, the Canyon Bottom area will be
returned to native habitats and is expected to enhance the wildlife movement corridor. (Ibid.)
The Reclamation Plan should result in a gain of approximately 22 acres of native plant
communities because the disturbed areas will be revegetated with native plant species. (Ibid.)
This is considered a beneficial impact to native vegetation communities. (Ibid.)
A total of approximately 84 acres of native vegetation will be preserved including
approximately 28 acres of coastal sage scrub, 17 acres of disturbed or revegetated coastal sage
scrub, 33 acres of chaparral, and 7 acres of riparian, streambed and mule fat scrub in and along
Fish Creek. (EIR 4.3-39.) The impacted mining areas consisting of approximately 189 acres
will be reclaimed and revegetated. (Ibid.)
Impacts to vegetation are considered less than significant with implementation of the
Reclamation and Revegetation Plans. (Ibid.)
3. Impact: The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, costal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means. (EIR 4.3-39.) Therefore, no impacts will result. (Ibid.)
14
Supporting Explanation: A jurisdictional delineation was conducted for Fish
Creek in September 2008 and for the West Side 80 acres in 2006. (Ibid.) No wetlands were
found within the Project Site and no impacts to wetlands are anticipated. (Ibid.)
4. Impact: The Proposed Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (EIR 4.3-41.) No impact will result. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The County of Los Angeles has designated sixty-two
sites as Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs), but the Project Site does not fall within any of
them. (Ibid.) No other Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan,
Habitat Conservation Plan, or state habitat conservation plan has been adopted for the project
area. (Ibid.) No impact is expected. (Ibid.)
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Impact. The Proposed Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), and therefore would not create substantial
risks to life or property. (EIR 4.5-10.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site is not located on expansive soils as
defined by California Building Code, and no permanent structures will be left on the Project Site
when reclamation is complete. Accordingly, no substantial risk to life or property related to
expansive soil would be created by the Proposed Project. (EIR 4.5-10.)
2. Impact: The Proposed Project site would have soils capable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of waste water. (EIR 4.5-10.) No impacts would result. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site has a septic tank for domestic
wastewater generated from the on-site office. (EIR 4.5-10.) The system operates adequately and
there are no constraints from on-site septic. (Ibid.) The Project Site will be left as open space
without any sewage or water facilities at the completion of reclamation. (Ibid.) No impacts
would result. (Ibid.)
3. Impact: The Proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR 4.5-17.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site is primarily composed of rock with steep
topography and thin soil. (EIR 4.5-17.) The present near -surface rocks are frequently highly
weathered, but at the depths of final excavation they will predominately be hard and
unweathered. These types of materials are generally not susceptible to erosion; therefore, erosion
may decrease as a result of this project. (EIR 4.5-18.) The Proposed Project will result in the
creation of slopes similar to or at shallower slope gradients than the overall grades of the
adjacent natural slopes, but the reclaimed slopes will be graded into micro -benches of
approximately 18 to 24 inches height and width. Unvegetated slopes may be a source of erosion
that could cause adverse effects. To mitigate the potentially adverse effects of erosion, the
Revised CUP and Reclamation Plan includes proposed hydroseeding of the micro -benched
hillsides with a mix of native species. If revegetation is adequate, the vegetation will decrease the
15
potential for erosion relative to bare surfaces. Additionally, the locally flat surfaces created by
this technique will act to decrease erosion as a soil layer is developed by the introduced
vegetation. The Revised CUP and Reclamation Plan is not expected to result in substantial
erosion or loss of topsoil as it includes proposed hydroseeding of the microbenched hillsides with
a mix of native species. With this condition of approval, impacts will be less than significant and
no mitigation measures are required.
4. Impact: The Proposed Project would not be located on a geological unit or soil
that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
Supporting Explanation: The potential for landsliding and seismically -induced
landsliding is previously addressed. The geologic units on the Project Site are not susceptible to
consolidation, collapse, or subsidence due to groundwater withdraw]. Liquefaction and/or lateral
spreading may be a potential hazard within the unconsolidated alluvium of Fish Creek; however
these potential impacts and mitigation measures are addressed in GS -1.
E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Fact: The Proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing
or proposed school. (EIR 4.6-5.)
Supporting Explanation: No schools exist within the project area. (Ibid.) No
impacts would occur. (Ibid.)
2. Impact: The Proposed Project would not be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and,
therefore, would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. (EIR 4.6-5.)
Supporting Explanation: A search of available environmental records was
conducted for the Project Site. (Ibid.) According to the report, the Project Site was not listed in
any of the databases for hazardous sites searched. (Ibid.) Therefore, no impact is expected.
(Ibid.)
3. Impact: The Proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan or
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and, therefore, would not result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (EIR 4.6-5.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site is not located within an airport land use
plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. (Ibid.) The nearest airport to
the Project Site is the El Monte Airport located at 4233 Santa Anita Avenue approximately eight
miles to the southwest. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project would not result in an airport safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area. (Ibid.) No impacts would result.(Ibid.)
4. Impact: The Proposed Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and
therefore would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
(EIR 4.6-5.)
16
Supporting Explanation: As the Project Site is not located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, no impacts would result for people residing or working in the project area.
(Ibid.)
5. Impact: The Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material.. (EIR
4.6-5 — 7.) Impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Supportinu Explanation: The County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Hazardous
Materials Management Division ("HMMD") is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)
for the City of Azusa responsible for regulating hazardous materials business plans and chemical
inventory, hazardous waste and tiered permitting, underground, storage tanks, and risk
management plans. (EIR 4.6-6.) Hazardous materials associated with the Proposed Project
include oil (new and used), diesel fuel, antifreeze, solvents, and other liquids commonly found in
the use or repair/service of motorized vehicles. (Ibid.) The Project Applicant would be required
to prepare, submit, implement, and update the following: (which includes employee training,
record keeping, preventive maintenance and BMPs):
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan;
• Hazardous materials inventory;
• Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP);
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP); and a
• Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). (Ibid.)
Blasting and Explosives. Blasting procedures implemented at the Project Site, including
the transportation, handling, storage, and use of explosives are included in the "Surface Drilling
and Blasting Standards," by Vulcan Construction Materials, LP. (Ibid.) In compliance with
County regulations, blasting shall only be conducted by a licensed blaster upon issuance of a
blasting permit. (Ibid.) The County Fire and Sheriff's Departments must issue a site specific
blasting permit. (Ibid.)
According to Title 30 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) § 57.6100 1, detonators shall not
be stored in the same magazine with other explosive material. (Ibid.) According to Title 30 CFR
§ 57.61012, areas surrounding storage facilities for explosive material shall be clear of rubbish,
brush, dry grass, and trees for 25 feet in all directions, except that live trees 10 feet or taller need
not be removed. (Ibid.) Other combustibles shall not be stored or allowed to accumulate within
50 feet of explosive material. (Ibid.) Combustible liquids shall be stored in a manner that
ensures drainage will occur away from the explosive material storage facility in case of tank
rupture. (Ibid.)
Fuel Transportation, Storage, and Dispensing. The normal amount of diesel required for
the existing operations at the Project Site, for all mobile equipment is estimated at 290,000
gallons per year. (EIR 4.6-7.) The diesel fuel is stored in a 10,000 -gallon on-site above ground
fuel tank. (Ibid.) Diesel fuel is transferred to the site by tanker trucks from approved distributors.
BMPs for storage and fueling and a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP)
are implemented. (Ibid.)
17
Typical fuels, materials and oils used for the Proposed Project would include a variety of
lubricants, gear oil, diesel, and gasoline greases. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project would typically
generate the following hazardous wastes: used oil and used antifreeze. (Ibid.) Non -hazardous
wastes would typically include: soil and petroleum products (from small spills); grease, and used
adsorbent; and universal wastes (fluorescent lamps, batteries, aerosols). (Ibid.) The used
materials are currently stored in steel drums in containments per required regulations and are
picked up by registered hazardous waste transporters regulated by the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control for recycling. (Ibid.)
VMC maintains a business contingency plan that includes an inventory of hazardous
materials. (Ibid.) To manage hazardous materials, applicable portions of the Los Angeles
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (HWMP) will be implemented. (Ibid.)
Since these regulations are designed to ensure safety, compliance with existing rules and
regulations would ensure that potential impacts from the storage, use, or transportation of
hazardous materials and wastes and explosives including recycled asphalt and concrete
associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
6. Impact: The Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
(EIR 4.6-7.)
Supporting Explanation: No impacts to the public or the environment resulting
from the Proposed Project through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment is anticipated. (Ibid.)
7. Impact: The Proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impacts
are anticipated. (EIR 4.6-8.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site is located in the northern portion of the
City of Azusa and is not identified as being within an emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. (Ibid.) No impacts are anticipated. (Ibid.)
8. Impact: The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. (Ibid.) Impacts
would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The'Project Site is located directly adjacent to the
Angeles National Forest region known as The Front Country. (Ibid.) This region encompasses
the southern edge of the Angeles National Forest from the Santa Clarita area to the Riverside/San
Bernardino region. (Ibid.) The County of Los Angeles Fire Department identifies that the
Project Site is located within a "High Fire Area" and subject to regulations relating to fuel
modification plans for any structures over 120 square feet. Proposed Project structures that are
larger than 120 square feet would require a minimum 200 foot fire clearance area. (Ibid.) As the
Proposed Project does not include any structures within 200 feet of the National Forest, there
would be no impact. (Ibid.)
18
9. Impact: The Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse safety
issues. (EIR 4.5-8.)
Supporting Explanation: The Fish Canyon Trail can be accessed from Encanto
Parkway/Fish Canyon Road through the Project Site entrance gates and past the on-site office.
(Ibid.) Pedestrians walking through the Project Site on their way to the Fish Canyon Trail could
conflict with heavy equipment use and thereby expose themselves to hazardous conditions and a
potentially significant adverse safety issue. (Ibid.)
Access to the Fish Canyon Trail has been provided by VMC employee escort in the past
and currently is provided on request. (Ibid.) Escorts will continue as requested and/or necessary.
(Ibid.) Hikers wishing to access the trail through the Project Site are escorted via a van from the
mine entrance/office site to the trailhead located at the entrance to Fish Canyon. (Ibid.) Azusa
Rock Quarry personnel request that at least one hiker carry a wireless telephone (cell -phone) and
call the office upon returning to the trailhead. (Ibid.) Alternatively if none of the hikers possess a
cell phone, Azusa Rock Quarry personnel provide a hand-held radio that can be used to request
an escort from the trailhead back to the parking area, thereby avoiding potential adverse safety
issues. (Ibid.)
F. IIYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Impact: The Proposed Project would not place housing within a 100 -year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map. (EIR 4.7-10.) No impacts would occur. (Ibid.)
Supporting Evidence: According to EIR Figure GEO-3 of the Azusa General
Plan "Flood Plain Boundary Map", the Project Site is not located in either the 100 -Year or 500 -
Year flood zone. (Ibid.) Runoff rates would change due to the proposed use, however off-site
impacts are minimal. (Ibid.) Housing or other occupied structures are not part of the Proposed
Project, thus no impacts will occur. (Ibid.)
2. Impact: During project construction, the Proposed Project will not create or
contribute to runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system
permit. (EIR 4.7-10.) Impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.) _
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site mine currently operates under a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit issued by the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board ("LARWQCB") and is compliant with applicable water
quality standards and discharge requirements. (Ibid.) Currently all storm water is detained on-
site, however, the NPDES permit allows for discharge if the quality of the water to be discharged
is equal to or better than the water quality of Fish Creek as measured by a suite of parameters
including sediment load. (Ibid.) Water runoff from the mined slopes prior to reclamation will
continue to be detained in on-site basins. (Ibid.)
Continued compliance with the NPDES permit issued by the LARWQCB will insure the
Proposed Project will not create or contribute runoff water that would violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. (EIR 4.7-11.) Therefore, potential impacts would be
less than significant. (Ibid.)
19
3. , Impact: After it is completed, the Proposed Project will not create or contribute to
runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,
including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit. (EIR 4.7-
10.) Impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: Runoff from the Project Site could substantially degrade
water quality if bare or unvegetated slopes were a source of abnormal erosion and sediment
discharge. (Ibid.) To mitigate the potentially adverse effects of abnormal erosion of bare slopes,
the Proposed Project design includes microbenching and revegetation by hydroseeding to
prevent the adverse effects of bare soil on surface water runoff. (Ibid.) Water runoff from the
revegetated, open space site will not differ appreciably from existing runoff from the open space
adjacent to the Project Site, and thus will not degrade water quality or violate water quality
standards. (Ibid.)
A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was developed for the Project Site
and was most recently updated in February 2005. (Ibid.) Accordingly, storm water discharges to
any surface or groundwater shall not' cause or contribute to exceeding any applicable water.
quality objectives or standards contained in a Statewide Water Quality Control Plan, the
California Toxics Rule, or the applicable RWQCB's basin plan. (Ibid.) Approval of the SWPPP
by the RWQCB will result in implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will
control pollutants in stormwater discharges from the Project Site. (Ibid.) The SWPPP will likely
require modification as the project progresses and as conditions warrant to remain consistent
with changes in other site plans that effect soil disturbing activities, site drainage patterns or any
other activity that may impact storm water runoff quality. (Ibid.) Therefore, potential impacts
would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
4. Impact: The Proposed Project would not provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff from delivery areas; loading docks; other areas where materials are stored,
vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is handled, or hazardous materials are
handled or delivered; other outdoor work areas; or other sources. (EIR 4.7-12.) Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: All Project Site runoff is currently contained in an on-
site settling basin and isolated from Fish Creek. (Ibid.) This drainage system will continue
throughout the period of active mining and reclamation; thus, Project Site conditions during
active mining and reclamation do not have the potential to cause or contribute to erosion or
siltation, or to off-site flooding. (Ibid.)
The Project Site operates under a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which contains
basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored,
used, or disposed of on-site. (Ibid.) A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan is in
place as well to address potential spills of certain hazardous materials and includes spill response
instructions. (Ibid.) Under normal circumstances, no water from the mining areas enters Fish
Creek. (Ibid.) The storm water flow paths from the material storage, loading and unloading,
office area, and diesel and waste oil storage areas are directed to the settling basin currently
located in the south central area of the Project Site. (Ibid.) The detained water in the basin either
evaporates or infiltrates into the underlying aquifer. (Ibid.) The General Permit requires a list of
the significant materials and primary materials handled and stored on-site that could be potential
20
sources of pollution. (Ibid.) Source areas include 1) material loading and unloading near the
conveyor belt and raw material storage locations, 2) office and parking area, 3) diesel and waste
oil storage (currently unused), and 4) active mining areas. (Ibid.) These areas would be relocated
to the West Side quarry area and addressed under the new SWPPP developed for the Proposed
Project. (Ibid.) Potential contaminants from these areas include suspended solids (from
sediments) petroleum hydrocarbons No new areas that could present a source of pollution would
be developed. (Ibid.)
Compliance with regulatory agency permitting requirements including NDPES, SWPPP,
and Hazardous Materials Business Plan will reduce potential impacts associated with runoff from
delivery areas; loading docks; other areas where materials are stored, vehicles or equipment are
fueled or maintained, waste is handled, or hazardous materials are handled or delivered thereby
reducing this potentially significant impact to less than significant. (Ibid.)
5. Impact: The Proposed Project would not discharge stormwater so that one or
more beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are impaired?
Beneficial uses include commercial and sportfishing; shellfish harvesting; provision of
freshwater, estuarine, wetland, marine, wildlife or biological habitat; water contact or non -
contact recreation; municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; and groundwater
recharge.(EIR 4.7-13.) Impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Supnortine Explanation: The LARWQCB adopted the Water Quality Control
Plan for its region in 1994. (Ibid.) The Plan, referred to as the "Basin Plan", is currently under
review for updated Water Quality Objectives. (Ibid.) Beneficial uses form the cornerstone of
water quality protection under the Basin Plan. Beneficial uses are designated for water bodies
and subsequently water quality objectives are established to ensure protection of the beneficial
uses. (Ibid.)
The reach of the San Gabriel River that drains the area of the project site is the East Fork
San Gabriel River. (Ibid.) Tributary to the East Fork is Fish Fork. (Ibid.) Existing beneficial uses
include municipal and domestic supply, ground water recharge, water contact recreation, non -
contact water recreation, warm freshwater habitat, cold freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat, rare,
threatened, or endangered species, migration of aquatic organisms and wetland habitat. (Ibid.)
The Project Site is also tributary to and overlies the Main San Gabriel Valley
Groundwater Basin. (Ibid.) Volatile organic compounds from industry, and nitrates from
subsurface sewage disposal and past agricultural activities, are the primary pollutants in much of
the groundwater throughout this basin. (Ibid.) The basin does not have continuous effective
confining layers above groundwater and as a result pollutants have seeped through the upper
sediments into the groundwater. (Ibid.) Approximately 20 percent of groundwater production
capacity for municipal use in the San Gabriel Valley has been shut down due to this pollution
(Ibid.).
State Board Resolution 88-63 and Regional Board Resolution No. 89-03 states that "All
surface and ground waters of the State are considered to be suitable, or potentially suitable, for
municipal or domestic water supply and should be so designated by the Regional Boards...".
(Ibid.)
21
Spreading basins located to the east and downstream of the site are. operated by the Los
Angeles County Flood Control District and primarily serve for storm water detention during
storm events. (EIR 4.7-15.) No beneficial uses of receding waters would be impacted as the on-
site detention basins are designed so that no stormwater would be discharged from the site.
(Ibid.) Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
6. Impact: The Proposed Project would not discharge stormwater so that significant
harm is caused to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies. (EIR 4.7-15.) Impacts
would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The quarry currently operates under a NPDES permit
issued by the LARWQCB and is compliant with applicable water quality standards and
discharge requirements. (Ibid.) All storm water is detained on-site, however, the NPDES permit
allows for discharge if the quality of the water to be discharged is equal to or better than the
water quality of Fish Creek as measured by a suite of parameters including sediment load. (Ibid.)
Water runoff from the mined slopes prior to reclamation will continue to be detained in on-site
basins. (Ibid.) No storm water detention capacity is necessary after site reclamation is complete
because site storm water will be of similar quality to storm water from adjacent natural
catchments and will flow directly into Fish Creek. (Ibid.)
The water runoff from the final mine configuration could substantially degrade water
quality if bare or unvegetated slopes were a source of abnormal erosion and sediment discharge.
(Ibid.) To mitigate the potentially adverse effects of abnormal erosion of bare slopes, the
Proposed Project includes microbenching and a plan to revegetate by hydroseeding to prevent
the adverse effects of bare soil on surface water runoff. (Ibid.) After reclamation, water runoff
will be allowed to flow directly into Fish Creek. (Ibid.) Because the Project Site will be left as
undeveloped open space when mining and reclamation are complete, many of the potential
impacts outlined in the CEQA significance criteria are avoided. (Ibid.)
The control of pollutants associated with the quarry activities that may affect the quality
of storm water discharges and thereby beneficial uses of surface or ground waters, is identified in
the site's SWPPP prepared to meet the General Permit requirements. (EIR 4.7-16.) (Ibid.) The
Project Site also operates under a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which contains basic
information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used,
or disposed of on-site. (Ibid.) A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan ("SPCCP")
is in place to address potential spills of certain hazardous materials and includes spill response
instructions. (Ibid.)
Upon development and approval of a SWPPP and Hazardous Waste Business Plan for the
Proposed Project operations and reclamation, potential to the biological integrity of waterways
would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
7. Fact: The Proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements. (EIR 4.7-16.) Impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The quarry currently operates under a NPDES permit
issued by the LARWQCB and is compliant with applicable water quality standards and
discharge requirement. (Ibid.) Impacts regarding violation of water quality standards would be
less than significant. (Ibid.)
22
8. Impact: The Proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). (EIR 4.7-16.) Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The groundwater elevation at the site is estimated to be
greater than 700 feet amsl. (Ibid.) The aquifer material below the site is hard rock and
groundwater is likely present in the open fractures of the rock. (Ibid.) Groundwater is not used
during mining operations. (Ibid.) Use of the on-site settling basin to detain storm water may act
to replenish the groundwater table via percolation. (Ibid.) After mining is completed under the
Proposed Project, the Project Site will be revegetated and left as open space. (EIR 4.7-17.) No
groundwater will be used after reclamation is completed; therefore, neither the groundwater
supply, volume, or level will be depleted or lowered as a result of the project. (Ibid.)
During Project operations, water usage would increase from the baseline of 26.14 acre-
feet per year to as much as 170 acre-feet per year. This is well within the Applicant's
adjudicated groundwater right, which is based on the Safe Yield of the groundwater basin.
Furthermore, any overproduction is subject to the payment of replenishment fees to ensure that
basin stability is ensured. (DEIR, p. 4.7-17.) Therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant. (Ibid.)
. 9. Impact: The Proposed Project would not significantly increase erosion, either on
or off-site. (EIR 4.7-18.)
Supporting Explanation: The Proposed Project includes disturbance of
approximately 150 acres on the west side of Fish Creek and approximately 40 acres on the
quarry wall east of Fish Creek. (EIR 4.7-19.) In the pre -mining setting approximately 110 acres
on the West Side drain into Fish Creek in addition to 40 acres on the East Side. (Ibid.)
Peak runoff rate is the highest expected runoff flow from a drainage area, and it varies
based on time of concentration ("TC"), rainfall intensity, and rainfall duration. (Ibid.) The
surface water flow calculations for the modeled scenarios were based on the rainfall intensity and
duration of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works ("LACDPW") Capital Flood.
(Ibid.) The Capital Flood is runoff from a 50 -year frequency, 24-hour design storm falling on a
saturated watershed. The Capital Flood design storm occurs over a period of four days, with the
maximum rainfall falling on the fourth day. From the 2006 LACDPW hydrologic map for Azusa,
the 50 -year isohyet (maximum 24-hour rainfall) for the Project Site ranges from 8.4 up to 8.8
inches. (Ibid.) The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act ("SMARA") requires that erosion
control methods shall be designed to handle runoff from not less than the 20-year/l-hour
intensity storm event. (Ibid.) The LACDPW Capital Flood produces peak flows greater than the
20-year/1-hour intensity storm. (Ibid.) The relationship between the pre -mining and the post -
reclamation scenarios observed in these analyses should hold true of lower frequency or intensity
design storms (such as the 20-year/1-hour event) as well.(Ibid.)
In the post -reclamation scenario, the drainage area of the West Side of the site increased
significantly (40 acres), and the slopes on both the western and eastern quarry faces became
23
significantly steeper relative to the pre -mining topography. (EIR 4.7-20.) In general, changes
such as these tend to increase peak flows due to a larger volume of storm water collected over a
greater area and shortened TC due to steeper slopes providing less flow averaging. (Ibid.)
However, in this case the total peak flow modeled leaving the Project Site (Outlet Total) was
decreased for the mining scenario after the changes noted above. (Ibid. Peak runoff flows for
individual subareas in the western portion of the site (North, South) did increase over the natural
conditions; however, the peak runoff flow rate leaving the West Side (Totao was actually lower
in the Proposed Project scenario, creating a much lower overall Project Site storm runoff
contribution to peak flows. (EIR 4.7-21.) The final reclaimed topography of the Proposed
Project includes a 27 -acre flat area on the western quarry floor (Central); all storm drainage from
the West Side of the site is channeled onto this flat, which acts to slow flows considerably.
(Ibid.) Peak runoff from the eastern quarry face where TC is shorter, is allowed to pass before
the larger western flows reach Fish Creek via the flat quarry floor, thus lowering the total peak
runoff flows in Fish Creek compared to the natural setting, despite the increased post -mining and
reclamation drainage area. (Ibid.)
The peak flows from the East Side were not significantly different between the natural
topography and the mining scenarios. (Ibid.) Runoff will reach Fish Creek from the West Side
quarry either by flooding across the relatively flat quarry floor or by eventually carving itself a
stream bed (or beds). (Ibid.) No on-site structures will be present post -reclamation, so there are
no adverse impacts of on-site flooding. (Ibid.)
As the flat area acts to decrease peak flows from the Project Site, the potential for
downstream off-site flooding is reduced. (Ibid.) Therefore potential impacts associated with
increased erosion either on- or off-site are not considered significant. (Ibid.)
10. Impact: The Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site. (EIR 4.7-21.) Impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The Proposed Project is not expected to result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and the runoff water from the reclaimed site is not
expected to carry a silt load higher than the natural drainage in the surrounding area. (Ibid.) The
Proposed Project includes micro -benching and revegetating slopes, which will reduce erosion
that would otherwise occur. Implementation of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. (Ibid.) Therefore,
potential impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
11. Impact: The Proposed Project would not place within a 100 -year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows (EIR 4.7-22.)
Supporting Explanation: Upon evaluation of current flood mapping, it was
determined that the Project Site is not located in either the 100 -Year or 500 -Year flood zone.
(Ibid.) No structures are part of the Proposed Project that would impede or redirect flood flows,
thus impacts are considered to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
24
12. Impact: The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam. (EIR 4.7-22.) Therefore, no impacts would occur. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The San Gabriel River has three dams upstream of the
Project Site that could potentially impact the southernmost part of the Project Site: San Gabriel
Dam, Cogswell Dam, and Morris Dam. (Ibid.)
Were a catastrophic failure of one or all of the dams to occur, only the southernmost
portion of the Project Site would be affected due to its relatively low elevation (-750 feet amsl),
which is still higher than most of the nearby cities of Azusa and Duarte. (EIR 4.7-23.) This area
of the Project Site currently contains temporary office buildings. (Ibid.) However, this area will
become open space after reclamation, and no significant buildings or structures will be located
on this portion of the Project Site. (Ibid.) Thus, no significant impacts are expected due to off-
site dam failure inundation. (Ibid.)
13. Impact: The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures t inundation
by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. (EIR 4.7-23.) Impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: Seiches are typically caused by strong wind or
earthquake activity that generates a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of
water. (Ibid.) A seiche could potentially occur in the on-site storm water detention basin if it
were full (due to recent rain) at the time of an earthquake or wind storm. (Ibid.) The likelihood of
an event causing a seiche to occur in conjunction with a rainstorm large enough to fill the basin
is considered minimal. (Ibid.) Additionally, the on-site detention basin is not located adjacent to
any structures; no impact would occur. (Ibid.)
The Project Site is not located near a large body of water; the nearest body that could
create a tsunami is the. Pacific Ocean, approximately 35 miles to the west. (Ibid.) Due to the
elevation of 700 plus feet and the distance of approximately 35 miles from the ocean, a tsunami
hazard is not present for the Project Site. (Ibid.)
Being adjacent to the San Gabriel River and Fish Creek, the Project Site could be subject
to mudflows resulting from significant storm events. (Ibid.) However, a significant short -
duration storm event would be required to potentially create a mudflow and the working portion
of the mine would need to be at such elevation to be inundated. (Ibid.) These. two events
occurring simultaneously is deemed unlikely. (Ibid.) Furthermore, no employees would
permanently reside on-site, or be working on-site during an intense storm event. (Ibid.) Finally,
project design measures protect structures and employees from rockfall and would similarly
protect them from mudflows; less than significant impact is anticipated. (Ibid.)
G. LAND USE
1. Impact: The Proposed Project would not divide an established community. (EIR
4.8-14.) Therefore, there would be no impact. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: Projects that cause a physical division to communities
typically consist of physical bifurcations, such as freeways, railroads, etc. (Ibid.) In this case, the
Proposed Project does not contain elements that would physically divide a community. (Ibid.)
25
The Project Site is currently mined and there are no developed communities on the site. (Ibid.)
There are established communities located adjacent to and near the Project Site. (Ibid.) However,
continued mining and reclamation of the Project Site would not have the potential to physically
divide these communities. (Ibid.) Therefore, no impact would occur.(Ibid.)
2. Impact: The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (EIR 4.8-14.) Therefore, there would
be no impact. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site is not within the boundaries of a habitat
conservation plan or a natural community conservation plan. (Ibid.) Therefore, there would be no
impact. (Ibid.)
3. Impact: The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (EIR 4.8-15.) Impacts would be
less than significant. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The Proposed Project seeks to revise the existing
Conditional Use Permit and Reclamation Plan to allow for mining on the West Side of the
Project Site instead of the currently permitted operation on the East Side. (Ibid.) This change was
anticipated to minimize visual impacts to the surrounding communities. (Ibid.)
An analysis of land use goals and policies for the City of Azusa and surrounding
jurisdictions shows a common acknowledgment that surface mining has been a part of the area's
identity for the past century, and provides a significant economic base for the region. (EIR 4.8-
27.) However, in order to prevent future blight, many surrounding communities have
incorporated goals and policies aimed at preserving open space for active and passive uses.
(Ibid.) In general, the Proposed Project is in compliance with the goals and policies set by the
surrounding communities. (Ibid.) The proposed reclamation plan would utilize improved
benching techniques to give the mined hillsides an aesthetic appearance intended to be superior
to that of traditional benching methods. (Ibid.)
Additionally, native vegetation would be used to further reduce visual indifference
between reclaimed areas and natural slopes. (Ibid.) The reclamation of the mined site and
proposed end use of passive open space would make the Project Site suitable for wildlife habitat.
(Ibid.)
The Proposed Project does not conflict with any land use policy adopted for the purpose
of mitigating an environmental effect by an agency with jurisdiction over the project. (Ibid.)
Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
H. NOISE AND VIBRATION
1. Impact: The Proposed Project would not be located within an airport land use
plan or within two miles or a public airport or public use airport. (EIR 4.9-8.) Therefore, the
Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
(Ibid.)
26
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site is not located within an airport land use
plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. (Ibid.) The nearest airport is.
the El Monte Airport located at 4233 Santa Anita Avenue in El Monte approximately eight miles
to the southwest. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project would not introduce new sensitive receptors to the
area that would be affected by airport noise. (Ibid.) Therefore, no impacts would occur.(Ibid.)
2. Impact: The Proposed Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. (EIR
4.9-9.) Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site is not located in the vicinity of a private
airstrip. (Ibid.)The nearest public or private airport is the EI Monte Airport located at 4233 Santa
Anita Avenue in El Monte approximately eight miles to the southwest. (Ibid.) The Proposed
Project would not introduce people to the area that would be affected by airport noise. Therefore,
no impacts would occur.(Ibid.)
3. Impact: The Proposed Project could expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. However, impacts would be less than
significant. (EIR 4.9-17.)
Supporting Explanation: Blasting vibrations were measured in terms of the peak
particle velocity (PPV) for existing blasting events by an independent contractor at two locations
on the Project Site. (Ibid.) Eleven blast events were monitored to establish vibration levels as a
function of ground -borne propagation distance. (Ibid.)
For ground vibrations, neither the peak measured event (0.015 ips), the 11 -blast average
(0.009 ips), or the PPV at 1,800 feet (0.012 ips) would exceed the adopted significance threshold
of 0.20 ips at the closest homes. (Ibid.) In addition, the reduction in charge size for the Proposed
Project's micro -benching procedures compared to current reclamation methods may more than
compensate for any possible vibration increase associated with distance encroachment. (Ibid.)
Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
4. Impact: The Proposed Project could create a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
However, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR 4.9-19.)
Supporting Explanation: The Proposed Project will continue to utilize the
overland conveyor to transport material from the Project Site to the Reliance facility. (Ibid.)
Therefore there will be no change in periodic transportation noise and impacts would be less than
significant. (Ibid.)
I. RECREATION
1. Impact: The Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. (EIR 4.10-8.) There would be no
impact to the use of existing parks and other recreational facilities. (Ibid.)
27
Supporting Explanation: The Proposed Project includes revisions to the existing
CUP and Reclamation Plan for the Azusa Rock Quarry. (Ibid.) No new jobs will be created that
would increase the City's population requiring additional recreational area. (Ibid.) Therefore no
impact would result. (Ibid.)
2. Impact: The Proposed Project does not include recreation facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreation facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the
environment. (EIR 4.10-9.) No impact will result. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: A trail occurs on the westerly approximate 80 -acre
portion of the West side of Project Site. (Ibid.) Approval of the Proposed Project will result in
the relocation and construction of a new trail of comparable or better quality for continued use by
trail enthusiasts. (Ibid.)
If implemented prior to reclamation completion, trail access may require restriction and
or scheduling in order to avoid conflicts with mining activities. (Ibid.) No significant adverse or
long-term physical effect on the environment would occur. (Ibid.) The construction of a new
trail would have short-term effects on the environment related to construction disturbance. (EIR
4.10-11.) The Fish Canyon alignment would have little new surface disturbance due to the
disturbed nature of the East Side. (Ibid.) The selection of a new trail alignment is subject to the
conditions stipulated in the trail easement agreement. (Ibid.) In compliance with the existing
agreement, the Applicant will be required to replace the existing trail. (Ibid.) Compliance with
the agreement prior to closure of the existing trail will maintain existing recreational amenities
with no impact on recreational services. (Ibid.) No impact will result. (Ibid.)
J. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
1. Impact: The Proposed Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks. Therefore, no impacts would result. (EIR 4.11-3.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site is not located within an airport land use
plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. (Ibid.)The Proposed Project
would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. (Ibid.) No impacts would result.
(Ibid.)
2. Impact: The Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
Therefore, no impacts would result. (EIR 4.11-3.)
Supporting Explanation: The Proposed Project includes the transport of material
via the existing overland conveyor in lieu of on -road haul trucks. (Ibid.) No new access points to
the Project Site are proposed. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere with
existing emergency access points. (Ibid.) No impacts would result. (Ibid.)
3. Impact: The Proposed Project would not result in inadequate parking capacity.
No impacts would.result. (EIR 4.11-4.)
KM
Supporting Explanation: The Proposed Project would not create new jobs on-site.
(Ibid.) No additional parking on-site would be required to support new employees. (Ibid.) No
impacts from inadequate parking at the Project Site would result. (Ibid.)
4. Impact: The Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks.) No impacts
would result. (EIR 4.11-4.)
Supporting Explanation: The Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks). (Ibid.) Operations at the Project Site would continue in the same manner as permitted
under the existing CUP and Reclamation Plan. (Ibid.) No impacts to alternative transportation
would result. (Ibid.)
5. Impact: The Proposed Project could cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads,
or congestion at intersections). (EIR 4.11-4.) However, the impact is less than significant.
(Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: Under the Proposed Project, the method of processing
and transport of materials will remain as it currently exists at the Project Site. (Ibid.) The
employee and delivery vehicle -generated traffic trips will remain approximately the same and are
estimated at 56 one-way trips per weekday. (Ibid.) The transport of material would continue to
be via the existing overland conveyor in -lieu of on -road haul trucks. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project
does not include an increase in tonnage mined as compared to the amount of tonnage assessed in
previous CEQA documentation. (Ibid.)
Specifically, the 1990 Azusa Rock Conveyor/Haul Road EIR/EA certified by the City of
Azusa (SCH # 89010010) assessed the traffic impacts associated with the transport of 6 million
tons per year of mined materials south from the Project Site via the conveyor system and found
those traffic impacts to be less than significant. Further analysis in the record prepared by
Kunzman Associates regarding whether any of the conditions presented in State CEQA
Guidelines section 15162 that would require a subsequent or supplemental EIR to be prepared
with regard to the Conveyor/Haul Road EIR/EA shows that that EIR's analysis remains valid and
that no significant impacts would result. Thus, the Proposed Project will not cause an increase in
traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system.(Ibid.)
6. Impact: The Proposed Project would not exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways. (EIR 4.11-4.) No impact would result. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: Because the method of processing and transport of
materials will remain as it currently exists, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed,
either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Furthermore, the amount of
trips associated with the processing of 6 million tons per year of aggregate at the Reliance Site
would have such a minimal effect on local CMP facilities that the requirement to conduct a CMP
29
analysis would not be triggered. (Ibid.) Thus, a less than significant impact would occur.
7. Impact: The Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment.) No impacts would result. (EIR 4.11-5.)
Supporting Explanation: With approval of the Proposed Project, the existing
method of processing and transport of materials would continue as it currently exists. (Ibid.) The
transport of material would continue to be via the existing overland conveyor in -lieu of on -road
haul trucks. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project does not include changes to existing access points or
haul routes. (Ibid.) New on-site mine roads would be developed but would not affect the local or
regional traffic circulation system. (Ibid.) Thus the Proposed Project would not substantially
increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses. (Ibid.) No impacts would result. (Ibid.)
K. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1. Impact: The Proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, therefore no significant
environmental effects would result. (EIR 4.12-4.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site is currently served by a septic system,
and therefore implementation of the Proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment
requirements. (Ibid.) Since employment onsite would not change, no changes to the existing
system are proposed, no improvements to the existing septic system would result, and therefore
no significant environmental effects would result. (Ibid.)
2. Impact: The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could case significant environmental effects. (EIR 4.12-4.) No significant impacts
would result. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: Production water (non -potable) is used on-site for dust
control during mining operations, and is obtained from an off-site well located across the San
Gabriel River channel at the former Owl Rock Mine facility north of Stoddard Road. (EIR 4.12-
5.) The well is operated by Azusa Rock, Inc. through City Resolution No. 99-C75, and is
delivered to the quarry via a pipeline. (Ibid.) Domestic water supplied to the on-site office is
provided by CalAmerican, a utility water supplier that serves the office and administrative
structures on-site through a standard metered domestic water line service. (Ibid.) With regard to
production water, water usage would increase from about 26 acre-feet per year to about 170 acre-
feet per year. However, this increase will not have an effect on the adequacy of transmission
system or treatment capacity, since it will be accommodated through the utilization of more work
days in the year than the mine is currently using. (Ibid.) Therefore no significant environmental
effects would result. (Ibid.)
The Project Site is currently served by a septic system. (EIR 4.12-5.) No changes to the
existing septic system are proposed. (Ibid.) Implementation of the Proposed Project would not
result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities. (Ibid.) No impacts or significant environmental effects would result. (Ibid.) No
30
improvements to the existing septic system would result, and therefore no significant
environmental effects would result. (Ibid.)
3. Impact: The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects. (EIR 4.12-5.) Therefore, no impacts would occur.
(Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site contains an existing system of berms
that direct storm water into an on-site detention basin where all storm water generated on-site is
collected. (Ibid.) From the basin, storm water is allowed to percolate into the groundwater table
or evaporate. (Ibid.) The basin also allows sediments in the storm water to settle out, and the
NPDES permit covering the Project Site allows this storm water to be discharged if the water
quality is equal to or better than that in Fish Creek. (Ibid.) Though the Project Site does not
typically discharge at all, this permit creates the possibility of draining the basin during wet
periods to make way for fresh storm water after sediments have settled out. (Ibid.)
Currently, one settling basin with a volume of 9.8 acre feet exists on-site. (Ibid.) To
evaluate the ability of this basin to contain site storm water during the Proposed Project
operations, consultant ENV America calculated the direct runoff from the site according to the
Rational Method. (Ibid.) ENV America recommends either expanding the current basin or
beginning excavation on a new area in order to provide a safety factor for containing 20 -year, 1 -
hour storm events or larger. (Ibid.) The Project Site storm water retention capacity should be
expanded regardless of approval of the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) It is recommended that the
Proposed Project expand its existing storm water detention capacity to a minimum of 12 acre-
feet for the duration of mining and reclamation operations. (Ibid.) Storm water runoff after the
reclamation period will be similar to the drainage surrounding natural watersheds and may enter
Fish Creek directly.(Ibid.)
All Project Site storm flows will continue to be captured in the on-site system and no
impacts to off-site storm water collection facilities would occur. (Ibid.)
4. Impact: There are sufficient water supplies available to serve the Proposed
Project from existing entitlements and resources. (EIR 4.12-7) New or expanded entitlements
are not needed. (Ibid.) The City has considered whether the project is subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910 et. seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of
Government Code Section 647 (SB 221.) (Ibid.) No significant impacts will result. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: \ Production water (non -potable) is used on-site for dust
control during mining operations, and is obtained from an off-site well. (Ibid.) Under the Project,
production would increase from 26 acre-feet per year to 170 acre-feet per year. This is within
the Applicant's entitlement under the adjudication for the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin,
and under the adjudication the Applicant has the ability to pump above its share of the Basin
Safe Yield with the payment of replenishment fees. (Ibid.) Thus, the existing entitlement for
water will be adequate to meet the needs of the Project. Domestic water supplied to the on-site
office is provided by CalAmerican, a utility water supplier that serves the office and
administrative structures on-site through a standard metered domestic water line service. (Ibid.)
Since employment onsite would not change, domestic water usage will not change, either.
(Ibid.) Therefore no significant environmental effects would result. (Ibid.)
31
5. Impact: The Proposed Project would not result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provide which services or may serve the project that it has a adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments. Therefore, no impacts would result. (EIR 4.12-6.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site is currently served by a septic system.
(Ibid.) No expansions or improvements would be required to any wastewater treatment system as
none is currently provided, or would be needed as a result of implementation of the Proposed
Project. (Ibid.) No impacts would result. (Ibid.)
6. Impact: The Proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. (EIR 4.12-6.) No
impact would occur. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: Solid waste collection within the city is provided by the
City of Azusa through contract with a private hauler. (EIR 4.12-7.) Waste is disposed of at the
Puente Hills Sanitary Landfill (Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) No. 19 -AA -0053)
located at 13130 Crossroads Parkway South, in the city of Industry. (Ibid.) As of October 14,
2006, the landfill had a remaining capacity of 49,348,500 cubic yards, and an estimated closure
date of October 2013. (Ibid.) Currently, the landfill is permitted to receive a maximum of 13,200
tons per day, and has a disposal footprint of 433 -acres within the 1,365 -acre site. (Ibid.)
Mine wastes generated at the site consist of overburden. Storage of overburden on-site
will continue to be short-term. (Ibid.) Overburden will continue to be transported daily by
conveyor to the Reliance processing plant where it will be interim -stored at the Reliance pit for
subsequent use there as backfill. (Ibid.) Additionally, any non -saleable rock, fines or overburden
materials may be used in VMC's other engineered fill projects in the Azusa/Irwindale area.
(Ibid.) Sanitary waste generated at the site is from office operations and estimated at 28 pounds
per day. (Ibid.) Waste is collected by the City's private hauler and disposed of at the Puente Hills
Sanitary Landfill. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project will not result in an increase in the number of
employees on the Project Site. (Ibid.) Therefore the Proposed Project would not result in a
change to solid waste disposal needs, or impacts to a landfill. (Ibid.) Therefore, no impact would
occur. (Ibid.)
7. Impact: The Proposed Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste. (EIR 4.12-7.) No impact would occur. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The Proposed Project will not result in an increase in the
number of employees at the Project Site nor an increase in waste generated or disposed of. (Ibid.)
On-site mining operations will continue to comply with any applicable federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Ibid.) Therefore, no impact would occur. (Ibid.)
8. Impact: The Proposed Project would not require or result in an increase in the
amount of electrical power or the expansion of an electrical facility, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects. (EIR 4.12-9.) Therefore, no impacts would result.
(Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The Azusa Light and Water Department provides
electric power to business and residential users. (Ibid.) The City of Azusa receives electrical
power from Southern California Edison (SCE) at the Azusa Substation, which is jointly owned
by the City of Azusa and SCE. (Ibid.)
32
Currently, the Azusa Light and Water Department has the facilities and equipment to
provide electrical services to the City of Azusa. (Ibid.) Azusa Light and Power has indicated that
they are capable of meeting the increased demands of the Proposed Project along with all of its
other customers. (Ibid.) Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
9. Impact: The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of
new telecommunication systems. No impact would result. (EIR 4.12-10.)
Supporting Explanation: The General Telephone Company (GTE) provides local
residential and business telephone services within the City of Azusa. (Ibid.) During the General
Plan update (2004) representatives of GTE indicated the existing telephone system was adequate
to serve existing and future customers within the City of Azusa. (Ibid.) GTE does not foresee any
major projects that would require upgrading of its system in the near future. (Ibid.)
Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require additional telecommunication needs
or require an expansion of the system. No impact would result. (Ibid.)
10. Impact: The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of
new or expanded existing natural gas facilities. No impact would result. (EIR 4.12-8.)
Supporting Explanation: The Southern California Gas Company provides natural
gas services within the City of Azusa. (Ibid.) The existing gas distribution system is adequate to
serve existing and future customers within the City. (Ibid.) At the time of the General Plan
update (2004), the Southern California Gas Company did not foresee any major projects that
would require upgrading of the system in the near future. (Ibid.)
Currently, operations at the Project Site do not require the use of natural gas.
Implementation of the Proposed Project does not include a demand for natural gas. (Ibid.)
Therefore no changes to natural gas would result and no impact to existing natural gas facilities
would result. (Ibid.)
L. GREENHOUSE GASES/CLIMATE CHANGE
1. Impact: The Project would not exceed SCAQMD's industrial facilities threshold
of significance. (EIR 4.13-8.)
Supporting Explanation: The existing Quarry as permitted by. SCAQMD is
allowed to process up to 10.8 mtpy of aggregate. (Ibid.) The incremental increase in emissions
calculated is a comparison of the Proposed Project's 19,000 tpd (i.e., 6 mtpy) with the
established Baseline or existing operations of 1.1 mtpy. (Ibid.) The total increase in maximum
annualized contribution of GHG from the project is 6,099 MTCO2c/year (see Table 13.3 below).
(Ibid.) Since this is less than SCAQMD's industrial facilities threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year,
this impact is less than significant. (Ibid.)
2. Impact: The Proposed Project would not interfere or conflict with a statewide,
regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. (EIR 4.13-9
to 4.13-10.)
Supporting Explanation: The only approved plan that meets the regulatory
requirements of the proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines is the "Climate Change
33
Scoping Plan" (CARB 2008) . (EIR 4.13-9.) Eventually the region will develop a Sustainable
Communities Strategy that complies with SB 375 and the City of Azusa may also adopt a climate
action.plan. (Ibid.) The Climate Change Scoping Plan contains strategies and measures that will
affect the Proposed Project sources including low carbon fuel standards, goods movement, and
heavy duty vehicle engine efficiencies. (Ibid.) The Scoping Plan does not contain any directly
applicable categorical requirements for mining and reclamation or industrial projects of limited
size, such as the Proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Therefore, the Proposed Project, which will be required to comply with future GHG
related regulations, is consistent with the Scoping Plan. (Ibid.) Without mitigation, GHG
emissions from the Proposed Project are less than both the SCAQMD (10,000 MTCO2e/yr)
screening interim threshold level for significance and the CARB interim (7,000 MTCO2e/yr)
threshold, which excludes off-road vehicle emissions from the comparison. (EIR 4.13-9 to 4.13-
10.) Therefore, no mitigation measures for impacts on climate change are necessary and the
Proposed Project's impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
SECTION 3: RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR
and this Resolution which will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant
environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts and
the Mitigation Measures which will reduce them to a less then significant level are as follows:
A. AESTHETICS
1. Impact: The Proposed Project would create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (DEIR, p. 4.1-55.)
However, with mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
The issue of light and glare is typically associated with excessively bright nighttime
lighting that crosses over property lines and illuminates off-site yards or bedroom windows.
(EIR 4.1-55.) It is also associated with the condition that occurs when excessive nighttime
lighting creates a "skyglow" effect. (Ibid.)
Specifications of any nighttime lighting are not provided in the Proposed Project
applications. (Ibid.) Lighting is not proposed to be altered from the existing mine operations but
it is anticipated that on-site lighting will extend westerly to the Project Site perimeter and be
excluded in the East Side quarry following reclamation. (Ibid.)
Lighting is currently limited to security and maintenance lighting. (Ibid.) With
implementation of the Proposed Project, the West Side quant' activity and associated lighting
would replace existing lighting at the East Side quarry. (Ibid.) The distance to adjacent,
sensitive land uses limits potential operational lighting impacts, but any new lighting would
contribute to skyglow effect. (Ibid.) Nighttime lighting for purposes of security and
maintenance is not anticipated to be excessive as such lighting would include glare shields and
low energy sodium appliances (or equivalent) to eliminate or reduce light and glare. (Ibid.)
34
Finding: The following Mitigation Measures will mitigate potential adverse light
and glare impacts to less than significant levels. (DEIR, p. 4.1-55.)
AES 2 The operator shall comply with the City of Azusa Development Code Chapter
88.31.030, "Outdoor Lighting. " The operator shall use high-pressure sodium
and/or cut-off fixtures instead of mercury-vapor fixtures for any required
nighttime lighting of the operations. The lighting shall also be designed to confine
illumination to the Project Site, and/or to areas that do not include light-sensitive
uses. (Ibid.)
AES 3 No mining shall be allowed before dawn or after dusk within 300 feet of the west
quarry Project Site boundary. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: Impacts are determined to be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated. (Ibid.) In the event that nighttime lighting could potentially contribute
to the surrounding area's light and/or glare, mitigation will be required. (Ibid.) Requiring the
Applicant or operator to use certain techniques and fixtures in order to reduce light will reduce
impacts be limiting any glare and/or overflow. (Ibid.) Additionally, restricting the times that
mining is allowed during the day will reduce nighttime lighting to less than significant levels by
minimizing the need for nighttime illumination. (Ibid.)
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact: With mitigation, the Proposed Project would not violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. (DEIR, p.
4.2-23 — 30.)
Regional Criteria Pollutant Impacts
SO2 exceedance is normally a concern for facilities that bum coal or refine petroleum.
(Ibid.) Diesel fuel used by the Proposed Project will continue to meet CARB specifications for
sulfur content. (Ibid.) Thus, impact of Proposed Project emissions on SO2 attainment is
anticipated to be less than significant. (Ibid.) PM10 and PM2.5 exceedances are a concern for
facilities with fugitive dust sources. (Ibid.) NOx is a concern for facilities with large amounts of
combustion equipment. (Ibid.) As aggregate plants require large amounts of earthwork, NOx
and PM emissions are quantified, modeled, and compared to significance thresholds. (Ibid.)
The Proposed Project's total emissions were compared to the appropriate threshold to
determine significance. (Ibid.) hi order for the Proposed Project to result in less than significant
impacts for MDTs, it has been designed with an initial throughput restriction of 19,000 tpd
unless and until circumstances change such that the facility emissions factors can be revised.
(Ibid.) Proposed Project emissions for the average day or 19,000 tpd would not exceed the
SCAQMD's mass daily significance thresholds and are therefore determined to be less than
significant. (Ibid.) Proposed Project emissions for the peak day or 28,800 tpd would exceed the
NOx, VOC, and CO mass daily significance thresholds and are considered a significant impact.
(Ibid.) The peak day would require mitigation or limitations if emissions are to meet the MDTs.
SOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are less than significant on the peak day. (EIR 4.2-24.)
Localized Criteria Pollutant Impacts
35
Carbon monoxide (CO) exceedance is normally a concern at high volume intersections
operating at level of service (LOS) D or worse. (EIR 4.2-25.) As there is no on -road truck
traffic associated with the Proposed Project, impact on CO AAQS attainment is anticipated to be
less than significant. (Ibid.) Off-road CO emissions would not exceed the mass daily threshold
for CO. (Ibid.)
Off-site concentrations of PM10 (annual and 24-hour), PM2.5 (annual and 24-hour), and
NO2 (annual and 1 -hour) were calculated using the EPA's AERMOD dispersion model.
Emissions were calculated for each pollutant and modeled using local meteorological and terrain
data. (Ibid.) Three years of Azusa meteorological data (2005-2007) were used and the worst
case year was used to determine significance. (Ibid.)
The initial year for the Proposed Project was modeled as it represents engines that are the
least efficient/clean and the haul distances are the longest. Localized impacts are conservatively
based on the peak hour (1,800 tons), peak day (28,800 tons), and the peak year (6 mt). (Ibid.)
The 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 modeling was performed using the 28,800 ton peak day
throughput assumption and represents a worst case scenario. (Ibid.) The pollutant
concentrations at the point of maximum impact ("PMI") do not exceed the SCAQMD's
significant deterioration threshold (SDTs) or the NAAQS and CAAQS, whichever is most
stringent. (Ibid.) Potential impacts at any of the receptors are mostly less than 10 percent of the
most stringent standards. (EIR 4.2-27.)
The existing ambient background levels for 24-hour and annual levels of PM10 and
PM2.5 exceed the AAQS. (EIR 4.2-28.) The incremental increases in PM10 and PM2.5 are
determined to not exceed the incremental increase thresholds (SDTs), therefore impacts from
PM10 and PM2.5 are determined to be less than significant for the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) The
addition of the project impacts to the background levels does not cause an exceedance of AAQS
for NO2 or NOx. (Ibid.)
Finding: The following Mitigation Measures and Project Design Feature, along
with compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules, will mitigate potential adverse effects to air
quality standards to less -than -significant levels. (EIR 4.2-28 — 30.)
AQ -1 Daily peak production shall be restricted to not more than 19,000 tons per day
and 6, 000, 000 tons per year.
AQ -la Daily production shall be limited to no more than 19,000 tons per day in order to
reduce the Proposed Project's potential to emit NO, SO., VOC, CO, PM�o, and
PM2.5 emissions to less than the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds.
AQ -1b The SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds shall be used to curtail the facility's
throughput to reduce the project's potential to emit NO,, SO,, VOC, CO, PM10,
and PM2.5 emissions to less than significant. The Emissions Inventory Plan
(Appendix c.2.3, sub -appendix II -B) includes the methodology to evaluate. NO,
VOC, and CO in a similar manner to that presented below for NOx.
• The facility -wide NOx emissions factor shall be 0.0213 lb/ton processed.
36
• The baseline (i.e., current) peak day NO, emissions is 351 Ib/day, and
• The SCAQMD mass daily threshold is NO, 55 Ib/day.
In light of the above information, the Facility may emit 405 Ib/day of NOx and
remain less than the SCAQMD NO, Mass Daily threshold (405 lbs/day = 351
lbs/day current emissions +54 Ibs/day to remain under the NOx significance
threshold). In order for the Project to result in less than significant impacts for all
air quality aspects, it shall be restricted to production of no more than 19,000
tons per day.
AQ -lc a) Continue the mandatory use of the materials conveyor system to preclude the
use of on -road haul trucks traveling through residential neighborhoods.
b) If winds exceed 25 mph as an hourly average, site disturbance activities,
including but not limited to blasting, shall be suspended.
AQ -Id Daily peak production shall initially be restricted to 6,060 tons per day using
existing equipment. Prior to implementation of any increases in daily production
levels, the Applicant will prepare and submit to the City an inventory of its
current construction equipment fleet. If the City finds that the construction
equipment fleet's composition conforms with the assumptions used in the air
quality report found in the Draft EIR Appendix C.2.3, daily production may be
increased to a maximum of 19, 000 tons per day.
AQ -2: For on-site stationary sources, VMC shall be in compliance with applicable
SCAQMD permitting and operation requirements and emission control measures.
PDF -6 Minimize the release of air borne dust and emissions through regular application
of water to dampen stockpiles, working mine faces, and on-site access roads. (EIR
4.2-21)
Supporting Explanation: The Proposed Project will not exceed the SCAQMD's
mass daily thresholds, the significant deterioration thresholds, or the AAQS with limitation of
daily production to no more than 19,000 tons per day, and therefore, the Proposed Project will
have a less than significant impact on regional and localized air quality with implementation of
the applicable Project Design Feature and the proposed Mitigation Measures, and with
compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules. (Ibid.; See also Tables 4.2-10, 4.2-13, 4.2-14, 4.2-
15.)
2. Impact: With mitigation, the Proposed Project will not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors.) (DEIR, p. 4.2-30.)
Finding: The following Mitigation Measures and Project Design Feature, along
with compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules, will mitigate potential adverse effects to air
quality standards to less -than -significant levels. (EIR 4.2-28 — 30.)
37
AQ -1 See supra
AQ -1a See supra.
AQ -lb See supra.
AQ -lc See supra.
AQ -1d See supra.
AQ -2: See supra.
PDF -6 See supra.
Supporting Explanation: The Proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds. (]bid.; see DEIR Tables 4.2-13, 4.2-14, and 4.2-15.) Daily project emissions
analyzed existing conditions and determined the incremental change and compared the findings
to SCAQMD thresholds to determine significance. (DEIR, p. 4.2-31.) Emissions that comply
with SCAQMD's thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD, as per its guidance on air quality
impact analysis under CEQA, to be less than cumulatively considerable contributions to existing
regional cumulative air quality impacts. (Ibid.)
Therefore, cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project are determined to be less than
significant, with implementation of the above Mitigation Measures, Project Design Features, and
applicable SCAQMD rules, which would ensure that the emission levels predicted by the Project
air quality modeling are attained.(Ibid.)
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Impact: With mitigation, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any of the following
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: San
Gabriel river dudleya, Santa Ana sucker, Santa Ana speckled dace, Mountain yellow -legged
frog, Coast Range newt, Southwestern pond turtle, Two -striped garter snake, Cooper's hawk,
Southwestern. willow flycatcher, Yellow -breasted chat, Coastal California gnatcatcher, and Least
Bell's vireo. (DEIR, p. 4.3-22 — 30.) Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Special Status Plant
San Gabriel river dudleya (Dudleya cvmosa ssp. crebrifolia). A CNPS 113.2 listed plant,
San Gabriel river dudleya is found in chaparral, coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill
grasslands between 900 and 1,395 feet amsl. (DEIR, p. 4.3-23.) The plant is the only sensitive
plant found on the Project Site (refer to DEIR Figure 4.3-3). (Ibid.) This species was detected
during the surveys, and is present within the Fish Creek restoration area as well as two
populations being located on the western side of Fish Canyon. (Ibid.) A dense population of
approximately 1,000 individuals was detected in sparse coastal sage -chaparral on northeast and
east -facing rock outcrops on the west side of Fish Canyon, just south of the disturbed mining
area. Impact to this species is considered potentially significant. (Ibid.) Mitigation Measure
BIO -1 reduces impacts to the San Gabriel river dudleya to less than significant levels. (DEIR, p.
4.3-24.)
38
Special Status Wildlife
Fish
Santa Ana sucker Watostomus santaanae) is listed as threatened by the federal
government and is a California Special Concern (CSC) species. (DEIR, p. 4.3-25.) This fish
species is endemic to Los Angeles Basin, typically with sand, rubble, or boulder -bottomed south
coastal streams. (Ibid.) This species has historically been reported in Fish Creek (last reported
in 1986) but is now considered extirpated in this waterway (CNDDB 2009). (Ibid.) Other
populations of this species are located in the upper forks of the San Gabriel River above two
dams making it unlikely that this species could migrate downstream and then up Fish Creek.
(Ibid) In addition, numerous fish surveys, relocations and monitoring during and following the
northern restoration of Fish Creek never observed or collected Santa Ana River sucker. (Ibid.)
Therefore, the Santa Ana sucker has a low potential to occur. (Ibid.) Less than significant
impact would occur with mitigation. (Ibid.)
Santa Ana speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.) is a CSC species. (Ibid.) This fish
occurs in the headwaters of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers and requires flowing,
permanent streams with shallow cobble bottoms and gravel riffles. (Ibid.) This species is known
to occur in Fish Creek and has been captured within the restored and unrestored portions of the
creek within the Project Site. (Ibid.) Fish Creek and the restored area of Fish Creek are not part
of the Proposed Project and will be avoided by all mine and reclamation activities. (Ibid.) A less
than significant impact would occur with mitigation. (Ibid.)
Amphibians
Mountain yellow -legged frog (Rana mucosa) is a federally listed endangered species and
a CSC species. (Ibid.) This frog occurs in the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and San Gabriel
Mountains, always within a few feet of permanent water. (Ibid.) This species is typically found
in relatively undisturbed stream banks, ponds and lakes, usually with sloping gravel banks..
(Ibid.) Despite a documentation of this species in Fish Creek 4 miles northwest of the Project
Site (CNDDB 2008), this species is unlikely to occur on the Project Site, except for Fish Creek,
where it has a moderate potential to occur. (DEIR, p. 4.3-26.) Repeated fish studies conducted
in the restored portion of Fish Creek and just upstream did not result in any observations of these
species. (Ibid.) Less than significant impact is expected with implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO -2 and BIO -5. (Ibid.)
Coast Ranee newt (Taricha torosa torosa) is a CSC species. (Ibid.) This newt inhabits
quiet ponds, lakes, and streams along coastal mountain ranges from Mendocino County to San
Diego County. (Ibid.) It has been observed breeding in Fish Creek upstream of the Project Site
and it has also been observed in the restored portion of Fish Creek. (Ibid.) Fish Creek and the
restored area of Fish Creek will be avoided by all mine and reclamation activities. (Ibid.) Less
than significant impact is expected with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -2 and BIO -
5. (Ibid.)
Reptiles
Southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallidal is a CSC species. (Ibid.)
Intermittent drainages on the undisturbed portion of the Project Site are unlikely to provide
39
suitable breeding habitat for this species. (Ibid.) Therefore, the southwestern pond turtle has a
moderate potential to occur only within deeper waters in Fish Creek. (Ibid.) Repeated fish
studies conducted in the restored portion of Fish Creek and just upstream did not result in any
observations of these species. (Ibid.) Less than significant impact is expected with
implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -2 and BIO -5. (Ibid.)
Two -striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii) is a CSC species. (Ibid.) This
aquatic snake occurs within permanent waters, often along streams with rocky beds and riparian
habitat. (Ibid.) This species has been observed in the Fish Creek Restoration Area and upstream
in Fish Creek on U.S. Forest Service lands. (Ibid.) Fish Creek and the restored area of Fish
Creek will be avoided by all Proposed Project activities. (Ibid.) Less than significant impact is
expected with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -2 and 13I0-5. (Ibid.)
Birds
Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) is a CSC species. (Ibid.) This species could
potentially forage and nest in the riparian habitat in the restoration area and upstream. (Ibid.) It
has been observed flying over the project area. (Ibid.) Less than significant impact is expected
with establishment of preserved lands, and implementation of Mitigation Measures 13I0-2 and
BIO -3 and the Proposed Project's revegetation plan. (DEIR, p. 4.3-27.)
Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) is listed as endangered by
the federal government. (Ibid.) The SWWF is restricted to riparian woodlands along streams
and rivers with mature, dense stands of willows, cottonwoods (Populus spp.) or smaller spring
fed or boggy areas with willows or alders (Alnus spp.). (Ibid.) Riparian habitat provides both
breeding and foraging habitat for the species. (Ibid.) The southwestern willow flycatcher nests
from up to 13 feet above ground in thickets of trees and shrubs with a high percentage of canopy
cover and dense foliage. (Ibid.) Nesting willow flycatchers invariably prefer areas with surface
water nearby (Phillips et al. 1966). (Ibid.)
The habitat assessment for the SWWF found suitable habitat within the Fish Creek
corridor and particularly in the restored area. (Ibid.) Focused protocol surveys for the SWWF
were conducted by Gonzales Environmental Consulting in May- July 2008 in Fish Creek (refer
to Appendix C.3.1, Sub -Appendix D). (Ibid.) One territorial male was observed in the riparian
habitat at the northern portion of the Project Site within the Fish Creek restored area and just
downstream of the bridge over Fish Creek. (Ibid.) Fish Creek and the restored area of Fish
Creek are not part of the Proposed Project and will be avoided by all mine and reclamation
activities. (Ibid.) PDF -1, PDF -2, PDF -7 and Mitigation Measure BIO -2 require protection of
Fish Creek's water quality from the mine slopes, monitoring of on-site activities near Fish Creek,
the establishment of a buffer along the creek, and obtaining of applicable permits if any future
activity or restoration is planned. (Ibid.) A less than significant impact would occur with
implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -2, 13I0-3, and BIO -5. (Ibid.)
Yellow -breasted chat (Icteria virens) is a CSC species. (Ibid.) This species occurs as a
summer resident and requires dense willow riparian thickets and other brushy tangles for nesting.
(Ibid.) These areas typically have a thick understory of willow, blackberry, and wild grape.
(Ibid) This species has been observed in the San Gabriel River channel located downstream of
the project area. (Ibid.) The riparian habitat in the restoration area could potentially support this
,o]
species as the habitat continues to mature overtime, however, currently the habitat is not mature
enough to support the nesting activities of this species. (Ibid.) A less than significant impact is
expected with implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-2, BIO -3, and BIO -5. (Ibid.)
Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) is a federally -listed
threatened species and a CSC species. (DEIR, p. 4.3-28.) This bird permanently inhabits coastal
sage scrub habitats at elevations below 2,500 feet amsl. (Ibid) The closest known record of this
species is approximately 3 miles south of the Project Site in a lowland basin area in the Santa Fe
Dam Regional Park (CNDDB 2009). (Ibid.) No other recent or historic records occur within 5
miles of the Project Site. (Ibid.) Most of the coastal sage scrub habitat on the Project Site is
revegetated, and of marginal quality, but there is suitable habitat in the vicinity. (Ibid.) The
Project Site is not within critical habitat for the gnatcatcher as established by the USFWS. (Ibid.)
Vegetation within the East Side of the Project Site is dominated by the previously mined
slopes that support little or no vegetation. (Ibid.) The previously reclaimed terraced steps are
vegetated primarily with coastal sage scrub; the terrain is very steep. (Ibid.) Due to the limited
amount of coastal sage scrub (approximately 9 acres in two separated pockets) and the steepness
of the terrain, it was determined that the East Side does not provide suitable habitat for the
gnatcatcher. (Ibid.)
The West Side Area ,is dominated by actively and previously mined slopes and
undisturbed chaparral and approximately 11 acres of existing and revegetated coastal sage scrub
mainly in the south portion of the existing mining area. (Ibid.) The undisturbed chaparral is too
thick and shaded and does not provide a suitable habitat type for gnatcatchers. (Ibid.)
The Canyon Bottom is dominated by disturbed areas and the riparian areas along Fish
Creek. (Ibid.) The disturbed and riparian areas do not represent suitable habitat for the
gnatcatcher. (Ibid.) In addition to the limited amount of coastal sage scrub present on-site, much
of the Project Site lies within a canyon -type topography and receives a limited amount of sun and
warmth during the day. (Ibid.)
The literature review concluded that no recent or historical records for gnatcatcher occurs
or has ever occurred within similar habitat and within 5 miles of the Project Site. (Ibid.) Based
on the results of the literature review, the lack of suitable habitat, and other surveys on the
Project Site which did not record any gnatcatcher, the occurrence of gnatcatcher on-site is
considered low and potential impacts are expected to be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -3 and BIO -5. (Ibid.)
Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) is listed as endangered by the federal and state
governments. (Ibid.) This species inhabits dense riparian vegetation near wet areas (e.g.,
streams) (Zeiner et al. 1990). (Ibid.) Habitat for the vireo consists typically of multi -layered
riparian habitats consisting of willows of varying heights and mule fat. (Ibid.) The habitat
vireos prefer typically is fairly open and incorporates a high amount of `edge' features where the
riparian habitat meets open water or open sand bars. (Ibid.) Vireos utilize both heavy understory
and high canopy areas as foraging habitat. (Ibid.) In addition, vireo habitats almost always have
a high degree of herbaceous understory which is used as nesting material. (DEIR, p. 4.3-29.)
This species was documented less than 1 mile north and south of the Project Site and 0.75 miles
to the west in Van Tassel Creek (CNDDB 2009), and suitable riparian habitat exists in the Fish
41
Creek restoration area. (Ibid.) Therefore, focused protocol surveys were conducted in the spring
of 2008. (Ibid.)
Least Bell's vireos were not detected during the eight focused vireo surveys conducted in
2008 along the more suitable habitat along Fish Creek. (Ibid.) Brown -headed cowbirds were
observed during several of the surveys, mostly at the upstream portion of the Project Site near
the U.S. Forest Service lands. (Ibid.) The presence of brown -headed cowbirds could potentially
have an impact on whether or not least Bell's vireos attempt to nest in the restoration area.
(Ibid.)
In addition, drainages on the steeper approximate 80 acres on the West Side that would
be impacted, contain approximately 2.34 acres of CDFG jurisdictional waters with mulefat, blue
elderberry riparian habitat which were not surveyed for vireo. (Ibid.) These drainages do not
exhibit riparian habitats suitable for Least Bell's vireo. (Ibid.) The negative survey results in the
more suitable riparian area of Fish Creek implies that the less suitable habitat on the drier
drainages would not likely support vireo. (Ibid.) Due to the lack of occurrence, a less than
significant impact is expected with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -2, BIO -3,
BIO -5. (Ibid.)
Findings: The following Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features will
reduce impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species, directly or through habitat
modifications to less than significant levels.
BI0-1 a) As part of the mining and reclamation activities, the Applicant shall salvage
plants and collect the seeds of the San Gabriel River dudleyas that will be
removed as part of Phases 1-E, IV -W and V -W (see Figure 3'16 of Draft EIR for
phasing). This requirement is only limited by the ability of the biologist to. collect
seeds or salvage plants safely, without risk of seriousinjury or death. Dudleyas
that can be safely removed from future mining areas shall be salvaged and
transplanted and/or the collected seeds shall be spread onto the areas to be
reclaimed with a similar slope and aspect. The Revegetation Plan for the
revegetation and monitoring of this species included in the final Revised
Reclamation Plan is incorporated herein by this reference and must be complied
with in order to satisfy this Mitigation Measure.
b) Prior to each phase of mining, surveys for the San Gabriel River dudleya shall
be conducted to determine if the species is present at that point in time and if
so the number of the plants to be impacted. The plants favorable for
transplanting will be salvaged and transplanted and/or collected seeds seeded
onto areas to be reclaimed with similar slopes and aspects where they
currently occur. The Revegetation Plan specifically addressing this species
included in the Final Reclamation Plan is incorporated herein by this
reference and shall be complied with in order to satisfy this Mitigation
Measure. This Plan includes the method for salvaging and seed collection,
selection of the areas to be revegetated, methods for transplanting and
seeding, monitoring, and remediation in order to achieve a success criteria of
50% of the number of plants found in the pre -construction surveys.(EIR 4.3-
24.)
42
BI0-2 To avoid impacts to the Santa Ana speckled dace, Coast range newt, Two -striped
garter snake, southwestern willow flycatcher, Copper's hawk, osprey, and on
suitable habitat for least Bell's vireo, project activities (excluding future potential
creek restoration) must avoid disturbing Fish Creek habitat, water flow and
quality, and VMC shall maintain a 25 foot buffer from the edge of the creek banks
or the riparian vegetation, whichever is furthest, including the entire restoration
area. (EIR 4.3-30.)
BI0-3 To avoid impacts to Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, coastal
California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, and other nesting birds protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, mining activities will only remove existing
chaparral and coastal sage scrub during the non -nesting season (September I
through February 15. If clearing of native habitats is going to occur during the
breeding season, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for nesting
birds within three days of the initiation of clearing. If active bird nests are
observed, then a buffer of 100 feet shall be established around the nests and no
activities shall occur within the buffer until the young have fledged or the nest has
failed. A qualified biologist shall be utilized to conduct the surveys and to
determine the status of active or failed nests. (DEIR, p. 4.3-30.)
BI0-5: Excavation and mining within the periphery of Fish Creek will be under the
observation of the consulting biologist at all times to assure no adverse impacts
will occur to the drainages and tributaries of the Waters of the United States and
Waters of the State, unless such effects have been recognized and permitted
through appropriate permits, agreements and certifications issued by the
respective responsible agencies. In order to prevent adverse impacts to Fish
Creek the consulting biologist will provide staking and fencing of the drainages to
delineate the areas of special concern, as these areas were identified in the
Biological Resource Assessment contained in Draft EIR appendices C.3, C.3.2,
and C.3.6. The biologist will monitor activities in the vicinity of these areas to
ensure that the staked areas of exclusion are not intruded by either the
equipment/operations or indirectly by soil movements.
PDF -1 Enlarge and maintain the on-site storm water detention basin, which serves to
decant and retard drainage from mined areas from directly entering Waters of the
U.S. and CDFG jurisdictional waters (Fish Creek and the San Gabriel River).
Increase capacity of the existing 9.8 acre-feet to 12.0 acre-feet (based on
hydrology studies discussed in Section 4.7 of this EIR). (DEIR, p. 4.3-20.)
PDF -2 Maintain the on-site slope and grade in a manner to direct drainage of surface
flows to the on-site storm water detention basin. (DEIR, p. 4.3-20.)
PDF -3 Apply a micro -benching methodology to reduce the height and width of the step -
benches and include native vegetation as measures to eliminate negative aesthetic
elements associated with traditional benching method. (DEIR, p. 4.3-20.)
W
Supporting Explanation: Salvaging plants and collecting seeds from the San Gabriel
River dudleyas can be transplanted in other areas with similar environmental conditions, thereby
preserving them within the area. (Ibid.) The revegetation plan will ensure that the plant is
properly monitored. The surveys will determine the number of affected plants and will provide a
detailed plan on how to transplant and revegetate them. (Ibid.)
Similarly, the buffer along Fish Creek will protect the Santa Anasucker, Santa Ana
speckled dace, mountain yellow -legged frog, Coast range newt, southwestern pond turtle, two -
striped garter snake, southwestern willow flycatcher, Copper's hawk, osprey, yellow -breasted chat,
and suitable habitat for least Bell's vireo.
Likewise the restriction on removing chaparral and costal sage scrub during certain
period of the year will avoid impacts to Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, coastal
California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, and other nesting birds protected under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, If active bird nests are observed, then a buffer of 1.00 feet shall be established
around the nests and no Proposed Project activities shall occur within the buffer until the young
have fledged or the nest has failed. Having a qualified biologist to conduct surveys will also help
preserve the species by alerting the applicant and City of active or failed nests. (Ibid.) Based on
the above, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
2. Impact: With mitigation, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS. (DEIR, p. 4.3-33 — 34.) Impacts to riparian habitat
would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
The mining activities associated with the Proposed Project on the West Side of the
Project Site will impact 2.34 acres of state jurisdictional waters and 0.34 acres of federal
jurisdictional waters and associated habitat (see DEIR Figure 4.3-4.) (DEIR, p. 4.3-33.) No
wetlands were identified on the Project Site, however impacts to riparian habitat is a potentially
significant. (Ibid.)
The jurisdictional delineation conducted by Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC for
ECORP Consulting in May, 2006, identified 1.07 acres in Drainage 1, 0.97 acres in Drainage 2,
and 0.3 acres in Drainage 3 of California jurisdictional waters, for a total of 2.34 acres. (Ibid.)
Additionally 0.24 acres in Drainage 1, 0.08 acres in Drainage 2, and 0.002 acres in Drainage 3 of
federal jurisdictional waters for a total of 0.34 acres were identified. (Ibid.) Riparian vegetation
in the drainages contains a mixture of mule fat, blue elderberry, and tree tobacco. (Ibid.)
Fish Creek and the restored area of Fish Creek will be avoided by all mine and
reclamation activities associated with the Proposed Project. PDF -1 and PDF -2 and Mitigation
Measures BIO -2 and BIO -5 require protection of Fish Creek's water quality from the mine
slopes, monitoring of onsite activities near Fish Creek, the establishment of a buffer along the
creek and restoration area and obtaining applicable permits if any future activity or restoration is
planned outside of the Proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measure BIO -3 requires assessment for the occurrence of migratory birds
which will include these drainages and implementation of appropriate mitigation if nesting birds
are found. (Ibid.) In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO -4 and BIO -5 are required. (Ibid.)
Findin : The following Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features will
mitigate potential adverse impacts to riparian habitat to less than significant levels.
BIO -3 See supra.
BIO -4 To offset streambed and habitat impacts to 2.34 acres of CDFG jurisdictional
areas and 0.34 acres of waters of the U.S., the Project Applicant shall be required
to comply with one of the following or a combination of one or more of the
following: (1) purchase credits at a 2 to 1 ratio or approximately 5 acres/credit at
an approved mitigation bank which supports the San Gabriel River, through other
regional conservation programs (such as San Gabriel Mountains Regional
Conservancy); (2) establish on-site drainages and vegetation within the reclaimed
West Side quarryfloor at a 2 to 1 ratio; or (3) dedicate or contribute 5 acres of
appropriate lands as a permanent conservation easement to a conservation
group. Note that these compensation ratios are typical and are subject to review
and agreement with the CDFG via a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement and the ACOE via the Section 404 permitting process. (DEIR, p. 4.3-
34.)
BIO -5 See supra.
PDF -1 See supra.
PDF -2 See supra.
PDF -3 See supra.
Supporting Explanation: Mitigation Measure BIO -4 will reduce impacts to less
than significant, by requiring the Applicant to adopt and implement one of three mitigation ratios.
(Ibid.) By providing mitigation through conservation in the San Gabriel Mountains, the West
Side quarry, or conservation elsewhere, impacts to riparian habitat will be reduced to less than
significant levels. (Ibid.) Furthermore, Mitigation Measure BIO -5 will ensure that impacts from
intrusion into Fish Creek and adjacent areas would not occur, and Mitigation Measure BIO -3
would protect any areas, including riparian areas, that are being used for nesting purposes.
Consequently, this impact would be less than significant.
3. Impact: The Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with the established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
(EIR 4.3-39 — 40.) Therefore, impacts are less than significant with the implementation of
Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features. (Ibid.)
Finding. The implementation of the following Mitigation Measures ensure that
the Proposed Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of native species or
wildlife corridors..
BIO -1 See supra.
BIO -2 See supra.
Ki
BI0-5 See supra.
PDF -1 See supra.
PDF -2 See supra.
Supporting Explanation: The Project Site has a large area of high disturbance, but
the undisturbed coastal sage- chaparral scrub areas are contiguous with open space to the
northwest and northeast of the Project Site. (DEIR, p. 4.3-39.) The Fish Creek restoration area
on the Project Site is a significant corridor, connecting the Fish Creek channel on adjacent Forest
Service land with the San Gabriel River. (]bid.) This is an important habitat for sensitive
species such as the Santa Ana speckled dace and as the plantings mature, it will also provide
suitable habitat for sensitive riparian bird species to breed and travel this corridor. (Ibid.)
The Project Site contains other ridgelines and drainages that may provide connectivity to
the San Gabriel River. (Ibid.) The undisturbed areas, being adjacent to the disturbed mine area
on the East Side and other development; serve more as open space and habitat for plant and
wildlife communities and not as a wildlife corridor or linkage. (EIR 4.3-40.) Fish Creek and the
restored area of Fish Creek will be avoided by all mine and reclamation activities, as per
Mitigation Measures s BIO -1, -2, and -5. (Ibid.) The un -restored portion of Fish Creek will be
preserved in its current state until the time when the Applicant implements a phased restoration
of the remainder of the creek that runs through the Canyon Bottom. (Ibid.) Following the
completion of mining and reclamation activities, the Canyon Bottom area will be returned to
native habitats and would enhance the wildlife movement corridor. (Ibid.) Less than significant
impacts are expected with the implementation of this mitigation.
4. Impact: With mitigation, the Proposed Project will not conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (DEIR, p. 4.3-40 — 41.) Implementation
of Mitigation Measure BIO -6 would reduce potentially significant impacts to oak tree species to
a less than significant level. (DEIR, p. 4.3-41.)
The Project Site supports scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia, Quercus dumosa) and coast
live oak (Quercus agrifolia) in the lower parts of the steep West Side canyon areas in particularly
along and adjacent to Drainages 1, 2, and 3. (EIR 4.3-40.) The inaccessibility of many of the
steep drainage areas made it difficult to determine the size and exact number of oak tree species
that will be affected by the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) Prior to disturbance of areas with oak
trees, Mitigation Measure BIO -6 is required to survey for affected oak trees and to implement
required compensation. (Ibid.)
The chaparral community on the Project Site includes scrub oaks. Coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia) are far less common due to the steep, dry nature of the slopes on the Project
Site. (Ibid.) Typically, coast live oaks are associated with more gently sloping topography, in
areas along drainages, or at the base of the steeper slopes. (Ibid.) The jurisdictional delineation
survey, which was conducted in the steep drainages, did not identify any coast live oak in or
immediately adjacent to the drainages. (Ibid.) Most of the Project -Site is inaccessible due to the
steep topography and the dense chaparral. (Ibid.) Therefore, the entire Project Site could not be
walked to determine if coast live oak were present. (Ibid.) Aerial photographs were used and it
appears that there may be a few scattered oak trees in the areas to be impacted. (Ibid.) As
mining progresses in phases on the West Side, access to the inaccessible areas will be opened up
and Mitigation Measure BIO -6 is required. (Ibid,)
46
Finding: The implementation of the following Mitigation Measure will bring the
Proposed Project in compliance with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
BIO -6 Prior to mining activities on undisturbed portions of habitat located on the West
Side of the Project Site, these areas will be surveyed and oak tree species will be
recorded and quantified to determine if said trees meet the criteria of a protected
oak tree. If oak trees are found on-site that have a diameter breast height of 8
inches or more, the Applicant shall either under the supervision of the City
relocate the oak trees or plant new trees (with a 15 -gallon minimum box size)
along reclaimed drainages at a 3:1 ratio for each tree removed. (EIR 4.3-41.)
Supporting Explanation: Having a biologist survey the West Side of the Project
Site for oak tree species prior to construction will allow the Applicant to relocate those larger
trees or plant new trees along the reclaimed drainages at a high 3:1 ratio will sufficiently
preserve the species. (Ibid) The number of oak trees at the Project Site will be equal to or
greater than the number without the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) Therefore, impacts will be less
than significant. (Ibid.)
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Impact: With mitigation, the Proposed Project will not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of historical resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15604.5. (EIR 4.4-5 — 7.) Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
A cultural resource records search was conducted in January 2009 using the California
Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) at the Southern Central Coastal Information
Center located at California State University, Fullerton. (EIR 4.4-5.) The purpose of the records
search was to determine the extent of previous documentation of archaeological sites and historic
resources in the vicinity of the project area. (Ibid.) Materials reviewed included reports of
previous cultural resources investigations, archaeological site records, historic maps, and listings
of resources on the National Register of Historic Places (NRI -IP), California Register of
Historical Resources (CRHR), California Points of Historical Interest, California Landmarks,
and National Historic Landmarks. (EIR 4.4-6.)
The record search indicated that between 1988 and 2002 seven previous cultural resource
investigations were conducted within a one -mile radius of the Project Site. None of these
investigations included or overlapped the Project Site. (Ibid.) The records search revealed one
prehistoric resource (CA -LAN -241 located approximately 1,485 feet southwest of the Project
Site is a small scatter of artifacts consisting of two manes, two scrapers, and one core tool), and
one historic resource (P-19- 186917, the Rincon-Red Box-Sawpit Roads Complex). This
resource extends for 40 miles in a general east -west direction, and a portion of this road complex
can be found 990 feet southwest of the project area. (Ibid.)
A field reconnaissance of the Project Site was completed on February 2, 2009 by ECORP
Cultural Resources Field Director Jennifer M. Howard, and Field Archaeologist Cary D.
Cotterman. (DEIR, p. 4.4-7.) During the pedestrian survey, no prehistoric or historic -period
archaeological materials or features were identified. (Ibid.) No historic -age buildings or
structures exist within or near the project area. (Ibid.) Although no resources were discovered
on the Project Site and the archaeological sensitivity of the project area is considered to be low,
in the event. that any archaeological materials are encountered Mitigation Measures CR -1 and
CR -2 shall be implemented. (Ibid.)
47
Finding: The following Mitigation Measures will mitigate potential adverse
impacts from a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources to less than
significant levels.
CR -1 Azusa Rock personnel working on the Project Site shall receive training from a
qualified archaeologist to identify cultural resources and to monitor during
excavation operations. Trained personnel shall have the authority to stop work if
a potential cultural resource is encountered. In the event that buried cultural
resources, including historic or archeological resources, are discovered during
construction, operations shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find and a
qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource
requires further study. The qualified archeologist shall make recommendations to
the Lead Agency on measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered
resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds in accordance with
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City shall ensure that
recommended measures are implemented by VMC.
Measures may include but are not limited to: a detailed mapping of the findings;
a recordation of the discovery with appropriate agencies; potential tests (if
needed) to evaluate the resources' eligibilityfor listing in the National Register or
California Register of Historic Resources; and recovery and curation. A
technical report would then be prepared to document field methods and results.
(DEIR, p. 4.4-7.)
CR -2 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.13(b)(3), the State Historic Preservation Officer
and Native American tribe contacts as listed on the letter (dated September 28,
2007) received from Native American Heritage Commission, as well as the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be notified within 48 hours of the
discovery of any archaeological artifacts. Native American groups will be given
the option of accepting recovered artifacts. (DEIR, p. 4.4-7.)
Supporting Explanation: The presence of a qualified archeologist on site as
needed to evaluate and protect discovered historical resources will mitigation impacts by
avoiding the previously -undiscovered and unknown subjects. (DEIR, p. 4.4-7.) Notification of
appropriate Native American entities further protects any archaeological resources by assuring
detection, understanding, and appropriate treatment. (Ibid.)
2. Impact: With mitigation, the Proposed Project is not expected to cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15604.5. (DEIR, p. 4.4-7 — 9.)
A cultural resource records search was conducted in January 2009 using the California
Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) at the Southern Central Coastal Information
Center located at California State University, Fullerton. (DEIR, p. 4.4-8.) The purpose of the
records search was to determine the extent of previous documentation of archaeological sites and
historic resources in the vicinity of the project area. Materials reviewed included reports of
previous cultural resources investigations, archaeological site records, historic maps, and listings
of resources on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), California Register of
EN
Historical Resources (CRHR), California Points of Historical Interest, California Landmarks,
and National Historic Landmarks. (Ibid)
The record search indicated that between 1988 and 2002 seven previous cultural resource
investigations were conducted within a one -mile radius of the Project Site. (Ibid.) None of
these investigations included or overlapped the Project Site. (Ibid.) The records search did not
reveal any archaeological resources within the vicinity of the project site. (Ibid.) Also, tribal
consultation has been attempted, but no responses from the tribal contacts have been received.
(Ibid) Lastly, a field reconnaissance of the Project Site was completed on February 2, 2009.
(Ibid.) During the pedestrian survey, no prehistoric or historic -period archaeological materials or
features were identified. (Ibid.) No historic -age buildings or structures exist within or near the
project area. (Ibid.)
Although no resources were discovered on the project site and the archaeological
sensitivity of the project area is considered to be low, in the event that any archaeological
materials are encountered implementation of mitigation measures CR -1 and CR -2 would ensure
potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant impact. (Ibid.)
Finding: The following Mitigation Measures will mitigate potential adverse
impacts from a substantial adverse change in the significance of archeological resources to less
than significant levels.
CR -1 See supra.
CR -2 See supra.
Supporting Explanation: The presence of a qualified archeologist on site as
needed to evaluate and protect discovered archeological resources will mitigation impacts by
avoiding the previously -undiscovered and unknown subjects. (DEIR, p. 4.4-7.) notification of
appropriate Native American entities further protects any archaeological resources by assuring
detection, understanding, and appropriate treatment. (Ibid.)
3. Impact: With mitigation, the Proposed Project would not directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. (DEIR,
p. 4.4-9 — 10.)
Finding: The following Mitigation Measure will mitigate potential adverse .
impacts to a unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geological feature to a level of
less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-9 —10.)
CR -3 Mine personnel shall receive pre project paleontological recognition training
from a qualified paleontologist. Any possible fossils encountered in the
unconsolidated gravels shall be marked with a 50 foot exclusion radius until the
qualified paleontologist can respond to the unanticipated discovery. The
paleontologist shall then map and record the discovery, test, (if needed) and
evaluate the resource in accordance with applicable State regulations. A
technical report shall be prepared to document methods and results. If the
paleontologist determines that the resource is unique, recovery and curation of
the resource shall be required. (EIR 4.4-10.)
49
Supporting Explanation: The presence of a qualified paleontologist on site as
needed to evaluate and protect discovered paleontological resources will mitigate impacts by
ensuring that work activities are halted such that unique resources are not destroyed before in-
depth evaluation of a find is conducted. If the resources are determined to be unique, recovery
and curation of the resource will be required, thereby preventing its destruction. On this basis,
impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
4. Impact. The Proposed Project would not disturb human remains, including those
interred outside formal cemeteries. (DEIR, p. 4.4-10 — 11.) However, Mitigation Measure CR -4
will reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. (Ibid.)
A Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Proposed Project's approximate 80 -acre
disturbance area was conducted by Cogstone in September 2009 (Volume II, Technical
Appendices, Appendix C.4.2). (DEIR, p. 4.4-9.) The purpose of the Assessment was to
determine the potential project impact on any paleontological resources within the Project Site.
Paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique,
unusual, rare, uncommon or diagnostically important. (Ibid.) The Project Site is located in the
San Gabriel range of which metamorphic and plutonic rocks form the core, including diorites
and dikes. (Ibid.) These rock units make up approximately 1/4 of the Project Site. (Ibid.) None
are fossiliferous due to high heat and rock deformation. Overlaying these basement rocks in
some areas are quaternary,older gravel sediments deposited by San Gabriel River and its
tributaries. (Ibid.) These sediments represent '/4 of the Project Site. (Ibid.) A paleontological
records search was requested from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County,
Department of Vertebrate Paleontology. (Ibid) This was supplemented by online database
searches with the Los Angeles County Museum Department of Invertebrate Paleontology, the
University of California Museum of Paleontology, and the literature. (Ibid.) No sources
revealed known fossils within one mile of the Project Site. (Ibid.) The National History
Museum noted that there is a possibility of fossils in quaternary sediments. (Ibid.)
In September 2009, a field visit of the Project Site was conducted. (Ibid.) The Project
Site was observed to be entirely covered with shrubs and grasses except for a single dirt road.
(Ibid.) The road had not been maintained in recent years and was not accessible to vehicular
traffic. (Ibid) The Quaternary Older Gravel sediments were visible along the road and were
unconsolidated (loose). (Ibid.) The basement rocks of the Project Site (gneiss, quartz diorite and
basalt dikes) had minimal vegetation except along the hill tops. (Ibid.)
Knowledge of the geological formations and records of previous fossils recovered from
them are the basis for determining the paleontological sensitivity of a project site. (Ibid.) The
Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system utilizes five categories recommended by the
U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. (Ibid.) The results of the assessment
of paleontological sensitivity for the Project Site indicate that much of the site has low
sensitivity. (Ibid.)
Most rock units located in the Project Site, including the existing mining area on the East
Side have no potential to produce fossils due to high heat and deformation during deposition.
(DEIR, p. 4.4-10.) One rock unit, the Quaternary Older Gravel, has a low potential to yield
fossils. (Ibid.) One fossil, mammoth (Jefferson 1991), is known from San Dimas (10 miles east
of Project Site) in this type of sediment. (Ibid.)
50
Therefore, in order to account for any potential paleontological resources uncovered
during mining activities, Mitigation CR -3 shall be implemented.
Findin : The following Mitigation Measure will reduce impacts to human
remains to less than significant levels. (DEIR, p. 4.4-10 — 11.)
CR -4 If human remains of any kind are found during mining activities, all activities
must cease immediately and the Los Angeles County Coroner and a qualified
archaeologist must be notified. The Coroner will examine the remains and
determine the next appropriate action based on his or her findings. If the Coroner
determines the remains to be of Native American origin, he or she will notify the
Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage
Commission will then identify the most likely descendants to be consulted
regarding treatment and/or reburial of the remains. If a most likely descendant
cannot be identified, or the most likely descendant fails to make a
recommendation regarding the treatment of the remains within 48 hours after
gaining access to them, VMC shall rebury the Native American human remains
and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location
not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
Supporting Explanation: There is always the potential for ground -disturbing
activities to uncover previously unknown buried human remains. (DEIR, p. 4.4-10.) Should this
occur, federal laws and standards apply including the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act and its regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CRF 10.
(Ibid.) In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, California
State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until
the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to
CEQA regulations and Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. (Ibid.) Furthermore, during
mining activities, Mitigation Measure CR -4 will be implemented. (Ibid.) This will ensure that
impacts are reduced to less than significant.
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Impact: The Proposed Project could expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a
known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction, and landslides. (EIR 4.5-11 — 17.) With mitigation, however, these impacts would
be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Earthquake Fault Rupture
No Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones traverse the Project Site. (EIR 4.5-11.) There
are no known exposed earthquake faults at the Project Site and therefore no evidence of potential
direct impact on the Project Site by surface rupture. (Ibid.) The risk of surface rupture will not
be increased by mining or reclamation operations at the Project Site. Therefore, the potential
impact from fault rupture is less than significant. (Ibid.)
A number of faults could affect the Project Site indirectly by subjecting the Project Site
to strong ground motion which could cause landsliding or liquefaction. (Ibid.) These potential
impacts are discussed separately, below. (Ibid.)
51
Strong Seismic Shaking
The strength of ground motion is strongly influenced by the magnitude of the event and
the distance between the fault and the Project Site. (Ibid.) The nearest fault is the Sierra Madre
fault, which is capable of generating some of the largest earthquakes (MW>7.0) in the region.
(Ibid.) Thus, the Sierra Madre fault is the controlling earthquake' source. Another fault in the
region that could cause larger earthquakes is the Mojave section of the San Andreas fault, which
was the location of an magnitude 7.9 event in 1857. (Ibid.) However, the San Andreas fault is
approximately 31 kilometers (19 miles) from the Project Site, so strong ground motion will
attenuate to levels less than those likely to be generated by the Sierra Madre fault. (Ibid.)
The Sierra Madre fault is the greatest potential seismic hazard at the Project Site and will
control the seismic design. (EIR 4.5-12.) In accordance with the 2007 CBC, the peak horizontal
ground acceleration (PHGA) at the Project Site for the design earthquake is 0.71g. (Ibid)
Implementation of these design parameters by the City in approving any new structures at the
Project Site will result in impacts that are less than significant. (Ibid.) The hazard of ground
shaking to the reclaimed slopes, and its mitigation, is addressed quantitatively and qualitatively
in the following sections. (Ibid.)
Landsliding and Slope Stability
The stability of the proposed final mine slopes is addressed separately for the East Side
and West Side of the quarry based on the differences in the overall character of the materials in
the east and west sides. (Ibid.) Kinematic analysis, a three-dimensional approach that accounts
for the orientations of known discontinuities (fractures, joints, faults) and their orientations with
respect to the finished slope faces was utilized on both sides of the quarry. (Ibid.) This approach
does not yield a conventional factor of safety. Rather, it indicates the presence or absence of
potentially unsupported failure planes that could cause landsliding and/or raveling of slopes.
(Ibid.) For the East Side of the Proposed Project, a conventional limit equilibrium analysis was
also applied, due to the high degree of fracturing and weathering of the rock on the East Side.
(Ibid.) The limit equilibrium analysis utilized is a static and seismic analysis of two-dimensional
conditions that yields conventional factors of safety, in this case, for circular failure planes.
(Ibid.) For the West Side, a relatively new (2009) finite element limit equilibrium analysis was
also applied. (Ibid.) This method does yield conventional factors of safety. (Ibid.)
The rock mass and discontinuity characteristics of the Project Site were analyzed relative
to the stability of the final slopes proposed for the reclamation plan. (DEIR, p. 4.5-16.) With
regard to CEQA significance criteria and stipulations of SMARA and associated regulations, the
currently available data indicate that the slope stability for the proposed reclamation plan slopes
is suitable to the proposed open space end use of the Project Site. (Ibid.) All slopes in this area of
the San Gabriel Mountains, including both natural slopes and mined/reclaimed slopes, may
experience slips and rock falls under earthquake shaking from a large (magnitude 7) nearby
earthquake. (Ibid.) The minimum static FOS for the eastern quarry was found to be 1.43 to 1.6.
(Ibid.) However, the material used in the buttress fill must be sufficiently large and angular to
provide high cohesion and shear strength values. (Ibid.) The material should be lab tested prior to
use; values too low may necessitate further shallowing of the buttress fill slope. (Ibid.) For the
West Side quarry area and the southern portion of the East Side quarry area, the majority of
planar geologic discontinuities were found to have physical characteristics (joint roughness, short
52
continuity, no aperture, etc.) favorable for stable slopes and were favorably oriented (i.e. random
and steeply dipping) with very few out -of -slope (daylighted) orientations. (Ibid.) Stereonet
analysis indicates the proposed final slopes would be stable (minimum factor of safety of 1.4)
under normal static conditions once the slope angles have been reduced and the slopes
revegetated. (Ibid.) Application of recent finite element techniques to the West Side mine slope
yields a lower bound FOS greatly exceeding the target FOS of 1.5 and clearly indicates that the
mined slopes are much more stable than the natural slopes because the highly weathered rock
and overburden material have been removed by mining. (Ibid.) The stability of the final
reclaimed slopes under the Proposed Project is expected to be as good or better than the
surrounding natural slopes. (Ibid.) Mitigation measures are provided below to further reduce any
potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significant. (Ibid.)
Finding: While nothing can be done to reduce earthquake potential at the Project
Site, any measures that increase the static stability of the final slopes will also decrease the
likelihood of seismically induced landslides. (Ibid.) The following Mitigation Measures and
Project Design Features will assure stability in the final reclaimed slopes, resulting in a less than
significant impact.
GS -1 Fill material selection and testing. The buttress fill constructed at the toe of the
eastern slope to improve its stability shall be constructed of material with a shear
strength of equal or better than friction angle of 45 o and cohesion of 500 psf. To
ensure that these criteria are met, the fill material shall be laboratory tested prior
to use. Due to the coarse gradation of the on-site fill available, specialized
laboratory shear testing may be required. If laboratory test results indicate that
the cohesion of the fill is insufficient, sufficiently strong material could potentially
be obtained through the addition of geosynthetic fibers (Geofibers) or application
of a geogrid; materials shall be approved by the City of Azusa. (DEIR, p. 4.5-17.)
GS -2 Geologic mapping of actual cut slopes. The existing natural and cut slopes are on
the order of 1/4 -mile from the planned final cut slopes. Considering the highly
fractured, discontinuous nature of the rocks, it is possible that the planar
discontinuity orientations within the final cut will be significantly different than
the present exposures. The orientation of the cut slopes can be a major factor
since slopes oriented such that discontinuities are daylighted (i.e. unsupported)
will be more susceptible to slides than slopes with discontinuities dipping into
slope or neutral to the slope face. The Applicant shall provide additional studies
to determine the orientation and characteristics of the rock- mass discontinuities
and of the cut slopes, to provide further mitigation of slope failure. By mapping
and monitoring cut -slope discontinuities, slope cuts can be oriented to minimize
adverse relationships thereby reducing the slide potential. In certain areas,
adjusting the design of future phase bench widths and sequencing would mitigate
the hazards.(DEIR, p. 4.5-17.)
PDF -2 See supra.
PDF -3 See supra.
PDF -4 Final reclaimed slopes are to be contoured horizontally and vertically to mimic
53
the pre -mining contours, incorporating vertical articulation thereby eliminating
negative aesthetic elements.
Supporting Explanation: A stable buttress fill on the eastern slope and additional
studies to determine the orientation and characteristic of the discontinuities in mass and cut
slopes will reduce potential impacts. (DEIR, p. 4.5-17.) The buttress will serve to support the
eastern slope thereby making it more resistant to earthquakes and landslides. (Ibid.) Likewise, a
greater understanding of the cut slope discontinuities will result in slope cut orientations that
minimize slide potential. (Ibid.) Having this knowledge before making the cuts will reduce
potential impacts to less than significant levels. (Ibid.)
F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Impact: The Proposed Project could substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. (EIR 4.7-17.) With
mitigation, this impact is reduced to less than significant levels. (Ibid.)
Finding: The following Mitigation Measure and Project Design Features will
reduce impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site to less than significant levels.
HWQ-1 The Applicant shall be required to expand on-site storm water detention
capacity to a minimum of 12 acre-feet for the duration of the mining and
reclamation periods. (EIR 4.7-19.)
PDF -1 See supra.
PDF -2 See supra.
Supporting Explanation: The on-site drainage system that will exist throughout
the period of active mining and reclamation consists of a series of berms that direct storm water
into an on-site detention basin. (DEIR, p. 4.7-17.) From the basin, storm water is allowed to
percolate into the groundwater table or evaporate. (Ibid.) The basin also allows sediments in the
storm water to settle out, and the NPDES permit covering the site allows this storm water to be
discharged if the water quality is equal to or better than that in Fish Creek. Though the Project
Site does not typically discharge stormwater, the permit allows draining the basin during wet
periods to provide capacity for new storm water after sediments have settled out. (DEIR, p. 4.7-
18.)
To evaluate the ability of the on-site detention basin to contain site storm water during
mining and reclamation operations, consultant ENV America calculated the direct runoff from
the Project Site according to the Rational Method. Approximately 160 acres of the Project Site
drain into the settling basin (approximately 110 acres from the West Side, 40 acres from the East
Side, and 10 acres from the valley floor). (Ibid.) The runoff volumes generated by the current site
configuration under a 20 -year, 1 -hour storm event (intensity of —1.3 to —1.45 inches/hour) was
shown to not be fully detained by the on-site basin and would overflow down Fish Canyon Road
(calculated volumes range from —10.5 to —14.5 acre feet compared to a basin volume of 9.8 acre
feet). (Ibid.) As problems with basin overflow have not been reported during the site history, it is
possible that the runoff coefficient used in the model was overestimated. (Ibid.) For example,
54
storm water percolation through the fill material along Fish Creek may be more significant than
assumed. (]bid.) '
However, ENV America recommends either expanding the current basin or beginning
excavation on a new area in order to provide a safety factor for containing a 20 -year, 1 -hour
storm event or larger. (Ibid) Currently, the site basin can contain runoff from approximately a
10-year/1-hour event (Ibid.). It should be noted that the total site drainage acreage, which is
unaffected by the proposed revision to the Conditional Use Permit and Reclamation Plan,
determines the volume of runoff. (Ibid.) Therefore, this site storm water retention capacity
should be expanded regardless of the status of approval of the revised plan. (Ibid.)
Should the basin overflow, there is potential for site storm water to flow down or across
Fish Canyon Road and reach the San Gabriel River. (Ibid.) Therefore, Project Site storm water
retention capacity should be enlarged from 9.8 acre feet to at least 12 acre feet, which is a
volume that could contain drainage from 160 acres during a 20 -year, 1 -hour storm event with a
runoff coefficient of approximately 0.65. (Ibid.) A storm water detention capacity of 14 to 16
acre feet would be more conservative and potentially contain runoff from storms larger than the
20 -year, 1 -hour storm event. (Ibid.)
After site reclamation is complete, the Project Site will be left as open space and all storm
drainage systems (berms and an on-site detention basin) will be removed; the condition of
exceeding drainage capacity will no longer apply. (DEIR, p. 4.7-19.) Site storm water will flow
directly into Fish Creek, which flows into the San Gabriel River. (Ibid.) As discussed above, the
net volume of storm runoff from the Project Site flowing into Fish Creek is slightly increased by
the Proposed Project (because the drainage acreage is larger), but the quality of this water is not
expected to differ significantly from that of surrounding natural drainages. (Ibid.) Flow volumes
and rates coming off of the East Side of the Project Site are very similar to those that would be
found under premining conditions, while flow rates exiting the West Side of the Project Site are
slower than those in the baseline natural condition. (Ibid.) The decreased flow rates will cavy
decreased loads of suspended sediments and other storm debris. (Ibid.)
The Project Site should expand the existing storm water detention capacity to at least 12
acre feet for the duration of mining and reclamation operations. (Ibid.) By expanding the on-site
storm water detention capacity, any additional runoff generated as a result of the Proposed
Project will be detained on-site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
2. Impact: The Proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. (DEIR, p. 4.7-
22.) With mitigation, impacts are less than significant. (Ibid.)
Findine: The following Mitigation Measure and Project Design Features will
reduce impacts to the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems to less than
significant levels.
HWQ-1
See supra
PDF -1
See supra
PDF -2
See supra
Wi
Supporting Explanation: By expanding the on-site storm water detention
capacity, any additional runoff generated as a result of the Proposed Project will be detained on-
site. (EIR 4.7-18.) Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.) See also discussion
of Hydrology Impact 1 in this Section of the Resolution, above.
3. Impact: The Proposed Project would not significantly alter that flow velocity or
volume of stormwater runoff in a manner that results in environmental harm. (EIR 4.7-22.) With
mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Finding: The following Mitigation Measure and Project Design Features will
reduce impacts associated with the velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to less than
significant levels.
HWQ-1 See supra.
PDF -1 See supra.
PDF -2 See supra.
Supporting Explanation: By expanding the on-site storm water detention
capacity, any additional runoff generated as a result of the Proposed Project will be detained on-
site. (EIR 4.7-18.) Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.) See also discussion
of Hydrology Impact I of this Section of the Resolution, above.
4. Impact: The Proposed Project could substantially degrade water quality. (DEIR,
p. 4.7-23.) With mitigation, the impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Finding: The following Mitigation Measure and Project Design Features will
reduce impacts to the quality of runoff leaving the site to less than significant levels.
HWQ-1 See supra.
PDF -1 See supra.
PDF -2 See supra.
Supporting Explanation: By expanding the on-site storm water detention
capacity, any additional runoff generated as a result of the Proposed Project will be detained on-
site. (EIR 4.7-18.) Therefore, impacts would be less than significant because of the water
quality improving qualities of such facilities, and of the site's SWPPP in general. (Ibid.) See
also discussion of Hydrology Impact 1 of this Section of the Resolution, above, and discussion of
impacts in Section 2, F. Hydrology and Water Quality, above.
G. NOISE AND VIBRATION
1. Impact: The Proposed Project would expose people or generate noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies. (EIR 4.9-9.) However, with mitigation, these impacts would be less
than significant. (Ibid.)
56
Finding: The following Mitigation Measures will reduce potentially significant
impacts associated with ambient noise to less than significant levels. (EIR 4.9-16.)
N-1 Mining activities shall only be permitted within Phases I -W and H—W along the
western and southern boundary of the Project Site during the defined construction
hours of 7 a.m. to 6p.m.
N-2 During all excavation, hauling, and processing of materials, the operator shall
equip equipment with properly operating and maintained mufflers, stationary
engine enclosures, or other noise suppression devices consistent with
manufacturers' standards.
N-3 Blasting shall only be conducted between the hours of 10 a. m. and 6 p.m. Monday
through Saturday with no blasting allowed on Sundays or holidays.
Supporting Explanation: As mining activities daylight in the far northwest corner
of the West Side during Phases I -W and II -W and prior to excavating behind the existing terrain,
noise attenuation from the intervening topography is lost towards the residential area
approximately one mile to the south-southwest in Duarte. (DEIR, p. 4.9-15.) Daytime noise
standards would be met in Duarte, however, baseline nighttime noise levels already exceed
nighttime standards. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project noise levels would not increase existing
nighttime noise levels or exceed the incremental change threshold of 5 dB. (Ibid.) In order to
avoid any substantial noise impact, mitigation measures are required. (]bid.) Implementation of
Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 would reduce potentially significant impacts during
nighttime hours to less than significant and reduce noise impacts to residences in Duarte to less
than significant through the use of mufflers and other noise suppression devices. (Ibid.)
Compliance with City of Azusa and City of Duarte noise regulations, defining certain
construction, blasting, and operating hours, and implementing noise control measures will help
assure that future noise impacts remain at less than significant levels. (Ibid.)
2. Impact: The Proposed Project could have a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity about levels existing without the project. However,
these impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels. (EIR 4.9-18.)
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 would reduce
impacts associated with the Proposed Project's ambient noise level increases to a level of less
than significant.
N-1 See supra.
N-2 See supra.
N-3 See supra.
Supporting Explanation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-
3 would reduce potentially significant impacts to ambient noise levels to less than significant and
reduce noise impacts to residences in Duarte to less than significant. (Ibid.) Compliance with
City of Azusa and City of Duarte noise regulations, defining certain construction, blasting, and
operating hours, and implementing noise control measures will help assure that future noise
57
impacts remain at less than significant levels by either eliminating the creation of noise at
nighttime and by requiring the use of noise control measures that will reduce noise levels coming
from equipment. (Ibid.) On this basis, impacts will be less than significant.
SECTION 4: RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT
FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures
outlined in the Draft EIR and in this Resolution, the following impacts from the Proposed Project
and related approvals cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:
A. AESTHETICS
1. Impact: The Proposed Project would have a significant impact on scenic vistas
from Viewpoint 5 — Various Duarte Residences. (DEIR, p. 4.1-32.)
Finding: Although the following Mitigation Measure and Project Design Features
have been incorporated into the Proposed Project, the City of Azusa finds that impacts on scenic
vistas from Viewpoint 5 — Various Duarte Residences (Impact AES 1-5) would remain
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. (Ibid.)
AES -1 In order to reduce potential impacts associated with the west quarry ridgeline, a
20 -foot operating berm shall be maintained in place during the west quarry's
Phase II -W mining as outlined in Draft EIR Figure 4.1-38. This will obscure
equipment from view and deflect equipment noise during operations. (DEIR, p.
4.1-37.)
PDF -3 Apply a micro -benching methodology to reduce height and width of the
stepbenches and include native vegetation as measures to eliminate negative
aesthetics elements associated with traditional benching method. (DEIR, p. 4.1-
13.)
PDF -4 Final reclaimed slopes are to be contoured horizontally and vertically to mimic
the pre -mining contour, incorporating vertical articulation thereby eliminating
negative aesthetic elements. (DEIR, p. 4.1-13.)
Supporting Explanation: Foreground views include homes and various residential
landscaping. (DEIR, p. 4.1-32; DEIR, Figure 4.1-23.) The background views include the
foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, and a view of the Project Site's westernmost 80 acres
(the intervening ridgelines preclude views of the rest of the site). (Ibid.) The view in the
existing condition has been rated at 15 points. (Ibid.)
The view shown in the proposed condition simulation has been rated at 14 points. (Ibid.)
It shows that a portion of the proposed westerly slopes would be visible and the contour of the
ridgeline would be altered. (Ibid.) Overall, the visual character of the micro -benching mimics
the natural form, line, color and texture of the surrounding native terrain, but one point has been
deducted from the cultural modification score to account for potential viewer. sensitivities to the
appearance of the micro -benches. (EIR 4.1-37.)
58
Interim simulations were prepared for this viewpoint to further identify visual impacts
associated with mine phasing. (Ibid.) Three EIR Figures in the EIR simulate the Proposed
Project in five-, ten and twenty-year intervals. (Ibid.; see EIR Figures 4.1-24, 4.1-25, and 4.1-
26) By Year 5, the ridgeline contour has been altered and an operation quarry wall is partially
visible. (Ibid.) This benched hillside lies in contrast to the surrounding vegetation. (Ibid.) The
cultural modification rating deducts 2 points, reducing the rating score to 13. (Ibid.) By Year
10, the exposed hillside has been recontoured and revegetated. (Ibid.) The short-term impacts to
views during the first ten years of operations and reclamation are considered significant. (Ibid.)
By Year 20, the reconfigured ridgeline and vegetation have been reestablished to reduce the
direct visual impacts to less than significant. (Ibid.) However, the removal of the ridgeline as
shown, permanently alters the ridgeline as viewed from the southwest and this is considered a
significant impact. (Ibid.)
Potential views of the site from Duarte will be impacted by 1 point as a result of the
Proposed Project. (Ibid.) Potential views of the site from Duarte residences to the southwest of
the site for the first ten years of the Proposed Project are considered significant until such time as
the mining and reclamation along the ridgeline are completed, and revegetation has had time to
adequately cover the disturbed areas. (Ibid.) Potential views of the site from Duarte residences
to the southwest of the site are also considered significant due to the permanent alteration of the
ridgeline. (Ibid.) While implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -1 would reduce the level of
impacts to Duarte residences, impacts would remain significant. (Ibid.)
SECTION 5: RESOLUTION REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
A. AESTHETICS
Scenic Vistas. From a regional perspective, cumulative impacts to scenic vistas are
controlled by each jurisdiction's general plan, development code, and zoning regulations.
(DEIR, p. 6-9.) All of the projects in the affected jurisdictions are primarily proposed to be
developed adjacent to existing development and within urbanized areas, and are consistent with
each jurisdiction's general. (Ibid.) Therefore, overall cumulative impacts are less than
significant. (Ibid.)
The Proposed Project is designed to ultimately reduce aesthetic impact of the existing
mining project through re -contouring previously -mined areas to a more natural appearance.
(Ibid.) The Proposed Project actually increases visual rating scores for all receptors except for
views from Duarte residences. (Ibid.) However, this increase is not considered to be
cumulatively significant as the sensitive receptors identified are limited to a small number of
view sheds from the City of Duarte, with no increased impacts to the cities of Azusa, Bradbury,
Glendora, and Irwindale, (DEIR, p. 6-10.) Therefore, the Proposed Project's cumulative
impacts on scenic vistas is less than significant. (Ibid.)
Scenic Resources. Regionally, substantial damage to scenic resources including trees,
rock outcroppings, and historical buildings within view of a state highway resulting from the
identified cumulative projects is not anticipated. (Ibid.) Although eight of the future projects are
along State Highway 39, none are within open space areas or are anticipated to hinder views of
scenic resources from the highway. (Ibid.) The projects are planned for more urbanized areas of
59
San Gabriel Valley. (Ibid.) The number of projects that might obstruct views is low and based
on their locations and their nature any obstruction would be minimal and their effect is not
considered cumulatively significant. (Ibid.)
From a project prospective, substantial damage to scenic resources is not anticipated as
the Proposed Project is designed to ultimately reduce aesthetic impacts through re -contouring
existing views of previously mined areas to a more natural appearance. (Ibid.) Thus the
project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable, and its cumulative impact is
less than significant. (Ibid.)
Visual Character. Regionally, the cumulative projects and environs are generally
considered urbanized, and are not considered to have a cumulatively significant impact. (]bid.)
All proposed projects are located in already developed areas and project conditions on these sites
would simply reject continued urban uses. Overall cumulative impacts would be less than
significant. (Ibid.)
There are no similar projects being proposed within the region and development
identified as adjacent to the Angeles National Forest that would cumulatively affect the existing
character of the San Gabriel Mountains. (Ibid.) Also, the Project is designed to replicate the
natural contours and vegetation existing within the site and the adjacent hillsides. (Ibid.)
Therefore, the Proposed Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable ,
and its cumulative impact is less than significant. (Ibid.)
Light and Glare. The cumulative proposed projects would contribute to increased light
and glare on a local and regional basis from the increased quality of exterior lights and windows.
(DEIR, p. 6-11.) However, the projects are all located in urbanized areas and within cities that do
not have Night Sky Ordinances to limit light and glare impacts on stargazing. (Ibid.) Also,
accepted building practices call for individual projects to direct lighting downwards and to shield
offsite uses from excessive glare. (Ibid.) Therefore, the overall cumulative impact would be less
than significant. (Ibid.)
The Proposed Project incorporates measures to reduce overspill of light and glare(such as
directing light sources downward and into the Project Site.) (Ibid.) This increase would not be
cumulatively significant as no other sources of nighttime light are planned or proposed adjacent
to the Angeles National Forest. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is
considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Prime Farmland. Regionally, the loss of agricultural land uses represents a
cumulatively significant impact. (Ibid.) On a project level, there are no prime farmlands and the
Proposed Project would not remove any farmland from active production or otherwise adversely
affect or contribute to cumulative impacts on farmlands. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project's
contribution to the significant overall cumulative impact is less than cumulatively considerable,
resulting in a less than significant cumulative impact. (Ibid.)
Existing Zoning and Williamson Act. The County of Los Angeles does not participate
in the Williamson Act and therefore no regional or project related impacts to Williamson Act
contract lands would result. (DEIR, p. 6-12.) Additionally, all listed cumulative projects would
60
be required to comply with respective City zoning ordinances.. (Ibid.) The overall cumulative
impact would be less than significant. (Ibid.) Since the Proposed Project would be consistent
with existing zoning, its contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.) The
Project's cumulative impact is less than significant. (Ibid.)
Conversion of Farmland to Non -Agricultural Use. Loss of agricultural land in Los
Angeles County has been occurring due to urbanization and farmland conversions due to
cumulative growth is cumulatively significant. (DEIR, p. 6-13.) The Proposed Project would
not be located on existing farmland, or on land within the immediate vicinity of agricultural
operations. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project would not remove any farmland from production.
(Ibid.) As a result, no impacts to farmland would occur and the Proposed Project would not
contribute to cumulative impacts from the loss of farmlands. (Ibid.)
C. AIR QUALITY
Conflict with Air Quality Plan. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD) most recent Air Quality Management Plan includes growth assumptions and
incorporates existing and proposed projects that are contained within each jurisdiction's general
plan at buildout. (Ibid.) Therefore the cumulative projects would not conflict or obstruct
implementation of the AQMP, since such growth is already assumed in the Plan, which will
result in attainment of federal and state Ambient Air Quality Standards. (Ibid.) Thus, the overall
cumulative impact is less than significant. (Ibid.)
Air Quality Standards. The Proposed Project will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
(Ibid.) The Proposed Project also includes a reduction in the currently approved annual
production rate further reducing emissions contained within the existing AQMP growth
projections. (Ibid.) The Project would also be in compliance will all applicable SCAQMD
permitting and operating requirements. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is less than significant. (Ibid.)
Criteria Pollutant Increase in Non -Attainment Area. Compliance with the regional
mass emissions thresholds results in the Project being deemed to have a less than cumulatively
considerable contribution to air quality cumulative impacts, as per guidance from SCAQMD.
(DEIR, p. 6-14.) Thus, the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is less than significant. (Ibid.)
Sensitive Receptors. Because sensitive receptors are exposed to substantial
concentrations locally, not regionally, a cumulative impact is unlikely. (Ibid.) Therefore, the
cumulative effect of other projects on a regional basis are not considered to be a significant
cumulative effect. (Ibid.)
Objectionable Odors. None of the cumulative projects identified in the EIR are known
to be of a nature that would create significant amounts of objectionable odors and therefore
would not result in a significant cumulative impact in terms of objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. (Ibid.) On a project level, the nearest residence is about 0.3 miles
away. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project is not proposing to manufacture asphalt or anything else that
may generate objectionable odors. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project does not include burning of any
hazardous, medical or municipal waste. (Ibid.) Continued mining of the site would not generate
objectionable odors and the Proposed Project's contribution is less than cumulatively
considerable, and therefore the cumulative impact is less than significant. (Ibid.)
61
Global Climate Change/Greenhouse Gases. Most of California's greenhouse gases are
emitted by transportation sources and electric generation. (Ibid.) Automobiles, trucks, airplanes
and other transportation sources generate the greatest amount of GHGs in the State. The electric
generation sector is the second largest GHG contributor within the State, followed by industrial
and agricultural/forestry sectors. Because global warming is acknowledged to be an ongoing
problem, the overall impact of GHGs is considered to be cumulatively significant. (Ibid.)
As discussed in Draft EIR section 4.13, increases in GHG emissions from the Proposed
Project would be below SCAQMD's 10,000 MTCO2e/yr. threshold of significance. Therefore,
the Proposed Project's contribution to this impact is considered to be less than cumulatively
considerable. The Project's cumulative impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-15;
4.13-8.)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Habitat Modifications. Since the regional proposed projects are located in urban areas,
this cumulative impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-14.)
As discussed in the EIR, only one sensitive plant species, the San Gabriel River dudleya
(CNPS list 1B species) was observed during the focused plant survey and mitigation measures
are proposed. None of the other listed or sensitive plants that were identified. (Ibid.) The Santa
Ana speckled dace, Coast range newt, Two -striped garter snake, southwestern willow flycatcher,
Copper's hawk, osprey, and suitable habitat for least Bell's vireo may also be impacted by the
projects implementation, however with the mitigation proposed, these impacts would be less than
significant on a project level. (Ibid.) The implementation of mitigation and the eventual
reclamation of the Project Site would also result in the Proposed Project making a less than
considerable contribution to cumulative impacts. Therefore, the Project's cumulative impact is
less than significant. (Ibid.)
Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities. Since each project is required
to determine if indirect impacts or cumulative impacts would result from the project, and to
mitigate until the impact is less than significant, it is concluded that the overall cumulative
impact would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
With regard to the Proposed Project's contribution to this cumulative impact, the mining
activities on the west side of the Project Site will impact approximately 2.34 acres of state
jurisdictional waters and approximately 0.34 acres of federal jurisdictional waters and associated
habitat. (EIR 6-16.) No wetlands were identified on the Project Site. Impacts to riparian habitat
would be potentially significant. (Ibid.) However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-2
would reduce potentially significant impacts to any riparian habitat identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS to a less than significant level.
Therefore, the Proposed Project's contribution would be less than considerable, and thus the
Project's cumulative impact would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Federally Protected Wetlands. Prior to commencement of any development projects in
the region, Applicants are typically required to analyze their project's potential impacts to
federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. (Ibid.) If
determined necessary, agreements will be required or mitigation lands will be necessary to offset
significant impacts to loss of habitat. (Ibid.) This would result in a less than significant overall
cumulative impact. (Ibid.)
62
On a project level, no wetlands were found within the Project Site and no impacts to
wetlands are anticipated. (Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project's contribution to this cumulative
impact would be less than considerable. The Project's cumulative impact is therefore determined
to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Interference with Migratory, Fish or Wildlife. Since each .project is required to
determine if indirect impacts or cumulative impacts would result from the project and to mitigate
until the impact is less than significant, and since the related projects and almost all other
cumulative growth would occur outside of the San Gabriel Mountains, it is concluded that the
overall cumulative impact would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
The Project Site has a large area of high disturbance, but the undisturbed coastal sage -
chaparral scrub areas are contiguous with open space to the northwest and northeast of the
Project Site. (Ibid.) The Fish Creek restoration area on the Project Site is considered a
significant corridor, connecting the Fish Creek channel on adjacent Forest Service land with the
San Gabriel River. (Ibid.) The Project Site also contains other ridgelines and drainages that may
provide connectivity to the San Gabriel River. (Ibid.) However, the undisturbed areas, being
adjacent to the disturbed former mine areas and other development; serve more as open space
and habitat for plant and wildlife communities and not as a wildlife corridor or linkage. (DEIR,
p. 6-17.) Finally Fish Creek Canyon within the property boundaries is a wildlife corridor for
both aquatic and terrestrial animal species. (Ibid.) As identified in the EIR, Fish Creek and the
restored area of Fish Creek will be avoided by all proposed mine and reclamation activities.
Thus, the Proposed Project's contribution will be less than cumulatively considerable, and the
Project's cumulative impact would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Local Policies Protecting Biological Resources. Regionally, the Los Angeles County
Oak Tree Ordinance has been established to recognize oak trees as significant historical,
aesthetic, and ecological resources. (Ibid.) Any development projects in the County region
requires developers to conduct surveys of on-site trees that meet the County's criteria for
protection. (Ibid.) If determined necessary, agreements will be required to relocate the oak trees
or plant new trees along reclaimed drainages as required. (Ibid.) The City of Bradbury's
Development Code 9.06.090 is for Tree Preservation and Protection; the City of Glendora's
Development Code includes an Indigenous Tree Program for oaks, sycamores, and California
bay trees; and the City of Duarte provides tree and vegetation protection in Title 13 of its
Development Code. (Ibid.) Neither the cities of Azusa or Irwindale have tree protection
ordinances. (Ibid.) Compliance with the County and local cities' ordinances for tree protection
will ensure that cumulative impacts in the region are less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, Mitigation Measure BIO -6 requires the Applicant to survey
undisturbed portions on the West Side of the Project Site prior to mining activities. (Ibid.) If
after inventory it is determined that on-site oak trees meet the criteria for protection (having a
breast height diameter of 8 inches or greater), the Applicant will be required to either relocate the
oak trees or plant new trees along reclaimed drainages at a 3:1 ratio for each tree removed.
(Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project's contribution would not be considerable, and the Proposed
Project's cumulative impact would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
HCP/NCCP Compliance. Regionally, the County of Los Angeles has designated sixty-
two sites as Significant Ecological Areas (SEAS) in the county. (Ibid.) These sites were selected
m
in an effort to identify areas that possess uncommon, unique, or rare biological resources and
areas that are prime examples of the more common habitats and communities within Los
Angeles County. (]bid.) Two of the SEAS are located near the Project Site vicinity and within
the area identified for cumulative impacts. (Ibid.) These are: 1) San Dimas Canyon/San Antonio
Wash, and 2) San Gabriel Canyon. Certain of the cumulative projects identified may result in
indirect impacts to the SEAS and therefore, cumulative impacts would be potentially significant.
(Ibid)
On a local level, the Proposed Project will result in the direct loss of approximately 80
acres of northern mixed quality chaparral. (Ibid.) However the Project Site does not fall within a
Los Angeles County -designated SEA. (]bid.) No other Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, Habitat Conservation Plan, or state habitat conservation plan has
been adopted for the project area. (DEIR, p. 6-18.) Additionally the Proposed Project will not
contribute to the significant demise of sensitive or endangered species habitat as the site is
located adjacent to the Angeles National Forest which covers 655,387 acres (1,024.0 sq mi),
much of which is covered with dense chaparral. (Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project's cumulative
contribution would be less than considerable, and the Project's cumulative impact therefore
would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historical Resources. Impacts to historical resources is largely a site-specific impact,
since historical resources are usually located entirely on one site. (Ibid.) Individual projects
would be subject to environmental review, and significant historical resources impacts would
trigger requirements to adopt mitigation measures or alternatives that avoid these impacts. (Ibid.)
Therefore, the overall cumulative impact would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the results of the cultural resource records search conducted in January
2009 using the California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) at the Southern
Central Coastal Information Center, found no historic -age buildings or structures exist within or
near the project area. (Ibid.) Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would have no
effect on any historical resources, and would not make any contribution to overall cumulative
impacts to historical resources (if any were to exist at all). (Ibid.)
Archeological Resources. Regionally, cumulative development would require grading
and. excavation that could potentially affect archaeological resources. (Ibid.) CEQA requirements
for protecting archaeological resources and the health and safety codes for each of the
jurisdictions require an assessment of the likelihood for archaeological resources prior to project
approval and construction activities. (Ibid.) Therefore, the overall cumulative impact is less than
significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the results of the cultural resource records search conducted in January
2009 using the California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) at the Southern
Central Coastal Information Center and field reconnaissance of the Project Site concluded that
no prehistoric or historic -period archaeological materials or features were identified. (Ibid.)
Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than cumulatively
considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to archaeological resources. (Ibid.)
Paleontological Resources. Regionally, cumulative development would require grading
and excavation that could potentially affect paleontological resources. (DEIR, p. 6-19.). CEQA
requirements for protecting archaeological and paleontological resources and the health and
safety codes for each of the jurisdictions require an assessment of the likelihood for
paleontological resources prior to project approval and construction activities. (Ibid.) Therefore,
the overall cumulative impact is less than significant.
A Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Proposed Project's disturbance area was
conducted and concluded that no sources of fossils have been found within one mile of the
Project Site. (Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project's would result in a less than cumulatively
considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to paleontological resources. (Ibid.)
Human Remains. Regionally, cumulative development would require grading and
excavation that could potentially affect subsurface resources, including human remains. (Ibid.)
CEQA requirements for protecting archaeological resources and the health and safety codes for
each of the jurisdictions require an assessment of the likelihood for subsurface resources,
including human remains, prior to project approval and construction activities. Therefore, the
overall cumulative impact is less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a local level, there is always the potential for ground -disturbing activities to uncover
previously unknown buried human remains. (Ibid.) Should this occur, federal laws and standards
apply including native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and its regulations
found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CRF 10. (Ibid.) In the event of an accidental
discovery or recognition of any human remains, California State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and Public
Resource Code Section 5097.98. (Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project would result in a less than
cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to human remains.(Ibid. )
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Earthquakes. Regionally, the cumulative projects could attract an increased number of
people to an area exposed to potential effects related to seismic hazards, including rupture.
(DEIR, p. 6-20.) However, potentially adverse environmental effects associated with rupture are
required to be addressed within the Uniform Building Code. (Ibid.) Adherence to the UBC will
reduce the potential cumulative impact to less than significant. (Ibid.) Therefore, overall
cumulative impacts associated with rupture are less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones traverse the Project Site.
(Ibid.) There are no known exposed earthquake faults at the Project Site and therefore no
evidence of potential direct impact on the Project Site by surface rupture. (Ibid.) The risk of
surface rupture will not be increased by mining or reclamation operations at the Project Site.
(Ibid.) Therefore, the Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution, and thus the potential cumulative impact of the Proposed Project from fault rupture
is less than significant. (Ibid.)
Seismic Ground Shaking. Regionally, the cumulative projects could attract an
increased number of people to an area exposed to potential effects related to strong seismic
shaking. (Ibid.) Potentially adverse environmental effects associated with seismic shaking are
65
required to be addressed within the Uniform Building Code. (Ibid.) Adherence to the UBC will
reduce the potential cumulative impact to less than significant. (Ibid.) Therefore, overall
cumulative impacts associated with seismic hazards are less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones traverse the Project Site.
(Ibid) There are no known exposed earthquake faults at the Project Site and therefore no
evidence of potential direct impact on the Project Site by seismic shaking. (Ibid.) The risk of
seismic shaking will not be increased by mining or reclamation operations at the Project Site.
(Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to
this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Liquefaction. Regionally, the cumulative projects could attract an increase number of
people to an area exposed to potential effects related to ground failure and liquefaction. (Ibid.)
However, potentially adverse environmental effects associated with ground failure and
liquefaction are required to be addressed within the Uniform Building Code. (Ibid.) Adherence to
the UBC will reduce the potential cumulative impact to less than significant. (Ibid.) Therefore,
overall cumulative impacts associated with ground failure and liquefaction are less than
significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones traverse the Project Site.
(Ibid.) There are no known exposed earthquake faults at the Project Site and therefore no
evidence of potential direct impact on the Project Site by seismic -related ground failure or
liquefaction. (Ibid.) The risk of surface rupture will not be increased by mining or reclamation
operations at the Project Site. (DEIR, p. 6-21.) Therefore, the Proposed Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact from seismic -related ground failure or liquefaction is therefore less than significant.
(Ibid.)
Landslides. Regionally, the cumulative projects could attract an increase in the -number
of people to an area exposed to potential effects related to landslides. However, the cumulative
projects will be developed primarily within the San Gabriel Valley away from the San Gabriel
mountains and therefore not subject to potential impacts from landslides. In addition, potentially
adverse environmental effects associated with landslides are required to be addressed within the
Uniform Building Code. Adherence to the UBC will reduce the potential cumulative impact to
less than significant. Therefore, overall cumulative impacts associated with landslides are less
than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level the potential for landsliding and seismically -induced landsliding is
previously addressed. (Ibid.) The geologic units on the Project Site are not susceptible to
consolidation, collapse, or subsidence due to groundwater withdraws. (Ibid.) Liquefaction and/or
lateral spreading may be a potential hazard within the unconsolidated alluvium of Fish Creek;
however this potential impact would not be hazardous to people or structures, as there are no
structures proposed within the Fish Creek area or anywhere on-site following reclamation. (Ibid)
Therefore, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact,
and the Project's cumulative impact is therefore determined to be,less than significant. (Ibid.)
Soil Erosion. Regionally, potential soil'erosion issues are the subject of multiple local,
State, and federal agencies. The SCAQMD regulates soil loss/erosion through Rule 403, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, through NPDES and SWPPP requirements, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the California Department of
Fish and Game Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alternation), the
LARWQCB through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Each of these agencies control and regulate
potential top soil and soil loss that can result from erosion. Compliance with these local, State,
and federal regulations will ensure that the cumulative projects will not result in substantial soil
erosion or loss of topsoil impacts. Therefore, overall cumulative impacts associated soil erosion
or loss of topsoil are less than significant. (]bid.)
On a project level the Project Site is primarily composed of rock with steep topography
and thin soil and is generally not considered susceptible to erosion. The Proposed Project is not
expected to result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. The Proposed Project includes
hydroseeding of the micro -benched hillsides with a mix of native species to further reduce the
potential for soil erosion. Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to this impact, and therefore the Proposed Project's cumulative impact on soil
erosion or loss of topsoil is less than significant. (Ibid)
Soil Instability as a Result of the Project. Regionally, the cumulative projects
identified on Table 6-1 could attract an increase in the number of people to an area exposed to
potential effects related to geologic units or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a
result of the project. (DEIR, p. 6-22.) However, potentially adverse environmental effects
associated with these conditions are required to be addressed within the Uniform Building Code.
Adherence to the UBC will reduce the potential cumulative impact to less than significant.
Therefore, overall cumulative impacts associated with, these conditions are less than significant.
(Ibid.)
On a project level the potential for landsliding and seismically -induced landsliding is
previously addressed. The geologic units on the Project Site are not susceptible to consolidation,
collapse, or subsidence due to groundwater withdraw. Liquefaction and/or lateral spreading may
be a potential hazard within the unconsolidated alluvium of Fish Creek; however this potential
hazardous to people or structures, as there are no structures proposed within the Fish Creek area
or anywhere on-site following reclamation. Therefore, the Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and thus the Project's cumulative impact
is determined to be less than significant. (]bid.)
Expansive Soil. Regionally, the cumulative projects identified on Table 6-1 could attract
an increase in the number of people to an area exposed to potential effects related to expansive
soils. However, potentially adverse environmental effects associated with expansive soils are
required to be addressed within the Uniform Building Code. Adherence to the UBC will reduce
the potential cumulative impact to less than significant. Therefore, overall cumulative impacts
associated with expansive soils are less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level the site is not located on expansive soils as defined by California
Building Code, and no inhabited structures are proposed or will "be left on the site when
reclamation is complete. The Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact from expansive soils is
therefore determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Soils Capable of Supporting Septic Tanks. Regionally, the cumulative projects
identified on Table 6-1 will be developed in an urbanized area capable of connecting to sewers
for the disposal of waste water. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems will be
less than cumulatively significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level the Project Site will be left as open space without any sewage or water
facilities at the completion of reclamation. (DEIR, p. 6-23.) A septic tanks system is currently
used on-site, no changes to the system are proposed. Thus, the Proposed Project would not make
a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Transport or Disposal. Regionally, cumulative development of the identified projects
are not likely to involve the use of large quantities or variety of hazardous products. As discussed
in FIR Section 4.6, hazardous materials are highly regulated and subject to control by several
regulatory agencies. Regionally, the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Hazardous
Materials Management Division (HMMD) is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for
the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Duarte, Glendora, and Irwindale, and responsible for regulating
hazardous materials business plans and chemical inventory, hazardous waste and tiered
permitting, underground storage tanks, and risk management plans. Any proposed project within
the regionally identified area would be required to comply with all applicable regulations relating
to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Thus the overall cumulative
impact from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less than significant.
(Ibid.)
On a project level the Proposed Project is required to comply with all applicable
regulations relating to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Thus, the
Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the
Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Release of Hazardous Materials. Regionally, the County of Los Angeles Fire
Department, Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD) is the Certified Unified
Program Agency (CUPA) for the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Duarte, Glendora, and Irwindale,
and responsible for regulating hazardous materials business plans and chemical inventory,
hazardous waste and tiered permitting, underground storage tanks, and risk management plans.
Any proposed project within the regionally identified area would be required to comply with all
applicable regulations relating to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Thus the overall cumulative impact from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials is less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level the Proposed Project is required to comply with all applicable
regulations relating to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Thus, the
Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the
Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Hazardous Emissions Near Schools. Regionally, the County of Los Angeles Fire
Department, Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD) is the Certified Unified
68
Program Agency (CUPA) for the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Duarte, Glendora, and Irwindale,
and responsible for regulating hazardous materials business plans and chemical inventory,
hazardous waste and tiered permitting, underground storage tanks, and risk management plans.
(DEIR, p. 6-24.) Any proposed project within the regionally identified area would be required to
comply with all applicable regulations relating to the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus
the overall cumulative impact from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
is less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, no schools exist within the project area. The nearest school to the site
is Valley View Elementary located at 237 Mel Canyon Rd, Duarte, approximately one -mile
southwest of the site. Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution
to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than.
significant. (Ibid.)
Hazardous Materials Site. In accordance with CEQA regulations, all projects must be
assessed for their possible location on a list of hazardous material sites. Compliance with these
regulations will ensure that the projects listed in Table 6-1 do not create a significant hazard to
the public or to the environment. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with hazardous
material sites will be less than cumulatively significant. On a project level, a search of available
environmental records was conducted. The Project Site was not listed in any of the databases for
hazardous sites searched. Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is
determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-24.)
Airport LUP. Regionally, none of the identified cumulative projects on Table 6-1 are
located within 2 miles of a public use airport, and thus will not create a cumulatively significant
impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts will be less than cumulatively significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level the Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Private Airstrip. Regionally, none of the identified cumulative projects on Table 6-1 are
located within 2 miles of a private airstrip and thus will not create a cumulatively significant
impact. (DEIR, p. 6-25.) Therefore, cumulative impacts will be less than significant.
On a project level, the Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport to the site is the El Monte
Airport located at 4233 Santa Anita Avenue approximately eight miles southwest of the site. The
Proposed Project would not result in an airport safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area. Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be
less than significant. (Ibid.)
Emergency Response Plan. Regionally, all project plans are reviewed in each
jurisdiction by their respective agencies responsible for emergency response and emergency
evacuation plans (Police and Fire). The cumulative projects identified could result in an increase
69
in traffic on roads and could interfere with the response times of emergency vehicles. As these
projects are approved various agencies are required to update their Emergency Preparedness
Plans to address these potential issues. Therefore, cumulative impacts will be less than
significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the Proposed Project is located in the northern portion of the City of
Azusa and is not identified as being within an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan. Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact,
and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid)
Exposure to Wildland Fires. Regionally, the State Board of Forestry and the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) have drafted a comprehensive update of the
fire plan for wildland fire protection in California. The planning process defines a level of
service measurement, considers assets at risk, incorporates the cooperative inter -dependent
relationships of wildland fire protection providers, provides for public stakeholder involvement,
and creates a fiscal framework for policy analysis. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department
is one of six Contract Counties that maintain a contractual relationship with CDF and utilizes the
California Fire Plan within Los Angeles County as the primary wildland fire protection plan.
Compliance with these regulations and agencies' plans will prevent cumulative projects from
becoming a cumulatively significant impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts will be less than
significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the Project Site is located in a region that the County of Los Angeles
Fire Department identifies as a "High Fire Area" and subject to regulations relating to fuel
modification plans for any structures over 120 square feet. As the Proposed Project does not
include any structures within 200 feet of the National Forest, there would be no impact. Thus, the
Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and
the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 6-
25 to 6-26.)
Safety Issues. Regionally and locally, potentially significant safety issues are addressed
through a myriad of local, County, State, and federal agencies. Each jurisdiction identified in the
cumulative project list utilize city building and safety departments, police/sheriff and fire
agencies, County fire agencies, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, standards to minimize safety
hazards. In addition, each jurisdiction's general plan contains a Safety Element specifically
charged with identifying and mitigating potential adverse safety issues. Compliance with each
jurisdiction's general plan and adherence to the rules and regulations promulgated by the various
agencies responsible for safety will ensure significant safety issues can be mitigated/avoided to a
less than significant level. Consequentially the overall cumulative impact from safety issues
would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-26.)
On a project level, the same rationale (i.e., compliance with applicable laws and
regulations) would apply to the contribution of the Proposed Project to the overall cumulative
impact. Access to the Fish Canyon Trail has been provided by VMC employee escort in the past
arid currently is provided on request. Upon implementation of the Proposed Project, escorts will
continue as requested and/or necessary. Hikers wishing to access the trail through the Project
Site are escorted via a van from the mine entrance/office site to the trailhead located at the
70
entrance to Fish Canyon. Azusa Rock Quarry personnel request that at least one hiker carry a
wireless telephone (cell -phone) and call the office upon returning to the trailhead. Alternatively
if none of the hikers possess a cell phone, Azusa Rock Quarry personnel provide a hand-held
radio that can be used to request an escort from the trailhead back to the parking area, thereby
avoiding potential adverse safety issues. Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Runoff. Regionally, all projects within the area and region are required to comply with
local, regional, state and federal surface water and drainage regulations and management plans
during construction and after completion including: NPDES, SWPPP, Hazardous Materials
Business Plan, Sections 404 Permits and 404 Certification, California Fish and Game Code 1600
Stream Alteration Agreements, Municipal Stormwater Management Plans, and Sewer System
Capacity Management and Permitting Regulations. (EIR 6-27.) These plans and regulatory
requirements are intended to accommodate demand and prepare for capacity of regionally
permitted projects prior to permitting and online demand. Cumulative impacts associated with
area projects are less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 6-26 to 6-27.)
On a project level, the quarry currently operates under a NPDES permit issued by the
LARWQCB and is compliant with applicable water quality standards and discharge
requirements. Though currently the site detains all storm water rather than discharging, the
NPDES permit allows for discharge if the quality of the water to be discharged is equal to or
better than the water quality of Fish Creek. Water runoff from the mined slopes prior to
reclamation will continue to be detained in on-site basins. Furthermore, continued compliance
with the NPDES permit issued by the LARWQCB will insure the mining and reclamation
operations will not create or contribute runoff water that would violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-27.)
Also, after reclamation is complete, the Project Site will be revegetated and left as open
space. Water runoff from the revegetated, open space Project Site will not differ appreciably
from existing runoff from the open space adjacent to the site, and thus will not degrade water
quality or violate water quality standards. Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Stormwater Discharge. Regionally, and on a project level, the State Board Resolution
88-63 and Regional Board Resolution No. 89-03 states that "All surface and ground waters of the
State are considered to be suitable, or potentially suitable, for municipal or domestic water
supply and should be so designated by the Regional Boards...". In adherence with these policies,
all inland surface and ground waters have been designated as MUN — presuming at least a
potential suitability for such a designation. Spreading basins located to the east and downstream
of the site are operated by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and primarily serve for
storm water detention during storm events. No beneficial uses of receding waters would be
impacted as the on-site detention basin is designed so that no stormwater would be discharged
71
from the Project Site. Therefore, cumulative impacts will be less than significant and the
Proposed Project's contribution to cumulative impacts is less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 6-28.)
Harm to Biological Integrity of Waterways. Regional impacts are discussed above and
are determined to be less than significant. On a project level, the quarry currently operates under
a NPDES permit issued by the LARWQCB and is compliant with applicable water quality
standards and discharge requirements. The control of pollutants associated with the quarry
activities that may affect the quality of storm water discharges and thereby beneficial uses of
surface or ground waters, is identified in the site's SWPPP prepared to meet the General Permit
requirements. (EIR 6-29.) The Azusa Rock Quarry SWPPP is dated February 15, 2005 and
contains site-specific BMPs that are implemented to minimize storm water impacts to water
quality. The BMPs are included in Exhibit D of the SWPPP. The SWPPP also requires regular
monitoring, inspections, and record keeping to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs and the need
for updating the SWPPP. Regular monitoring reports are also submitted in an annual report to the
LARWQCB in accordance with the General Permit. (DEIR, pp. 6-28 to 6-29.)
Furthermore, the site also operates under a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which
contains basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials
stored, used, or disposed of on-site. An SPCCP is in place to address potential spills of -certain
hazardous materials and includes spill response instructions. Upon development and approval of
a SWPPP and Hazardous Waste Business Plan for the proposed quarry operations and
reclamation, potential impacts to the biological integrity of waterways would be less than
significant. Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this
impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant.
(DEIR, p. 6-29.)
Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements. Regional
impacts are discussed above, cumulative impacts are less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 6-27, 6-
29.)
On a project level, after reclamation is complete, the Project Site will be revegetated and
left as open space. Water runoff from the revegetated, open space Project Site will not differ
appreciably from existing runoff from the open space adjacent to the site, and thus will not
degrade water quality or violate water quality standards. (DEIR, p. 6-27.) The quarry also
currently operates under a NPDES permit issued by the LARWQCB and is compliant with
applicable water quality standards and discharge requirements. The control of pollutants
associated with the quarry activities that may affect the quality of storm water discharges and
thereby beneficial uses of surface or ground waters, is identified in the site's SWPPP prepared to
meet the General Permit requirements. The Azusa Rock Quarry SWPPP is dated February 15,
2005 and contains site-specific BMPs that are implemented to minimize storm water impacts to
water quality. The BMPs are included in Exhibit D of the SWPPP. The SWPPP also requires
regular monitoring, inspections, and record keeping to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs and
the need for updating the SWPPP. Regular monitoring reports are also submitted in an annual
report to the LARWQCB in accordance with the General Permit. (DEIR, p. 6-29.)
Furthermore, the Project Site also operates under a Hazardous Materials Business Plan,
which contains basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous
materials stored, used, or disposed of on-site. An SPCCP is in place to address potential spills of
72
certain hazardous materials and includes spill response instructions. Upon development and
approval of a SWPPP and Hazardous Waste Business Plan for the Proposed Project, potential
impacts with regard to violating water quality or waste discharge standards would be less than
significant. (DEIR, pp. 6-29 to 6-30.) Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is
determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-30.)
Groundwater Supplies. The region is within the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater
Basin, which is an adjudicated basin stipulating the availability and use of groundwater for
domestic and industrial purposes. Imported water supply within this basin is provided by the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). All projects must comply with a
regional groundwater management plan utilizing existing water rights or purchasing water from
appropriate purveyors with available supply. Overdraft of resources is compensated by
interagency transfers and purchases conducted by the regional water purveyor. Although the cost
of mitigation is high, impacts associated with groundwater supplies are not considered
cumulatively significant since the Basin Watermaster acts to ensure that long-tern overdraft will
not occur, such as through the imposition of the payment of replenishment fees for
overproduction of groundwater. (]bid.; DEIR, p. 4.12-7.)
On a project level, the groundwater elevation at the site is estimated to be greater than
700 feet amsl. The aquifer material below the site is hard rock and groundwater is likely present
in the open fractures of the rock. A groundwater production water well (non-potable) is located
across the San Gabriel River channel at the former Owl Rock Mine facility and is utilized for
daily operations at the Project Site. No groundwater will be used after reclamation is completed;
therefore, neither the groundwater supply, nor volume, nor level will be depleted or lowered as a
result of the project. Furthermore, during implementation of the Proposed Project, water usage
from the Basin will be within the framework provided by the Basin's adjudication. Therefore,
production of groundwater would either be from the Basin Safe Yield or subject to the payment
of replenishment fees for maintenance of Basin's long-term aquifer levels and sustainability
(DEIR, p. 4.12-7.) Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be
less than significant.
Interfere with Existing Drainage. Alterations to rivers, streams and waterways are
subject to procedures to review and approve stream alterations through both state (California
Department of Fish and Game 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement) and federal (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers ACOE 404) permit processes. This includes impacts associated with on and
off-site erosion and siltation. The process is designed to prevent cumulative impacts to drainage
systems and prevent undue and unnecessary degradation to existing systems. Thus, the Proposed
Project's cumulative impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-30.)
On a project level, after site reclamation is complete, the Project Site will be left as open
space and all stone drainage systems (berms and an on-site detention basin) will be removed,
and the condition of existing detention capacity will no longer apply. Site storm water will flow
directly into Fish Creek, which flows into the San Gabriel River. As discussed in EIR Section
4.7, the net volume of stone runoff from the Project Site flowing into Fish Creek is slightly
increased by the Proposed Project (because the drainage acreage is larger), but the quality of this
water is not expected to differ significantly from .that of surrounding natural drainages. (EIR 6-
73
31.) Flow volumes and rates coming off of the eastern portion of the Project Site are very similar
to those that would be found under pre -mining conditions, while flow rates exiting the western
portion of the Project Site are slower than those in the baseline natural condition. The decreased
flow rates will carry decreased loads of suspended sediments and other storm debris. After
reclamation drainage patterns will be similar to natural watersheds that may enter Fish Creek
directly. Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to
this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than
significant. (DEIR, pp. 6-30 to 6-31.)
Increased Erosion. The specific on- or off-site drainage and erosion characteristics of
regional development projects are not known however each project is evaluated on its treatment
of surface water containment and distribution. This would include all short term, construction
related erosion protections and long term operational erosion mitigation. Projects are subject to
the Uniform Building Code, local and regional Stormwater Management Plans, NPDES and
SWPPP permits, etc. Plan adherence and compliance as directed by regulatory lead agencies
should prevent adverse impacts to regional conditions. Cumulative impacts would be less than
significant. (DEIR, p. 6-31.)
On a project level, runoff will reach Fish Creek from the West Side of the Project Site
either by flooding across the relatively flat quarry floor or by eventually carving itself a stream
bed. No on-site structures will be present post -reclamation, so there are no adverse impacts of
onsite flooding. As the flat area acts to decrease peak flows from the Project Site, the potential
for downstream off-site flooding is reduced. Therefore potential impacts associated with
increased erosion either on/or off-site are not considered significant. Thus, the Proposed Project
would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed
Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (]bid.)
Existing Drainage. The specific on/or off-site drainage and erosion characteristics of
regional development projects are not known however each project is evaluated on its treatment
of surface water containment and distribution. This would include all short-term, construction
related erosion protections and long-term operational erosion mitigation. Projects are subject to
the Uniform Building Code, local and regional Stormwater Management Plans, NPDES and
SWPPP permits, etc. Plan adherence and compliance as directed by regulatory lead agencies
should prevent adverse impacts to regional conditions. Overall cumulative impacts would be less
than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-31.)
On a project level, the Proposed Project is not expected to result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site, and the runoff water from the reclaimed site is not expected to carry a silt
load higher than the natural drainage in the surrounding area. The Proposed Project includes
microbenching and revegetating slopes, which will reduce erosion that would otherwise occur.
Implementation of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the Project Site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site. Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact,, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 6-31 to 6-32.)
74
Runoff. On a regional level, development of other projects (shown in Table 6-1) would
result in an increase in impervious surfaces and increase runoff from these sites into the local and
regional storm drain systems. In addition, urban pollutants associated with parking lots, roads,
and landscaping, combine with stormwater that ultimately ends up in the San Gabriel River or
other major watercourses. Stormwater requirements administered by the Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) require individual projects to employ Best
Management Practices to control urban runoff from each site during construction. The
LARWQCB is also responsible for reviewing each project's Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) for longterm operation and issuing the Waste Discharge Requirements for each project.
Employing BMPs that reduce the potential for storm water discharges to affect water quality
have been proven successful when implemented at construction type projects. Therefore, overall
cumulative impacts will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-32.)
On a project level, the on-site drainage system that will exist throughout the period of
active mining and reclamation consists of a series of berms that direct stone water into an on-site
detention basin. From the basin, storm water is allowed to percolate into the groundwater table or
evaporate. The basin also allows sediments in the stone water to settle out, and the NPDES
permit covering the Project Site allows this stone water to be discharged if the water quality is
equal to or better than that in Fish Creek. Though the Project Site typically does not discharge
stone water, this permit creates the possibility of draining the basin during wet periods to make
way for additional stone water after sediments have settled out. After site reclamation is
complete, the Project Site will be left as open space and all stone drainage systems (berms and
an on-site detention basin) will be removed, and the condition of exceeding drainage capacity
will no longer apply. Site storm water will. flow directly into Fish Creek, which flows into the
San Gabriel River. As discussed above, the net volume of storm runoff from the site flowing into
Fish Creek is slightly increased by the Proposed Project. Thus, the Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Flow Velocity and Volume of Stormwater. On a regional level, development of other
projects (shown in Table 6-1) would result in an increase in impervious surfaces and increase
runoff from these sites into the local and regional storm drain systems. In addition, urban
pollutants associated with parking lots, roads, and landscaping, combine with stormwater that
ultimately ends up in ends up in the San Gabriel River or other major watercourses. (DEIR, p. 6-
33.) Stormwater requirements administered by the LARWQCB require individual projects to
employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control urban runoff from each site during
construction. The RWQCB is also responsible for reviewing each project's WQMP for long-term
operation and issuing the Waste Discharge Requirements for each project. Employing BMPs that
reduce the potential for storm water discharges to affect water quality have been proven
successful when implemented at construction type projects. Therefore, overall cumulative
impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, after site reclamation is complete, the Project Site will be left as open
space and all stone drainage systems (berms and an on-site detention basin) will be removed,
and the condition of exceeding drainage capacity will no longer apply. Site storm water will flow
directly into Fish Creek, which flows into the San Gabriel River. As discussed above, the net
volume of storm runoff from the Project Site flowing into Fish Creek is slightly increased by the
Proposed Project. Flow volumes and rates coming off of the eastern portion of the site are very
75
similar to those that would be found under pre-mining conditions at the Project Site, while flow
rates exiting the western portion of the Project Site are slower than those in the baseline natural
condition. Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this
impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant.
(Ibid.)
Water Quality. Regionally, and as discussed above, all projects within the area and
region are required to comply with local, regional, state and federal surface water and drainage
regulations and management plans during construction and after completion including: NPDES,
SWPPP, Hazardous Materials Business Plan, Sections 404 Permits and 404 Certification,
California Fish and Game Code 1600 Stream Alteration Agreements„ Municipal Stormwater
Management Plans and Sewer System Capacity Management and Permitting Regulations. These
plans and regulatory requirements are intended to accommodate demand and prepare for capacity
of regionally permitted projects prior to permitting and online demand. (Ibid.)
Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to
this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than
significant. On a project level, the quarry operations are considered for CEQA purposes to be
both construction and operational phases simultaneously. The quarry currently operates under a
NPDES permit issued by the LARWQCB and is compliant with applicable water quality
standards and discharge requirements. Though currently the Project Site detains all storm water
rather than discharging, the NPDES permit allows for discharge if the quality of the water to be
discharged is equal to or better than the water quality of Fish Creek. Water runoff from the
mined slopes prior to reclamation will continue to be detained in on-site basins. Thus, the
Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and
the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Housing Near 100-year Flood Hazard Area. Regionally, all projects listed on Table 6-
1 are evaluated individually to ensure no habitable structures are located within a 100-year flood
hazard area. To the extent that proposed projects are located in 100-year flood plains, standard
conditions of approval require the installation of flood control measures to remove the site from
the, flood plain. Thus, the overall cumulative impact would be less than significant. On a project
level, the Project Site is not located in either the 100-Year or 500-Year flood zone. Thus, the
Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the
Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-34.)
Flooding. On a regional and project level, the San Gabriel River has three dams
upstream of the Project Site that could potentially impact the southernmost part of the Project
Site: San Gabriel Dam, Cogswell Dam, and Morris Dam. Cogswell Dam is on the west fork of
San Gabriel Canyon, approximately 15 miles upstream; San Gabriel Dam is approximately seven
miles upstream; and Morris Dam is approximately one mile upstream. Were a catastrophic
failure of one or all of the dams to occur, only the southernmost portion of the Project Site would
be affected due to its relatively low elevation (-750 feet amsl), which is still higher than most of
the nearby cities of Azusa and Duarte. This area of the Project Site currently contains temporary
office buildings. However, this area will become open space after reclamation, and no significant
buildings or structures will be located on this portion of the Project Site. Therefore, cumulative
impacts will be less than significant and the Proposed Project's contribution to cumulative
impacts is less than significant. (Ibid.)
76
Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow. On a regional and project level neither
the project or adjacent cities are located near a large body of water; the nearest body, other than
local reservoirs that could create a tsunami is the Pacific Ocean, approximately 35 miles to the
west. Tsunamis are large waves caused by the displacement of the ocean floor, normally
generated by seismic activity. Due to the elevation of 700 plus feet and the distance of
approximately 35 miles from the ocean, a tsunami hazard is not present for the Project Site.
Being adjacent to the San Gabriel River and Fish Creek, the Project Site could be subject to
mudflows resulting from significant storm events. However, a significant short -duration storm
event would be required to potentially create a mudflow and the working portion of the mine
would need to be at such elevation to be inundated. These two events occurring simultaneously is
deemed unlikely. Furthermore, no employees would permanently reside on-site, or be working
on-site during an intense storm event. Finally, project design measures protect structures and
employees from rockfall and would similarly protect them from mudflows. Therefore,
cumulative impacts will be less than significant and the Proposed Project's contribution to
cumulative impacts is less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 6-34 to 6-35.)
I. LAND USE
Divide Established Community. Regionally, it is anticipated that city-wide growth, in
general, will be reviewed for consistency with the City's general plan and policies in accordance
with CEQA regulations, state zoning and planning laws, and the state Subdivision Map Act.
These regulations and laws require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of
entitlements of developments. Therefore, overall cumulative impacts associated with physically
dividing an established community would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-35.)
On a project level, projects that cause a physical division to communities typically consist
of physical bifurcations, such as freeways, railroads, etc. In this case, the Proposed Project does
not contain elements that would physically divide a community. The Project Site is currently
mined and there are no developed communities on-site. There are established communities
located near the Project Site. However, continued mining and reclamation would not have the
potential to physically divide these communities. Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Conflict with Land Use Plan, Policy or Regulation. Regionally, it is anticipated that
city-wide growth, in general, will be reviewed for consistency with the City's general plan and
policies in accordance with CEQA regulations, state zoning and planning laws, and the state
Subdivision Map Act. These regulations and laws require findings of plan and policy consistency
prior to approval of entitlements of developments. Therefore, overall cumulative impacts
associated with conflicting with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation would be less
than cumulatively significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the Proposed Project is in compliance with the goals and policies set
by the City of Azusa. The revised reclamation plan would utilize improved benching techniques
to give the mined hillsides an improved aesthetic appearance over traditional benching methods.
Additionally, native vegetation would be used to further screen visual indifference between
reclaimed areas and natural slopes. The Proposed Project would provide a site suitable for
passive open space use upon final reclamation. The reclamation of the mined site and proposed
77
end use of passive open space would also make the site suitable for wildlife habitat. Recent
restoration efforts have created an established wildlife habitat, and have facilitated the return of
sensitive species to a portion of Fish Creek. Thus, the Proposed Project exhibits compatibility
with the City's goals and policies. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 6-35 to 6-36.)
HCP/NCCP. Regionally, it is anticipated that city-wide growth, in general, will be
reviewed for consistency with the City's general plan and policies in accordance with CEQA
regulations, state zoning and planning laws, and the state Subdivision Map Act. These
regulations and laws require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of
entitlements of developments. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with conflicting with
any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan would be less
than cumulatively significant. (DEIR, p. 6-36.)
On a project level, the Project Site is not within the boundaries of a habitat conservation
plan or a natural community conservation plan. Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is
determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
J. NOISE AND VIBRATION
Noise. Regionally, future construction is not expected to result in a cumulative
significant impact as a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels and
construction activities would need to occur simultaneously on projects adjacent to one another.
The City's Municipal Code allows for construction activities to occur between the hours of 7
a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Furthermore, because noise attenuates rapidly with
distance from its source, several different construction projects would need to be underway at the
same time in close proximity to each other, which is unlikely, in order for there to be a
cumulative impact. (Ibid.)
Therefore, the overall cumulative impact from construction noise is less than significant.
With regard to cumulative operational noise impacts, cumulative growth could result in noise
levels that exceed local standards and/or represent significant increases in noise over existing
ambient conditions. This would most likely occur due to the noise generated by increased traffic
from the implementation of cumulative projects. Due to the amount of units and square footage
of space that are proposed via the cumulative project list, this overall cumulative impact is
assumed to be significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the primary sources of noise related to quarry mining and rock
processing are heavy equipment usage and material processing plants. (EIR 6-37.) Noise
generating sources would include the primary and secondary crushing and screening plants,
material loading and unloading, drilling and blasting, and mobile construction equipment. These
noise sources are sufficiently distant from other potential sources that noise levels would not be
cumulatively considerable in either the operational or construction contexts. Thus, the Proposed
Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the
Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-37.)
a-]
Groundborne Vibration and Noise. Regionally, cumulative development should not
result in the exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration due to the localized nature of
vibration impacts and the unlikely condition of multiple projects occurring at the same time and
location. There are no projects proposed in close proximity to the subject site that would affect
the same receptors as the Proposed Project. Therefore it is concluded that cumulative
development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. (Ibid.)
On a project level for ground vibrations, neither the peak measured event (0.015 ips), the
11- blast average created vibration levels (0.009 ips), or the PPV at 1,800 feet (0.012 ips) would
exceed the adopted significance threshold of 0.20 ips at the closest homes. In addition, the
reduction in charge size for the planned micro -benching mining procedures compared to current
large bench production methods may more than compensate for any possible vibration increase
associated with distance encroachment. Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Airport Noise. Regionally, the City of Azusa is not located within 2 miles of a public
airport or private airstrip that would expose people residing or working in the area to excessive
noise levels. The nearest airport is the El Monte Airport located at 4233 Santa Anita Avenue in
El Monte approximately eight miles southwest of the site. The Proposed Project would not
introduce new sensitive receptors to the area that would be affected by airport noise. Therefore,
the Proposed Project could not make any contribution to a cumulative impact in this regard, and
impacts are determined less than significant. (Ibid.)
K. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Induce Population Growth. Regionally, Table 6-1 summarizes the related projects
within the city, which includes 2,544 dwelling units, 293,000 square feet of commercial retail,
20,000 square feet of industrial warehouse, 30,000 square feet of office space, expansion of
educational facilities to accommodate 3,844 students, and 6 acres of parklands. (EIR 6-38.) The
non-residential facilities will indirectly encourage population growth, and a population of 7,403
(2,544 x 2.91 persons per household) are expected to result from the residential projects.
Therefore, overall cumulative impacts on population growth would be considered significant.
(DEIR, p. 6-38.)
On a project level, the Proposed Project will have no impact on population growth either
directly or indirectly. The Proposed Project does not include new housing or business that would
induce population growth in the area. The Proposed Project would not include demolition of
homes or the construction of new homes, and would not modify existing infrastructures. The
Azusa Rock operations have historically employed 15 full-time on-site employees for its
operations. The number of employees required to operate will not change upon implementation
of the Proposed Project. No new public infrastructure (e.g. water, sewer, roads) is required that
would promote population growth in the area. Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Necessitate Replacement Housing. Regionally, none of the projects identified within
the city of Azusa would require displacement of a substantial number of existing housing units or
79
necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere: Therefore, there would be a less than
significant overall cumulative impact.
On a project level, the Proposed Project would occur on an existing mine site that
currently does not have residential units, and would not require the displacement of existing
people or housing, or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Thus, the
Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and
the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant.
L. PUBLIC SERVICES
Regionally, public services are assessed on city-wide or school district -wide bases.
Primarily these services are funded by payment of development fees as projects are approved,
and property taxes on a long-term basis that would allow provision of public services to continue
to support an expanding population or service area. Therefore,'no cumulative impacts would
occur with development of projects listed in Table 6-1. (DEIR, p. 6-39.)
On a project level, the Proposed Project includes an update to the existing conditional use
permit (CUP) and reclamation plan to allow for: 1) micro -benching, recontouring, and
revegetation with native plant species to create a naturalized landform along the west and east
quarry faces; 2) acceleration of reclamation activities for the east portion of the site; 3) mining
and reclamation on the westernmost approximately 180 acres of the site in lieu of the easternmost
80 acres of the site; and 4) inclusion of the approximately 80 -acre western portion of the Project
Site in the reclamation plan. No new jobs will be created that would increase the City's
population requiring additional public services. Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is
determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
M. RECREATION
Increase Park Usage. Regionally, the projects listed on Table 6-1, includes the overall
development of nearly 4,300 residential dwelling units, approximately 492,504 square feet of
commercial space, 624,000 square feet of manufacturing/industrial and warehouse space,
1,105,608 square feet of office space, 320 hotel rooms, school campuses for 420 elementary and
middle school children, college campuses for 3,424 college students, and 6 acres of park lands.
(Ibid.) These land uses could increase the demand for use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities and/or create a substantial physical deterioration of the
facilities. (Ibid.) However, each of the jurisdictions general plans contains recreation goals
designed to address needs from anticipated growth. (Ibid.) All projects are assessed for potential
impacts to recreational facilities on an individual basis. (EIR 6-40.) Recreational needs are
analyzed as part of a project's approval process. (Ibid.) Therefore, overall cumulative impacts
will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the Proposed Project includes an update to the existing conditional use
permit (CUP) and reclamation plan to allow for: 1) micro -benching, recontouring, and
revegetation with native plant species to create a naturalized landform along the west and east
quarry faces; 2) acceleration of reclamation activities for the east portion of the site; 3) mining
and reclamation on the westernmost approximately 80 acres of the site in lieu of the easternmost
80 acres of the site; and 4) inclusion of the approximately 80 -acre western portion of the Project
80
Site in the reclamation plan. (Ibid.) No new jobs will be created that would increase the City's
population requiring additional recreational area. (Ibid) Thus, the Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Recreational Facilities. Regionally, only one recreational project is identified to occur
within the identified cumulative area. (Ibid.) Regionally, each jurisdictions general. plan contains
recreation goals designed to address needs from anticipated growth. (Ibid.) All projects are
assessed for potential impacts to recreational facilities on an individual basis. (Ibid.) Recreational
needs are analyzed as part of a project's approval process. (Ibid) Therefore, overall cumulative
impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the relocation of an existing trail within the mine area would have
short-term effects on the environment related to construction disturbance. (Ibid.) The Fish
Canyon alignment would have little new surface disturbance due to the disturbed nature of the
east quarry and it could be installed as a function of reclamation. (Ibid.) The selection of a new
trail alignment will be made during approval of the Proposed Project which will include
Conditions of Approval imposed by the City. (Ibid.) Additionally the Proposed Project would not
create new jobs or a demand for new or expanded recreational facilities that would contribute to
a cumulative impact. (Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is
determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
N. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Increase in Traffic. Regionally, each jurisdiction's general plan contains traffic and
circulation goals designed to address increases resulting from anticipated growth. (Ibid.) All
projects are assessed for potential impacts due to increased traffic volumes, or impacting
capacities of the street system on an individual basis. (Ibid.) Roadway capacities and traffic
loading are analyzed as part of a project's traffic impact analysis. (Ibid.) If impacts are projected
to occur, the project proponent is required to mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant
either through direct project construction, or fair share contribution. (DEIR 6-41.) If the
projected impact will occur outside the lead agency's jurisdiction, the project proponent is
required to contribute its fair share cost to redesigning and constructing the necessary
improvement. (Ibid.) Adherence to these requirements will ensure the multitude of projects does,
not create a cumulative impact. (Ibid.) Therefore, overall cumulative impacts will be less than
significant
On a project level, the method of processing and transport of materials will remain as it
currently exists. (Ibid.) The employee and delivery vehicle generated traffic trips will remain
approximately the same and are estimated at 56 one-way trips per weekday. (Ibid.) The transport
of material would continue to be via the existing overland conveyor in -lieu of on -road haul
trucks. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project does not include an increase in tonnage mined as compared
to that analyzed in previous CEQA documents, which concluded that truck traffic impacts would
be less than significant. (Ibid.; DEIR, p. 4.11-5.) Thus, the Proposed Project will not cause an
increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be
less than significant. (Ibid.)
81
Exceed LOS Standards. Regionally, each jurisdiction's general plan contains traffic
and circulation goals designed to address increases resulting from anticipated growth. (Ibid.) All
projects are assessed for potential impacts due to increased traffic volumes, or impacting
capacities of the street system on an individual basis. (Ibid.) Roadway capacities and traffic
loading are analyzed as part of a project's traffic impact analysis. (Ibid.) If impacts are projected
to occur, the project proponent is required to mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant
either through direct project construction, or fair share contribution. (Ibid.) If the projected
impact will occur outside the lead agency's jurisdiction, the project proponent is required to
contribute its fair share cost to redesigning and constructing the necessary improvement. (Ibid.)
Adherence to these requirements will ensure the multitude of projects does not create a
cumulative impact. (Ibid.) Therefore, overall cumulative impacts will be less than significant
On a project level, because the method of processing and transport of materials will
remain as it currently exists, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed, either individually
or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways. (Ibid.) This is supported by the analysis with regard to
Impact T-2, in Section 4.11.5 of the Draft EIR. As established there, truck traffic generated by
the Reliance facility operating at 6 million tons per year would not even trigger the need for a
CMP facilities analysis, under the Guidelines set forth on such issues by the County of Los
Angeles (which runs the CMP program). (Ibid.; DEIR, p. 4.11-5.) Thus, the Proposed Project
would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed
Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6-41.)
Change in Air Traffic Patterns. Regionally none of the cumulative projects identified
on Table 6-1 is anticipated to increase air related traffic levels. (]bid.) Additionally none of the
identified cumulative projects is located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport. (Ibid.) The nearest airport to the area is the El Monte Airport
located at 4233 Santa Anita Avenue southwest of the site. (EIR 6-42.) The overall cumulative
impact would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport. (Ibid.) The nearest airport to the site is the El
Monte Airport located at 4233 Santa Anita Avenue approximately eight miles southwest of the
site. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
(Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project would make no contribution to any such overall cumulative
impact. (Ibid.)
. Increase Hazards due to Design or Incompatible Uses. Regionally, each jurisdiction's
general plan contains traffic and circulation goals designed to address adopted plans and policies
supporting road development and design. (Ibid.) Adherence to the respective general plan
requirements will ensure the multitude of projects does not create a cumulative impact. (Ibid.)
Therefore, overall cumulative impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, with approval of the Proposed Project, the existing method of
processing and transport of materials would continue as it currently exists. (Ibid.) The transport
of material would continue to be via the existing overland conveyor in -lieu of on -road haul
trucks. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project does not include changes to existing access points or haul
9
routes. (Ibid.) New on-site mine roads would be developed but would not affect the local or
regional traffic circulation system. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project would not substantially increase
hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be
less than significant. (Ibid.)
Inadequate Emergency Access. Regionally, each jurisdiction's emergency response
agencies (police and fire) typically review all project designs to ensure adequate emergency
access is available. (Ibid.) Adherence to the respective emergency response agencies
requirements will ensure the multitude of projects does not create a cumulative impact. (Ibid.)
Therefore, overall cumulative impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in traffic or the
rate of production currently permitted at the plant. (Ibid.) The existing method of operation and
transport of materials would continue. (Ibid.) The transport of material would continue to be via
the existing overland conveyor in -lieu of on -road haul trucks, and no new access points to the
Project Site are proposed. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project would not increase traffic or interfere
with existing emergency access points. (Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative
impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Inadequate Parking. Regionally, each project is designed to accommodate the
anticipated parking need for that project. (EIR 6-43.) Each jurisdiction's development code
identifies the quantity of parking necessary to accommodate the identified land use. (Ibid.)
Adherence to each jurisdiction's development code will ensure adequate parking locally, and
regionally, and is not anticipated to result in a cumulative impact. (Ibid.) Therefore, overall
cumulative impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the Proposed Project would not create new on-site jobs. (Ibid.) No
additional parking would be required to support new employees. (Ibid.) No impacts from
inadequate parking at the Project Site would result. (Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project would not
make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's
cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Conflict with Policies Supporting Alternative Transportation. Regionally, each
jurisdiction's general plan contains traffic and circulation goals designed to address adopted
plans and policies supporting alternative transportation. (Ibid.) Adherence to the respective
general plan requirements will ensure the multitude of projects does not create a cumulative
impact. (Ibid.) Therefore, overall cumulative impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). (Ibid.)
Operations at the Project Site would continue in the same manner as permitted under the existing
CUP and reclamation plan. (Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is
determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
83
O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements. Regionally, wastewater treatment is
provided by the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts, which provides planning and
operation of wastewater treatment plants throughout Los Angeles County. (Ibid.) Each
development identified within the cumulative projects list on Table 6: 1 as well as all projects
within the Sanitation Districts boundaries are required to pay development and user fees
designed to provide funding for existing and projected wastewater treatment needs of the region.
(Ibid.) Consequently, overall impacts -would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the Project Site is currently served by a septic system, and therefore
implementation of the Proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements.
(Ibid.) No changes to the existing system are proposed, and no improvements to the existing
septic system would result. (Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is
determined to be less than significant. (EIR 6-44.)
New Facilities or Expansion of Existing Facilities. Regionally, wastewater treatment is
provided by the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts, which provides planning and
operation of wastewater treatment plants throughout Los Angeles County. (Ibid.) Each
development identified within the cumulative projects list on Table 6-1 as well as all projects
within the Sanitation Districts boundaries are required to pay development and user fees
designed to provide funding for existing and projected wastewater treatment needs of the region.
(Ibid.) Consequently, overall impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.) The City of Azusa
obtains its water from three primary sources, groundwater, local streams and reservoirs, and the
State Water Project. (Ibid.) Water treatment facilities are provided by Azusa Light and Water
Department. (Ibid.) Development projects within the various water provider's service areas are
required to receive documentation from the water provider that water can be provided for the
ensuing 25 years. (Ibid.) Cumulative impacts may be considered significant but must be
mitigated before development proposals are approved. (Ibid.) Therefore, overall cumulative
impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
The Proposed Project does not include the connection to any off-site water or wastewater
treatment facilities nor would it require the expansion of existing facilities. (Ibid.; DEIR, p. 4.12-
5.) Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact,
and the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, p.
6-44)
New Storm Water Drainage Facilities or Expansion of Existing Facilities.
Regionally, the impact of projects listed in Table 6-1 on regional storm water drainage facilities
would be evaluated on a project -by -project basis and conditions of approval applied to reduce
potentially significant impacts. (Ibid.) Projects are required to handle any on-site increases in
storm flows on-site and to apply Best Management Practices to eliminate impacts off-site. (Ibid.)
Storm Water Master Plans are updated by the local jurisdictions with responsibility to manage
storm water. (Ibid.) Overall cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
All Project Site storm flows will continue to be captured in the on-site system and no impacts to
off-site storm water collection facilities would occur. (Ibid.) Thus, it is concluded that the
Proposed Project's incremental contribution will not be a cumulatively considerable contribution
1E
to the need for new storm drain facilities and therefore would not be a significant cumulative
impact. (Ibid.)
Sufficient Water Supplies. Regionally, cumulative growth would result in increased use
of water supplies in the area. (DEIR, p. 6-45.) The 2005 Urban Water Management Plan
("UWMP") for Azusa's"water system projected that water supplies would be adequate to meet
expected future growth, and the UWMPs of adjacent jurisdictions make similar conclusions.
(Ibid.) Thus, overall cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level; potable water usage would not increase onsite, due to the fact that the
number of employees onsite would not grow. Production water (non -potable) is used on-site for
dust control during mining operations, and is obtained from an off-site well located across the
San Gabriel River channel at the former Owl Rock Mine facility north of Stoddard Road. (Ibid.)
The well is operated by Azusa Rock, Inc. through City Resolution No. 99-C75, and is delivered
to the quarry via a pipeline. (Ibid.) This well is used to obtain production water by way of the
Applicant's entitlement to pump groundwater pursuant to the adjudication for the Main San
Gabriel Groundwater Basin. (DEIR, p. 4.12-7.) The increase in the use of production water
occasioned by maximum annual production under the Proposed Project would fall within the
Applicant's portion of the Basin Safe Yield, and even if it were not to, the Applicant is allowed
by the adjudication to pump more groundwater subject to the payment of replenishment fees to
the Watermaster. (Ibid.) Thus, the Proposed Project's cumulative contribution is less than
considerable. The Project Project's cumulative impact would therefore be less than significant.
Capacity of Wastewater Treatment Provider. Regionally, wastewater treatment is
provided by the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts, who are charged with providing the
planning and operation of wastewater treatment plants throughout Los Angeles County. (Ibid.)
Each development identified within the cumulative project list on Table 6-1 as well as all
projects within the Sanitation District boundaries are required to pay development and user fees
designed to provide funding for existing and projected wastewater treatment needs of the region.
(Ibid.) Thus, overall cumulative impacts are less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the Project Site is currently served by a septic system. (Ibid.) No
expansions or improvements would be required to any wastewater treatment system as none is
currently provided, nor would any be needed as a result of implementation of the Proposed
Project since no new jobs would be added. (Ibid.; DEIR, p. 4.12-8.) Thus, the Proposed Project
would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Proposed
Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Landfills. Regionally, solid waste is disposed of at the Puente Hills Sanitary Landfill
(Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) No. 19 -AA -0053) located at 13130 Crossroads
Parkway South, in the City of Industry. (Ibid.) Regional planning for landfill operations and
capacity is carried out by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). (Ibid.) The
LACSD protects public health and the environment through cost-effective wastewater and solid
waste management. (Ibid.) Additionally, the agency was created to construct, operate, and
"maintain facilities that collect, treat, recycle, and dispose of domestic and industrial wastewater.
(EIR 6-46.) The LACSD is also the responsible agency that provides for the management of
collected solid waste, including disposal and transfer operations, and materials and energy
recovery. (Ibid.) Participation in the LACSD by the regional cities will ensure that individual
FX
projects will not create a cumulative impact. (]bid.) Therefore, overall cumulative impacts will
be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, solid waste collection within the City is provided by the City of Azusa
through contract with a private hauler. (]bid.) Waste is disposed of at the Puente Hills Sanitary
Landfill (Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) No. 19 -AA -0053) located at 13130
Crossroads Parkway South, in the city of Industry. (Ibid.) As of October 14, 2006, the landfill
had a remaining capacity of 49,348,500 cubic yards, and an estimated closure date of October
2013. (Ibid.) Currently, the landfill is permitted to receive a maximum of 13,200 tons per day,
and has a disposal footprint of 433 -acres within the 1,365 -acre site. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project
generates an estimated 28 pounds per day of solid waste, which would not change since the
number of onsite employees would not increase and thus, the Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact. (Ibid; DEIR, p. 4.12-8.) The Proposed
Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Solid Waste Regulations. Regionally, solid waste is disposed of at the Puente Hills
Sanitary Landfill (Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) No. 19 -AA -0053) located at 13130
Crossroads Parkway South, in the City of Industry. (Ibid) Regional planning for landfill
operations and capacity is carried out by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD).
(Ibid.) The LACSD protects public health and the environment through cost-effective wastewater
and solid waste management. (Ibid.) Additionally, the agency was created to construct, operate,
and maintain facilities that collect, treat, recycle, and dispose of domestic and industrial
wastewater. (Ibid.) The LACSD is also the responsible agency that provides for the management
of collected solid waste, including disposal and transfer operations, and materials and energy
recovery. (Ibid.) Participation in the LACSD by the regional cities will ensure that individual
projects will not create a cumulative impact. (Ibid.) Therefore, overall cumulative impacts will
be less than significant. (Ibid.)
On a project level, the Proposed Project will not result in an increase in the production of
solid waste because the number of onsite employees would not change. (DEIR, p. 4.12-8.)
Furthermore, on-site mining operations will continue to comply with any applicable federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (DEIR, p. 4.12-9; 6-46.) Thus, the
Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and
the Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Electricity. The Azusa Light and Water Department ("Azusa Light and Water") has the
facilities and equipment to provide electrical services to the City of Azusa. (DEIR, p. 4.12-9.)
Azusa Light and Water has indicated that it has the ability to meet the needs of its customers.
(DEIR, pp. 4.12-9 to 4.12-10.) Under these circumstances, overall cumulative impacts related to
the provision of electricity are determined to be less than significant. Moreover, Azusa Light
and Water has also indicated that it has the ability to meet the electricity demands of maximum
annual production under the Proposed Project while also meeting the demands of other users.
(Ibid.) Consequently, the Proposed Project's contribution to this less than significant overall
cumulative impact is less than considerable. The Proposed Project's cumulative impact is
therefore determined to be less than significant.
Telecommunications. The General Telephone Company ("GTE") provides local
residential and business telephone services within the City of Azusa. (DEIR, p. 4.12-10.)
EIJ
During the General Plan Update, representatives of GTE indicated the existing telephone system
was adequate to serve existing and future customers within the City of Azusa. (Ibid.) GTE does
not foresee any major projects that would require upgrading of its system in the near future.
(Ibid.) Thus, the overall cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant. Because no
additional telephone lines would be needed at the Project Site as part of the Proposed Project
(Ibid), the Proposed Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable. The
Proposed Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant.
Natural Gas. As per the City's General Plan Update, the Southern California Gas
Company did not foresee any major projects that would require upgrading of the system in the
near future. (DEIR, p. 4.12-10.) Consequently, the exiting gas distribution system is adequate to
serve existing and future customers within the City. (Ibid.) The overall cumulative impact is
therefore determined to be less than significant.
On a project level, the existing project does not require natural gas, and since the nature
of the Proposed Project's operations is such that this would not change, no additional demand for
natural gas would be created by the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) Consequently, the Proposed
Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the Project
Project's cumulative impact is determined to be less than significant.
SECTION 6: RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) states that significant irreversible
environmental changes that would be caused by the Proposed Project should be identified in the
EIR. (DEIR, p. 6-47.) In this regard, the City Council finds that development of the Proposed
Project would result in the continued commitment of the majority of the Proposed Project site to
aggregate mining, thereby precluding any other use until mine reclamation occurs. (Ibid.)
Although restoration of the Project Site to pre -developed conditions would not be feasible, the
Applicant is required to reclaim the site and restore flora and fauna to as close as practical to pre -
developed conditions. (Ibid.) Additionally, energy resources would be used for mine operations
and deliveries of supplies and materials during the project lifespan. (Ibid.) Non-renewable
resources would be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels including gasoline, natural
gas, and diesel fuels used by construction equipment and vehicles operating on and traveling to
the site. (DEIR, p. 6-48.) The Proposed Project would not involve the development of any new
structures on-site that would be occupied by people. (Ibid.)
While implementation of the Proposed Project would require some increase in the
consumption of natural resources, such as fuels to generate electricity, such increases are not
considered to be significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-9 to 4.12-10.) The Project Site and surrounding
area are not designated for residential land uses within the City of Azusa where the Project Site
is located. (DEIR, p. 6-48.)
The Azusa Rock Quarry will continue to operate, with or without approval of the
Proposed Project, and provide a portion of the aggregate demand projected for the San Gabriel
Valley production -consumption area. (Ibid.) Continued mining to meet demands perpetuates the
continued depletion of this non-renewable resource. (Ibid.) However, alternative importation of
aggregate will result in increased truck/rail traffic, fuel consumption, road maintenance costs and
87
greenhouse gas emissions. (]bid.) Development of the Proposed Project would act as a
commitment to the depletion of approximately 105.6 million tons of aggregate, a non-renewable
resource. (Ibid.)
The CEQA Guidelines also require a discussion of the potential for irreversible
environmental damage caused by an accident associated with the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) While
the Proposed Project would result in the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous
wastes, as described in Section 4.6 of the EIR (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), all activities
would comply with applicable state and federal laws related to hazardous materials, which
significantly reduces the likelihood and severity of accidents that could result in irreversible
environmental damage. (Ibid.)
Implementation of the Proposed Project would also result in the short-term (prior to
reclamation) reduction of natural vegetation and wildlife communities, and alteration of the
visual character of the Project Site. (Ibid.) As previously discussed, operations associated with
future uses would also consume natural gas and electrical energy. (Ibid.)
Based on the preceding and on the entirety of the record of proceedings, the City Council
consequently finds that no significant irreversible effects would result from implementation of
the Proposed Project.
SECTION 7: RESOLUTION REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING & URBAN DECAY
IMPACTS.
A. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires an evaluation of growth inducing
impacts that may result from a proposed project. (DEIR, p. 6-48.) Growth inducing impacts can
occur when a proposed project places additional stress on a community by directly inducing
economic or population growth that would lead to construction of new development projects in
the same area as the project. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project is located on an approximate 270 -acre
site. (Ibid.) Implementing the Proposed Project would allow the Project Applicant to continue to
accommodate the proposed and projected growth of the region by mining aggregate material
throughout its proposed operation period. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project does not directly
introduce economic or population growth to the area that would lead to the construction of new
development projects. (Ibid.) However, the Proposed Project would contribute to the regional
supply of construction aggregate for use in Portland cement concrete -grade aggregate, asphalt
concrete, and other construction related materials. (Ibid.) The Proposed Project itself will not
increase demand for construction materials in the region. (Ibid.) The continued availability of
local aggregate materials can prevent increases in traffic, air quality impacts, global climate
change, and construction costs as the Proposed Project will in effect provide material that would
otherwise be transported from greater distances if the materials were not available locally. (EIR
6-49.)
The Proposed Project will not require development of any new utility systems that could
be considered growth inducing and, likewise, no changes to existing roadways, highways, or
freeways would be necessitated as a result of the Project that could be considered growth
inducing. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Proposed Project does not create an economic environment that
would be growth inducing. (Ibid.)
M
Based on the preceding and on the entirety of the record of proceedings, the City Council
consequently finds that no significant growth -inducing effects would result from implementation
of the Proposed Project.
B. URBAN DECAY IMPACTS
The Proposed Project is not anticipated to contribute to urban decay, as the Proposed
Project will not result in the loss of existing commercial or industrial business or create building
vacancies. (]bid.) The Proposed Project would continue to contribute to the community's
economic base by providing revenues to the City of Azusa through the Development Agreement.
(Ibid.) The Project Site is also consistent with the City of Azusa General Plan. (]bid.)
Furthermore, there is no evidence that aesthetic impacts from the Project would result in
economic impacts that would, in turn, result in significant physical effects on the environment.
(FEIR, p. 4-23.) Based on the preceding and on the entirety of the record of proceedings, the
City Council consequently finds that no significant physical effects from urban decay would
result from implementation of the Proposed Project.
SECTION 8: RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES.
A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and
planning process and .the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the Draft
EIR.
Among the factors that are used to consider project alternatives for detailed consideration
in an EIR are whether they would meet most of the basic project objectives, be feasible, and
whether they would avoid or substantially reduce the significant environmental impacts of the
project. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[c].) Several alternatives were eliminated during the
scoping/planning process, either because they were deemed infeasible or because they were
technologically or environmentally inferior as compared to the proposed project.
The following objectives have been established for the Proposed Project:
1. Alter the reclamation and revegetation approach by initiating an aesthetically and
environmentally superior design across the entire property.
2. Modify the existing East Side quarry mined slopes to create landforms that blend
more into the surrounding environment through the use of micro -benching
reclamation methods;
3. Initiate reclamation on the East Side of the Project Site immediately upon Project
Approval and forego further east side mining;
4. Initiate concurrent and sequential mining and reclamation procedures for the West
Side quarry area;
5. Revegetate the disturbed mine surfaces through the Project Site using native plant
species;
89
6. Establish and maintain viable habitat on the reclaimed quarry slopes with
implementation of a Revegetation Plan as intended by SMARA and as described
in the Revised Reclamation Plan;
7. Continue to provide a reliable supply of Portland cement concrete (PCC) -quality
aggregate to meet the existing and future regional market demands identified by
the California Department of Conservation for the San Gabriel Production —
Consumption (P -C) Region.
8. Obtain replacement reserves for the 105,000,000 tons currently permitted within a
footprint replicating the area of the currently permitted mine boundary by
replicating the existing 190 -acre permitted area within the approximate 270 -acre
site;
9. Maintain a level of tax revenue for the City of Azusa equivalent to or greater than
the existing mining tax ordinance would produce under the Applicant's current
entitlements.
10. Maintain existing or equivalent levels of employment both in terms of the number
of jobs and the duration of such jobs being available on the site.
Several alternatives to the Proposed Project were considered and rejected as infeasible.
(Ibid.) Some of these alternatives were suggested in the scoping process and from comments to
the NOP. (Ibid.) The alternatives considered and rejected for this EIR were: (1) Other Off -Site
Locations; (2) mining deeper into Fish Creek; (3) San Gabriel River locations; (4) mining to the
north or east. (Ibid.)
Alternative Site Location
Description: An alternative to the Proposed Project would be to choose an alternative site
to replace mining the proposed 80 acres site located on the West Side, in addition to terminating
mining in the approved East Side of the Azusa Rock Quarry. (DEIR, p. 5-3.) There were two
variations on this request made by concerned citizens. (Ibid.) One was to completely close the
current mine operation from its present location and relocate it outside the regional area. (Ibid.)
The second was to relocate the mine within the City of Azusa's jurisdiction and away from the
proposed West Side quarry area. (Ibid.) This would presumably situate the quarry proposed for
the West Side approximate 80 acres at some other location within the proximity of the existing
quarry but outside its current boundaries. (Ibid.)
The alternative of relocating the entire mining operations would require extensive
exploration to determine aggregate quality and quantity and environmental studies to determine
potential significant impacts. (Ibid.) Without specifying a location within the Los Angeles Basin
aggregate market area, the potential issues for relocating the quarry include locating a property
that has the following characteristics: (1) contains comparable volume and quality of mineral
resources that can be extracted efficiently; (2) compatible land uses adjacent to the site and along
truck routes; and (3) potential environmental impacts created by the excavations and operations
are less than significant; and (4) construction of new infrastructure including power, water, and
support facilities to facilitate processing and transport of aggregates to the existing Reliance
facility, is feasible and available. (DEIR, p. 5-4.) A new site would not be able to utilize the
existing overland conveyor and trucking of raw material to the Reliance facility. (Ibid.)
90
Impacts: An alternative site location for the entire mine operation would entail complete
closure and reclamation of the existing Project Site under the existing Reclamation Plan and
relocation of the mine to another area outside of the regional impact zone and potentially the
aggregate market. (Ibid.) Trucks traveling increased distances would create substantial regional
air quality and traffic impacts, including increased fuel consumption, air emissions (e.g., diesel
particulate matter and greenhouse gases [GHG]), traffic congestion, noise, and road maintenance
costs. (Ibid.) Additionally, the initiation of a new mining operation in a different location would
likely involve new and greater significant impacts than those involved with the Proposed Project,
due both to site specific characteristics and potentially significant traffic, air quality, and noise
impacts and increased fuel usage and road maintenance due to transporting materials to the
Reliance facility for processing and sale.
Objectives and Infeasibility: With regard to the Alternative Site Location Alternative, it
would (1) require the rescission of the existing CUP by the City or voluntary abandonment of a
valuable resource currently mined by the Applicant; (2) require the location of a suitable mineral
resource in proximity to the existing market with over 100 million tons of reserves and
infrastructure necessary to accommodate the objectives of the existing and planned operations;
(3) negate the infrastructure benefits associated with the existing facility including proximity to
the Reliance facility and the in-place overland conveyor which replaces the need for surface
trucks between the quarry and the facility; (4) likely be outside the jurisdiction of the permitting
lead agency (City of Azusa); (5) cost prohibitive in light of having a fully permitted and
operating site in which costly improvements in the conveyor system were constructed for the
long-term reduction in trucking impacts; (6) not meet most of the Project Objectives. (Ibid.)
Specifically, it would not meet Project Objectives 1,2, 9, and 10 because the Project Site would
not be subject to an improved reclamation plan and an alternative site would be located outside
of the City, thereby removing the economic benefits of the Quarry from the City.
Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on the bases (1) that it is infeasible for
the reasons above, would be environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project, would not meet
most of the Project Objectives; (2) that each of these bases individually justify the rejection of
this alternative; and (3) thereby finds that it was not required to be analyzed in further detail in
the EIR. (DEIR, p. 5-5.)
2. Mine Deeper within Fish Creek Cance
Description: Mining deeper within Fish Creek Canyon was suggested by concerned
citizens in the scoping and NOP process. (Ibid.) It was presented as an alternative to the hillside
mining activities in the West Side of the Project Site. (Ibid.) Mining to depths below the existing
ground elevations of the Fish Canyon bottom within the Project Site could be accomplished to
some depth based on the geometry of the adjacent slopes and property limits but would likely not
be able to meet the Proposed Project's 105 million tons of reserves. Estimated reserves with
depth in Fish Creek Canyon are estimated to be less than 100 million tons. (Ibid.)
Impacts: The potential benefit associated with this alternative could include a reduced
visual impact of mining the West Side of the Project Site. (Ibid.) New significant impacts, as
compared to the Proposed Project, would occur to Fish Creek and its associated sensitive
biological resources, which would be eliminated based on the depth and alignment of the
alternative operations needed to meet the 105 mt reserves requirement. (Ibid.) For instance, the
91
canyon bottom would be mined to a deep pit capturing Fish Creek's upstream flows. (Ibid.)
Future land uses associated with a reclaimed quarry floor and stream realignment including
restoring riparian vegetation and habitat and the alignment of a trail within the canyon would be
eliminated in perpetuity. (Ibid.) Thus, overall this alternative would be environmentally inferior
to the Proposed Project.
Obiectives: With regard to this alternative, it is not likely that the deep excavation of
Fish Creek would be allowed by state and federal agencies, such as CDFG and USACE, due to
the elimination of the possibility of restoring Fish Creek's downstream portion. If the depth of
mining were therefore limited, Project Objective 8, regarding obtaining 105 million tons of
replacement reserves, would not be fulfilled.
Findine: The City Council (1) rejects this alternative on the basis that it either fails to
meet basic project objectives or is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project; (2) finds that
either of these grounds provide sufficient justification for rejection this alternative; and (3)
therefore finds that this alternative was not required to be analyzed in further detail in the EIR.
(]bid.)
3. Mine in the San Gabriel River
Description: Another location alternative considered is extending the quarry activities
outside the existing Project Site boundary along the adjacent San Gabriel River. (Ibid.) This
alternative was presented as an extension of mining into or adjacent to the San Gabriel River, as
an alternative to the hillside mining activities. (Ibid.) Portions of the San Gabriel River and areas
adjacent to the current river channel have been mined in the past providing much of the
construction material for the San Gabriel Valley and Los Angeles Basin over the past 50+ years.
(Ibid.) Some sites still serve as aggregate resources such as the Reliance Quarry and several
operations in Irwindale. (Ibid.) Most of the existing quarries have generally been mined to their
property limits allowing no options for expansion although some have been permitted to mine
deeper. (Ibid.) Several quarries have been closed and are being backfilled with construction
wastes or non -salable aggregate materials. (Ibid.) This includes the site of the Irwindale
Speedway and the pit directly southwest of the Reliance facility, south of Foothill Boulevard and
west of Irwindale Avenue. (Ibid.)
Former active operations located on the east side of the San Gabriel River south of Fish
Creek mined in concurrence with Fish Canyon, have been closed and reclaimed. (Ibid.) They
currently serve as groundwater percolation basins within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County
Flood Control District. (EIR 5-6.) Urban areas now surround the river channel and any existing
mining operations, resulting in the expansion or the start-up of a new quarry and the likelihood
of providing 100 mt of aggregates as being unlikely. (Ibid.) In addition, according to the City of
Azusa General Plan Guidelines, new quarries along and within the river would be subject to
policies of the San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan. (Ibid.)
Impacts: The potential location of a riverbed quarry alternative is undefined but would
require placement within vacant open space within portions of the flood control easements in
Azusa's municipal jurisdiction. (Ibid.) It would also likely bring mine activities and associated
impacts (noise, visual, and air quality) into direct conflict with or in close proximity to the
residential, commercial, and recreational land uses currently in place adjacent to the riverbed
PA
alignment. (Ibid.) It may also significantly impact hydrological and sensitive biological
resources. (Ibid.) This alternative would not reduce or eliminate potential impacts associated
with aggregate production beyond hillside viewshed visibility of mining on the West Side. (Ibid.)
It would require a transfer of title or lease agreement with the underlying property owner (likely
USACOE and Los Angeles County Flood Control District). (Ibid.)
Objectives & Feasibility: The Mine in the San Gabriel River Alternative would not meet
the goals and objectives of the City. (Ibid.) Specifically, this alternative would not likely meet
Project Objective 8, regarding obtaining 105 million tons of replacement reserves. It is also not
likely that any sites in the riverbed can be permitted or leased to allow mining, given the
significance of the San Gabriel as a natural resource, which presents feasibility issues, as well.
Finding: The City Council (1) rejects this alternative on the basis that it fails to meet
basic project objectives, is infeasible, and is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project; (2)
finds that any of these grounds individually provide sufficient justification for rejection this
alternative; and (3) therefore finds that this alternative was not required to be analyzed in further
detail in the EIR.
4. Mine to the North Instead of the West
Description: Another alternative location would be to mine the north side instead of the
west. (Ibid.) Areas to the north are under the management of the U.S. Forest Service or the City
of Duarte. (Ibid.)
Impacts: Besides the lack of ownership and difficulty in permitting a mine on forest
lands or in a separate jurisdiction, the areas to the north encompass higher and steeper terrain,
making it likely that visual impacts would be more significant than the Proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Biological resources issues are also likely to be greater than those with the Proposed Project.
Feasibility. This alternative would require obtaining agreement with the U.S.
government to mine in the Angeles National Forest. Given the controversy and opposition
generated by the Proposed Project, an attempt to mine in the National Forest is deemed to
infeasible from a permitting standpoint.
Finding: The City Council (1) rejects this alternative on the basis that it is infeasible and
is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project; (2) finds that either of these grounds provide
sufficient justification for rejection this alternative; and (3) therefore finds that this alternative
was not required to be analyzed in further detail in the EIR.
5. Mine to the East Instead of the West
Description: Responses to the NOP and scoping meeting included the issue of moving the
existing mine to the east rather than to the west. (Ibid.) The existing mine is permitted to the east
and the Applicant would be expected to mine this area under the current CUP and Reclamation
Plan should the Proposed Project be rejected or denied. (Ibid.) This alternative is essentially the
No Project Alternative, discussed below. (Ibid.) There is a small portion of hillside immediately
east of the existing property boundary potentially connectable to the East Side quarry, which
would be mined under this alternative. (Ibid.)
93
Impacts: This alternative would extend the existing operation closer to the Mountain
Cove community resulting in land use compatibility conflicts and increased visual impact. (Ibid.)
Therefore, this alternative would be environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project. (Ibid.) This
alternative is also similar to the Alternative Site Location (see DEIR section 5.3.2) selected for
evaluation. (Ibid.) The benefit of the Alternative Site Location is that it is owned by the Project
Applicant. (Ibid.) Evaluation of a mine to the east alternative would be duplicative. (Ibid.)
Objectives: This Alternative fails to meet the project objectives of prompt reclamation of
the East Side, since mining would be occurring there instead of immediate reclamation. (Ibid.)
Findin : The City Council (1) rejects this alternative on the basis that it fails to meet
basic project objectives and is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project; (2) finds that
either of these grounds provide sufficient justification for rejection this alternative; and (3)
therefore finds that this alternative was not required to be analyzed in further detail in the EIR.
B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that n EIR must "describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of
the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." (Guidelines §
15126.6[a].) Accordingly, the alternatives selected for review pursuant to the EIR focus on: (a)
the specific General Plan policies pertaining to the project site and (b) alternatives that could
eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance, consistent with
the project objectives (i.e. the alternatives could impede to some degree the attainment of project
objectives). The alternatives analyzed in the following sections include:
■ No Project Alternative
• Alternative Site
• Alternative Design
1. No Project Alternative
Description: The No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA, considers the potential
impacts associated with the Project Site upon denial or withdrawal of the Proposed Project.
(Ibid.) Should the City deny approval of the Proposed Project, VMC will continue its existing
permitted uses: mining on approximately 190 acres under a Special Use Permit; transferring of
material using its overland conveyor; and implementation of its CUP and Reclamation Plan
through the year 2038. (Ibid.) All existing permits and conditions that govern the Azusa Rock
Quarry would remain in place with no changes. (Ibid.) The No Project Alternative does not stop
or reduce the currently permitted mine operations; it allows the existing mine to continue to
operate under the 1988 CUP and Reclamation Plan. (Ibid.)
Impacts. Because the No Project Alternative would utilize the existing Reclamation Plan,
significant and unavoidable impacts associated with aesthetics would occur, and these impacts
would be greater than those of the Proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 5-41.)
Objectives & Feasibility: The No Project Alternative would not meet Project Objectives 1
through 4 and 6, because reclamation would not occur under the proposed Reclamation Plan,
which features superior reclamation techniques. The No Project Alternative is also infeasible for
policy reasons, as it fails to comply with the intent of the City's General Plan, which favors
orienting mining to be less visible to the public. (Ibid.)
Findin : The City Council (1) rejects this alternative on the basis that it fails to meet
basic project objectives, is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project, and is infeasible for
policy reasons; and (2) finds that either of these grounds provide sufficient justification for
rejection this alternative.
2. Alternative Site Location
Description: The Alternative Site Location would add the 42 -acre former Gun Club area
located to the southeast of the Project Site with the currently mined and undisturbed acres on the
East Side. (Ibid.; see also FIR Figure 5-23.) The ridge above the Gun Club would be completely
removed to join the back slope of the northeast ridge at an elevation of approximately 900 to
1,000 feet amsl. (Ibid.) The amount of material in the gun club area and the additional
excavations on the south half of the existing East Side would potentially produce a similar
volume of material as the Proposed Project's West Side approximate 80 acres proposed to be
mined. (Ibid.)
This alternative would be able to utilize the existing infrastructure and the overland
conveyor. (EIR 5-43.)
Impacts: The Alternative Site Location would have aesthetic impacts that are significant
and greater than those of the Proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 5-43.) Additionally, this alternative
would result in a significant impacts with regard to land use and noise that the Proposed Project
does not. (DEIR, pp. 5-44 to 5-45.)
Obiectives & Feasibility: The alternative would not meet the objectives of the City
General Plan, such as those relating to orienting mining to be less visible to the public and
keeping mining from expanding mining into areas not encompassed within an existing quant',
and thus would be infeasible from a policy standpoint. (Ibid.) This alternative would also fail to
meet Project Objectives 3; relating to the immediate reclamation of the east side of the Quarry
Finding: The City Council (1) rejects this alternative on the basis that it fails to meet
basic project objectives, is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project, and is infeasible for
policy reasons; and (2) finds that either of these grounds provide sufficient justification for
rejection this alternative.
3. Alternative Design
Description: A potential significant impact as assessed for the Proposed Project is the
visual impact of mining during Phases I -W and II -W as viewed from areas in the City of Duarte
to the southwest of the site. (Ibid.) This alternative design was developed to address the
significant visual impact to areas of Duarte. (Ibid.) The Alternative Design would set back
mining by up to 400 feet east of the western boundary within the north half of the westerly
approximate 80 acres in order to leave in-place a natural ridgeline to block the view of the
95
proposed excavated areas (Ibid.; see also EIR Figure 5-24.) This setback would limit mining to
the east side of this ridge and would reduce the West Side approximate 80 -acre mine area by
about 23 acres and reduce the amount of material by 47 million tons or approximately 47
percent. (EIR 5-48.) The loss of reserves is disproportionate to the acreage due to the required
sloping of the excavated slopes into Fish Canyon. (Ibid.) This alternative assumes that this
amount of material would be replaced by additional mining on the East Side. (Ibid.)
Impacts: The Alternative Design Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable
impacts with regard to aesthetics. While avoiding the significant and unavoidable impact of the
Proposed Project to scenic view from Duarte, this alternative would result in other, new aesthetic
impacts that are deemed to be greater than those associated with the Proposed Project. (DEIR, p.
5-48.) As a result, this alternative does not present an overall environmental advantage over the
Proposed Project.
Objectives & Feasibility: The Alternative Design Alternative would not meet Project
Objectives regarding the reclamation of the east side of Fish Creek Canyon, as this area would be
subject to long-term mining instead of immediate reclamation. Additionally, this alternative
would not meet the City's policy plans with a regard to ameliorating visual mining impacts, and
thus is infeasible from a policy standpoint.
Findings: The City Council (1) rejects this alternative on the basis that it fails to meet
basic project objectives, is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project, and is infeasible for
policy reasons; and (2) finds that either of these grounds provide sufficient justification for
rejection this alternative. Of the alternatives considered in depth in the EIR, the City Council
finds the Alternative Design Alternative to be the environmentally superior alternative; however,
it is not environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, and on the bases outlined above, it is
rejected in favor of the Proposed Project.
SECTION 9: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS.
The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable
environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. Pursuant to the State
CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable."
The City Council hereby declares that the EIR has identified and discussed significant
effects which may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the Mitigation
Measures discussed in the EIR and adopted by this Resolution, these effects can be mitigated to a
level of less than significant except for the single unavoidable significant impact discussed in
Section 4 of this Resolution.
The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to
eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project.
The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any Mitigation Measures
recommended in the EIR would not be incorporated, such Mitigation Measures are infeasible
92
because they would impose restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of
specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the
unmitigated impacts.
The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in
the EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project objectives and/or
specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any
environmental benefits of the alternatives.
The City Council hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant
environmental effect of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures
contained in this Resolution, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project,
and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impact after
mitigation, the City Council has determined that each of the following social, economic and
environmental benefits of the Project separately and individually outweigh the potential
unavoidable adverse impact and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable
based upon the following overriding considerations.
• The Proposed Project will provide an aesthetically and environmentally superior
design on the existing mining site by creating natural landforms that blend into
the surrounding environment by using micro -benching reclamation methods.
(DEIR, pp. 3-25, 4.1-2, 4.1-19, 4.1-24.)
` The Proposed Project will reduce existing undesirable aesthetic features
associated with past mining and reclamation conducted under conventional
methods by utilizing microbenching, contouring the hillsides, and revegetating in
order to create a much more natural appearing reclaimed slope. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-2,
4.1-17 to 4.1-42.)
■ The Proposed Project will result in the site's overall aesthetics being far superior
to what the aesthetics will be upon completion of the current, vested 1988
Reclamation Plan, as the latter incorporates reclamation by conventional
benching, which will be starkly visible from many vantage points, and the former
will utilize hillside contouring and microbenching, which is designed to create a
more natural appearance and to allow more area for revegetation to occur as
compared to conventional benching. (DEIR, pp. 5-8 to 5-38.)
• The Proposed Project will revegetate the disturbed mine surfaces through the
Project Site using native plant species. (DEIR, pp. 3-28, 4.3-36.)
■ The Proposed Project will establish and maintain viable habitat on the reclaimed
quarry slopes. (DEIR, pp.3-42, 4.3-38.)
■ The Proposed Project provides a reliable supply of Portland cement concrete
(PCC) -quality aggregate to meet the existing and future regional market demands.
(DEIR, pp. 3-7 — 3-10.)
■ The Proposed Project obtains replacement reserves for the 105,000,000 tons
97
currently permitted within a footprint replicating the area of the currently
permitted mine boundary by replicating the existing 190 -acre permitted area
within the approximate 270 -acre site. (DEIR, p. 3-27; FEIR, p. 4-6.)
• The Proposed Project maintains a level of tax revenue for the City of Azusa
equivalent to or greater than the existing mining tax ordinance would produce
under the Applicant's current entitlements. (See Project Development
Agreement.)
■ The Proposed Project maintains existing or equivalent levels of employment both
in terns of the number of jobs and the duration of such jobs being available on the
site. (DEIR, pp. 4.11A to 4.11-2.)
■ The Proposed Project provides, via the Project Development Agreement
(incorporated herein by this reference), specific benefits such as acceleration of
the payment of excavation taxes to the City, the expansion of the applicability of
such taxes to cover overburden; pricing discounts for the City on certain amounts
of aggregate produced by the City; payments for the funding of scholarship and
environmental programs; a $0.05 per ton fee to fund library construction and
various City programs; a right to purchase Vulcan's water rights; the dedication as
open space of a trailhead and the eastern portion of the quarry; a right of first
refusal to purchase the eastern mining area; and the provision by the applicant of a
PM 10 monitor.
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public
through approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse
environmental impact of the Project, which cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that
each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION 10: CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR.
The City Council finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and
considered, and further finds that the E1R is an accurate and objective statement that has been
completed in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City
Council.
The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined by State
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City after circulation of the Draft
EIR which would require recirculation.
Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of
proceedings, including but not limited to the following findings and conclusions:
A. Findings.
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and will
GI
require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of
less than significant: Aesthetics and Visual Impacts (significant impacts to scenic vistas from
Viewpoint 5 — Various Duarte Residences.)
B. Conclusions.
All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the Project have been
identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified, will be
mitigated to a less than significant level, except for the impacts listed in subsection A above.
Other reasonable alternatives to the Project which could feasibly achieve the basic
objectives of the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project.
Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the
development of the Project override the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project
identified in subsection A above.
SECTION 11: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features contained in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the
Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures as set forth herein
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program shall control.
SECTION 12: RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD.
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this
Resolution has been based are located at the City of Azusa Department of Community
Development, 213 E. Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California. The custodian for these records is
the Director of Community Development. This information is provided in compliance with
Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
SECTION 13. RESOLUTION REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION.
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Los Angeles and the State
Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of final Project approval.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 17a' day of May, 2010.
J eph . Rocha, Mayor
ATTEST:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 10-C30 was adopted by the
City Council of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of May, 2010,
by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAI COUNCILMEMBERS:
Vera Mendoza Ci Clerk
City
CARRILLO, MACIAS, HANKS
GONZALES,ROCHA
NONE
NONE
100
EXHIBIT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
Project: Azusa Rock Revised Conditional Use Permit & Reclamation Plan Applicant: Vulcan Materials Company — Western Division
Lead Agency: City of Azusa Date: May 2010
Project Design Feature / Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified Date
Implementing
Aesthetics
Project Design Feature -3. Apply a micro -benching
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During inspections
On-site Inspection
methodology to reduce the height and width of the
Community
life of the project
step -benches and include native vegetation as
Development
measures to eliminate negative aesthetic elements
Department
associated with traditional benching method.
Project Design Feature -4. Final reclaimed slopes are
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During inspections
On-site Inspection
to be contoured horizontallyand verticallyto mimicthe
Community
life of the project
pre -mining contours, incorporating vertical articulation
Development
thereby eliminating negative aesthetic elements.
Department
Mitigation Measure AES -1: In order to reduce potential
City of Azusa
Throughout the
Prior to
On-site Inspection
impacts associated with the west quarry ridgeline, a 20-
Community
west quarry's
commencing
foot operating berm shall be maintained in place during
Development
Phases II -W
operations
the west quarry's Phase II -W mining as outlined in
Department
Figure 4.1-38 of the Draft EIR. This will obscure
equipment from view and deflect equipment noise
durino o erations see Section 4.9 Noise mitigation).
Mitigation Measure AES -2: The operator shall comply
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During inspections
On-site Inspection
with the City of Azusa Development Code Chapter
Community
life of the project
88.31.030, "Outdoor Lighting." The operator shall use
Development
high-pressure sodium and/or cut-off fixtures instead of
Department
mercury-vapor fixtures for any required nighttime lighting
of the operations. The lighting shall also be designed to
confine illumination to the Project Site, and/or to areas
that do not include light-sensitive uses.
Mitigation Measure AES -3: No -mining shall be allowed
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During inspections
On-site Inspection
after dusk within 300 feet of the west quarry Project Site
Community
life of the project
boundary.
Development
Department
Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified Date
Implementing
Air Quality
Proiect Design Feature — 6. Minimize the release of air
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During inspections
On-site inspection
borne dust and emissions through regular application
Community
life of the
of water to dampen stockpiles, working mine faces,
Development
project.
and on-site access roads.
Department
Mitigation Measure AQ -1: Daily peak production shall
SCAQMD
Throughout the
During inspections
On-site Inspection
be restricted to not more than 19,000 tons per day and
life of the project
6,000,000 tons per year.
Mitigation Measure AQ -1 a: Daily production shall be
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During inspections
On-site Inspection
limited to no more than 19,000 tons per day in order to
Community
life of the project
reduce the Proposed Project's potential to emit NO.,
Development
SO„ VOC, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5 emissions to less
Department
than the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds.
Mitigation Measure AQ -1 b: The SCAQMD CEQA
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During inspections
On-site Inspection
significance thresholds shall be used to curtail the
Community
life of the project
facility's throughput to reduce the project's potential to
Development
emit NO,, SO, VOC, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5 emissions
Department
to less than significant. The Emissions Inventory Plan
(Appendix c.2.3, sub -appendix II -B) includes the
methodology to evaluate NO,, VOC, and CO in a
similar manner to that presented below for NO,.
.The facility -wide NO, emissions factor shall be 0.0213
Ib/ton processed.
*The baseline (i.e., current) peak day NO, emissions is
351 Ib/day, and
*The SCAQMD mass daily threshold is NO, 55 Ib/day.
In light of the above information, the Facility may emit
405 Ib/day of NO, and remain less than the SCAQMD
NO, Mass Daily threshold (405 lbs/day = 351 lbs/day
current emissions +54 lbs/day to remain under the NO,
significance threshold). In order for the Project to result
in less than significant impacts for all air quality
aspects, it shall be restricted to production of no more
than 19,000 tons per day.
Project Design Feature / Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified Date
Implementing
Throughout the
During
On-site
Mitigation Measure AQ -1c: a) Continue the
City of Azusa
mandatory use of the materials conveyor system to
Community
life of the project
inspections;
Inspection;
preclude the use of on -road haul trucks traveling
Development
monitoring of
verification of
through residential neighborhoods.
Department
activities during
citizen complaints
high -wind days
b) If winds exceed 25 mph as an hourly average, site
disturbance activities, including but not limited to
blasting, shall be suspended.
Mitigation Measure AQ -1 d: Daily peak production shall
initially be restricted to 6,060 tons per day using existing
equipment. Prior to implementation of any increases in
daily production levels, the Applicant will prepare and
submit to the City an inventory of its current
construction equipment fleet. If the City finds that the
construction equipment fleet's composition conforms
with the assumptions used in the air quality report found
in the Draft EIR Appendix C.2.3, daily production may
be increased to a maximum of 19,000 tons per day.
Mitigation Measure AQ -2: For on-site stationary sources,
SCAQMD
Throughout the
During inspections
On-site Inspection
VMC shall be in compliance with applicable SCAQMD
life of the project
permitting and operation requirements and emission
control measures
Biological Resources
Project Design Feature —1. Enlarge and maintain the
City of Azusa
Prior to initiation
During inspection
On-site Inspection
on-site storm water detention basin, which serves to
Community
of further
prior to disturbing
decant and retard drainage from mined areas from
Development
disturbance to
of currently
directly entering Waters of the U.S. (Fish Creek and
Department
currently
undisturbed areas
the San Gabriel River), from the existing 9.8 acre-feet
undisturbed
to 12 acre-feet or greater capacity.
areas
Project Design Feature -2. Maintain the on-site slope
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During inspection
On-site Inspection
and grade in a manner to direct drainage of surface
Community
life of the project
flows to the on-site storm water detention basin.
Development
Department
Project Design Feature — 3. Apply a micro -benching
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During inspection
On-site Inspection
methodology to reduce the height and width of the
Community
life of the project
step -benches and include native vegetation as
Development
measures to eliminate negative aesthetic elements
Department
associated with traditional benching method.
Project Design Feature / Mitigation Measures
Implementing Action
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/initials
Mitigation Measure BIO-1:
City of Azusa
Prior to each
During on-site
On-site inspection
a) As part of the mining and reclamation activities, the
Community
mining phase
surveys
Applicant shall salvage plants and collect the seeds
Development
of the San Gabriel River dudleyas that will be
Department/
removed as part of Phases I-E, IV-W and V-W (see
Figure 3-16 of Draft EIR for phasing). This
Qualified
requirement is only limited by the ability of the
Biologist
biologist to collect seeds or salvage plants safely,
without risk of serious injury or death. Dudleyas that
can be safely removed from future mining areas
shall be salvaged and transplanted and/or the
collected seeds shall be spread onto the areas to
be reclaimed with a similar slope and aspect. The
Revegetation Plan for the revegetation and
monitoring of this species included in the final
Revised Reclamation Plan is incorporated herein
by this reference and must be complied with in
order to satisfy this Mitigation Measure.
b) Prior to each phase of mining, surveys for the San
Gabriel River dudleya shall be conducted to
determine if the species is present at that point in
time and if so, the number of the plants to be
impacted. The plants favorable for transplanting will
be salvaged and transplanted and/or collected
seeds seeded onto areas to be reclaimed with
similar slopes and aspects where they currently
occur. The Revegetation Plan specifically
addressing this species included in the Final
Reclamation Plan is incorporated herein by this
reference and shall be complied with in order to
satisfy this Mitigation Measure. This Plan includes
the method for salvaging and seed collection,
selection of the areas to be revegetated, methods
for transplanting and seeding, monitoring, and
remediation in order to achieve a success criteria of
50% of the number of plants found in the pre-
construction surveys.
Project Design Feature / Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified Date
Implementing Action
for Monitoring
Frequency
Verification
Verification
/initials
Mitigation Measure BIO -2: To avoid impacts to the
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During on-site
On-site Inspection
Santa Ana speckled dace, Coast range newt, Two-
Community
life of the project
inspections
striped garter snake, southwestern willow flycatcher,
Development
Copper's hawk, osprey, and on suitable habitat for least
Department
Bell's vireo, project activities (excluding future potential
creek restoration) must avoid disturbing Fish Creek
habitat, water flow and quality, and VMC shall maintain a
25 -foot buffer from the edge of the creek banks or the
riparian vegetation, whichever is furthest, including the
entire restoration area.
Mitigation Measure BIO -3: To avoid impacts to Southern
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During on-site
On-site
California rufous -crowned sparrow, coastal California
Community
life of the project
inspections
inspections
gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, and. other nesting birds
Development
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, mining
Department
activities will only remove existing chaparral and coastal
sage scrub during the non -nesting season (September 1
Qualified
through February 15). If clearing of native habitats is
Biologist
going to occur during the breeding season, then a
qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for nesting
birds within three days of the initiation of clearing. If
active bird nests are observed, then a buffer of 100 feet
shall be established around the nests and no activities
shall occur within the buffer until the young have fledged
or the nest has failed. A qualified biologist shall be
utilized to conduct the surveys and to determine the
status of active or failed nests.
Mitigation Measure BIO -4: To offset streambed and
CDFG/ACOE
Prior to impacts
During on-site
On-site inspection
habitat impacts to 2.34 acres of CDFG jurisdictional
to waters of the
inspections
area and 0.34 acres of waters of the U.S., the Project
U.S
Applicant shall be required to comply with one of the
following or a combination of one or more of the
following:(1) purchase credits at a 2 to 1 ratio or
approximately 5 acres/credit at an approved mitigation
bank which supports the San Gabriel River, through
other regional conservation programs (such as San
Gabriel Mountains Regional Conservancy); (2) establish
on-site drainages and vegetation within the reclaimed
West Side quarry floor at a 2 to 1 ratio; or (3) dedicate or
contribute 5 acres of appropriate lands as a permanent
conservation easement to a conservation group. Note
that these compensation ratios are typical and are
subject to review and agreement with the CDFG via
Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement and the
ACOE via the Section 404 permitting process.
Project Design Feature / Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified Date
Implementing Action
for Monitoring
Frequency
Verification
Verification
/initials
Mitigation Measure BIO -5: Excavation and mining within
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During on-site
On-site
the periphery of Fish Creek will be under the observation
Community
life of the project
inspections
inspections
of the consulting biologist at all times to assure no
Development
adverse impacts will occur to the drainages and
Department/
tributaries of the Waters of the United States and
Waters of the State, unless such effects have been
Qualified
recognized and permitted through appropriate permits,
Biologist
agreements and certifications issued by the respective
responsible agencies. In order to prevent adverse
impacts to Fish Creek the consulting biologist will
provide staking and fencing of the drainages to delineate
the areas of special concern, as these areas were
identified in the Biological Resource Assessment
contained in Draft EIR appendices C.3, C.3.2, and
C.3.6. The biologist will monitor activities in the vicinityof
these areas to ensure that the staked areas of exclusion
are not intruded by either the equipment/operations or
indirectly by soil movements.
Mitigation Measure BIO -6: Prior to mining activities on
City of Azusa
Prior to mining
During survey
On-site inspection
undisturbed portions of habitat located on the West
Community
activities on the
Side of the Project Site, these areas will be surveyed
Development
undisturbed
and oak tree species will be recorded and quantified
Department
portion of
to determine if said trees meet the criteria of a
habitat on the
protected oak tree. If oak trees are found on-site that
west side.
have a diameter breast height of 8 inches or more, the
Applicant shall either under the supervision of the City
relocate the oak trees or plant new trees (with a 15 -
gallon minimum box size) along reclaimed drainages
at a 3:1 ratio for each tree removed.
Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified Date
Implementing Action
for Monitoring
Frequency
Verification
Verification
/Initials
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR -1: Azusa Rock personnel
Qualified
Throughout the
In the event
On-site inspection
working on the Project Site shall receive training from a
Archeologist
life of the project
cultural resources
qualified archaeologist to identify cultural resources and
are discovered
to monitor during excavation operations, Trained
personnel shall have the authority to stop work if a
potential cultural resource is encountered. In the event
that buried cultural resources, including historic or
archeological resources, are discovered during
construction, operations shall cease in the immediate
vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be
consulted to determine whether the resource requires
further study. The qualified archeologist shall make
recommendations to the Lead Agency on measures
that shall be implemented to protect the discovered
resources, including but not limited to excavation of the
finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines. The City shall ensure that recommended
measures are implemented by VMC.
Measures may include but are not limited to: a detailed
mapping of the findings; a recordation of the discovery
with appropriate agencies; potential tests (if needed) to
evaluate the resources' eligibility for listing in the
National Register or California Register of Historic
Resources, and recovery and curation. A technical
report would then be prepared to document field
methods and results.
Mitigation Measure CR -2: In accordance with 36 CFR
City of Azusa
Throughout the
In the event
On-site inspection
800.13(b)(3), the State Historic Preservation Officer
Community
life of the project
archeological
and Native American tribe contacts as listed on the
Development
artifacts are
letter (dated September 28, 2007) received from Native
Department/Na
discovered
American Heritage Commission, as well as the
live American
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be
Heritage
notified within 48 hours of the discovery of any
Commission
archaeological artifacts. Native American groups will be
given the option of accepting recovered artifacts.
Project Design Feature / Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified Date
Implementing Action
for Monitoring
Frequency
Verification
Verification
/initials
_Mitigation Measure CR -3: Mine personnel shall receive
Qualified
Throughout the
Pre -project
Training sign -
pre -project paleontological recognition training from a
Paleontologist
life of the project
training
in/attendance
qualified paleontologist. Any possible fossils
sheet
encountered in the unconsolidated gravels shall be
marked with a 50 -foot exclusion radius until the qualified
paleontologist can respond to the unanticipated
discovery. The paleontologist shall then map and record
the discovery, test, (if needed) and evaluate the
resource in accordance with applicable State
regulations. A technical report shall be prepared to
document methods and results. If the paleontologist
determines that the resources is unique, recovery and
curation of the resource shall be required.
Mitigation Measure CR -4: If human remains of any kind
Los Angeles
Throughout the
In the event
Coroner's report/
are found during mining activities, all activities must
County
life of the project
human remains
cease immediatelyand the Los Angeles County Coroner
Coroner/
are discovered
and a qualified archaeologist must be notified. The
Qualified
Coroner will examine the remains and determine the
Archaeologist/
next appropriate action based on his or her findings. If
Native
the coroner determines the remains to be of Native
American
American origin, he or she will notify the Native
Heritage
American Heritage Commission. The Native American
Commission
Heritage Commission will then identify the most likely
descendants to be consulted regarding treatment and/or
reburial of the remains. If a most likely descendant
cannot be identified, or the most likely descendant fails
to make a recommendation regarding the treatment of
the remains within 48 hours after gaining access to
them, Vulcan shall rebury the Native American human
remains and associated grave goods with appropriate
dignity on the property in a location not subject to further
subsurface disturbance.
Geology and Soils
Project Design Feature -2. Maintain the on-site slope
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During on-site
On-site inspection
and grade in a manner to direct drainage of surface
Community .
life of the project
inspections
flows to the on-site storm water detention basin.
Development
Department
Proiect Design Feature -3. Apply a micro -benching
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During on-site
On-site inspection
methodology to reduce the height and width of the
Community
life of the project
inspections
step -benches and include native vegetation as
Development
measures to eliminate negative aesthetic elements
Department
associated with traditional benching method.
Project Design Feature / Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified Date
Implementing Action
for Monitoring
Frequency
Verification
Verification
linitials
Project Design Feature -4. Final reclaimed slopes are
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During on-site
On-site inspection
to be contoured horizontallyand verticallyto mimicthe
Community
life of the project
inspections
pre-mining contours, incorporating vertical articulation
Development
thereby eliminating negative aesthetic elements.
Department
Mitigation Measure GS-1: Fill material selection and
City of Azusa
Community
Prior to use of
fill material for
Prior to
constructing
Laboratory Shear
Testing; on-site
testing. The buttress fill constructed at the toe of the
eastern slope to improve its stability shall be constructed
Development
buttress
buttress at toe of
inspection
of material with a shear strength of equal or better than
Department
construction
eastern slope; on-
friction angle of 45 ° and cohesion of 500 psf. To ensure
site inspection to
that these criteria are met, the fill material shall be
verify
laboratory tested prior to use. Due to the coarse
implementation
gradation of the on-site fill available, specialized
laboratory shear testing may be required. If laboratory
test results indicate that the cohesion of the fill is
insufficient, sufficiently strong material could potentially
be obtained through the addition of geosynthetic fibers
(Geofibers) or application of a geogrid; materials shall
be approved by the City of Azusa.
Mitigation Measure GS-2: Geologic mapping of actual
City of Azusa
Building Official
Throughout the
life of the project
Prior to the design
of future phases
Submittal of
additional studies
cut slopes. The existing natural and cut slopes are on
the order of 1/4-mile from the planned final cut slopes,
analyzing rock
Considering the highly fractured, discontinuous nature of
mass
the rocks, it is possible that the planar discontinuity
discontinuities
orientations within the final cut will be significantly
different than the present exposures. The orientation of
the cut slopes can be a major factor since slopes
oriented such that discontinuities are daylighted (i.e.
unsupported) will be more susceptible to slides than
slopes with discontinuities dipping into slope or neutral
to the slope face. The Applicant shall provide additional
studies to determine the orientation and characteristics
of the rock- mass discontinuities and of the cut slopes,
to provide further mitigation of slope failure. By mapping
and monitoring cut-slope discontinuities, slope cuts can
be oriented to minimize adverse relationships thereby
reducing the slide potential. In certain areas, adjusting
the design of future phase bench widths and sequencing
would mitigate the hazards.
Project Design Feature / Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified Date
Implementing Action
for Monitoring
Frequency
Verification
Verification
/initials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Project Design Feature -1. Enlarge and maintain the
City of Azusa
At initiation of
Issuance of
Review of grading
on-site storm water detention basin, which serves to
Community
project
grading permits
permit request;
decant and retard drainage from mined areas from
Development
and on-site
on-site inspections
directly entering Waters of the U.S. (Fish Creek and
Department
inspections
the San Gabriel River), from the existing 9.8 acre-feet
to 12 acre-feet or greater capacity.
Project Design Feature — 2. Maintain the on-site slope
City of Azusa
Throughout the
During on-site
On-site
and grade in a manner to direct drainage of surface
Community
life of the project
inspections
inspections
flows to the on-site storm water detention basin.
Development
Department
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 • The Applicant shall be
City of Azusa
Through the
Prior to
On-site inspection
required to expand on-site storm water detention
Community
duration of the
commencing
capacity to a minimum of 12 acre-feet for the duration of
Development
mining and
operations within
the mining and reclamation periods
Department
reclamation
the western 80 -
periods.
acre area.
Noise
Mitigation Measure N-1: Mining activities shall only be
City of Azusa
Throughout the
On-site
On-site
permitted within Phases I -W and II—W along the
Community
life of the project
inspections
inspections
western and southern boundary of the Project Site
Development
during the defined construction hours of 7 a.m. to 6
Department
p.m.
Mitigation Measure N-2: During all excavation,
City of Azusa
Throughout the
On-site
On-site
hauling, and processing of materials, the operator
Community
life of the project
inspections
inspections
shall equip equipment with properly operating and
Development
maintained mufflers, stationary engine enclosures, or
Department
other noise suppression devices consistent with
manufacturers' standards.
Mitigation Measure N-3: Blasting shall only be
City of Azusa
Throughout theOn-site
On-site
conducted between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Community
life of the project
inspections
inspections
Monday through Saturday with no blasting allowed on
Development
Sundays or holidays.
Department