HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 91-C0490 0
RESOLUTION NO. 91-C49
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AZUSA APPROVING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-050
EXTENDING THE TIME FOR UTILIZATION OF A
ROADWAY OVER THE SAN GABRIEL RIVER FOR
ROCK PROCESSING PURPOSES
WHEREAS, an Initial Study of Environmental Impact
and a Negative Declaration have been prepared for Resolution
No. 91-050 amending Resolution No. 8626 (hereinafter
"Project") in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA
Guidelines;
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were held by
the Planning Commission for the City of Azusa on April 24,
1991 and by the City Council of the City of Azusa on May 6,
1991 at which times evidence was heard on the proposed
Project and the Negative Declaration;
WHEREAS, prior to approving the Project, the City
Council of the City of Azusa considered the Initial Study of
Environmental Impact and the Negative Declaration together
with any comments received during the public review process;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa
hereby finds and determines that on the basis of the Initial
Study and any comments received in the public review
process, there is no substantial evidence that the Project
will have a significant adverse effect upon the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF AZUSA that the Negative Declaration for the
Project, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this
reference incorporated herein, is hereby certified and
approved and determined that this Negative Declaration shall
be filed with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of
May , 1991.
0 0
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Azusa at a
regular, meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of
1991, by the following vote of the
Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS MNGIMS, SMWCH, MWMO-
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS MMMEK, M SES
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS NOW
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS NONE
-2-
pca/RES124200
4
uwo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LI REPORT TO THE r
OIARUJZ2PI ANNIN[' [_AMMISSInM
MEETING DATE: APRIL 10, 1991 CASE NO(s): P-91-28
APPLICANT: OWL ROCK PRODUCTS COMPANY
LOCATION: 1201 NORTH TODD AVENUE
REQUEST: TO AMEND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 8626 TO GRANT
A TIME EXTENSION FOR TRUCKS HAULING ROCK ACROSS THE
SAN GABRIEL RIVER TO A SEPARATE PROCESSING PLANT.
LAND USE AND ZONING
site: INDUSTRIAL.. ..................W
north': SAN GABRIEL RIVER.................W
south: INDUSTRIAL .. ... ...............M2
east: COMMUNITY FACILITIES..............CF
west: SAN GABRIEL RIVER.................W
GENERAL PLAN: This area is designated Conservation.
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA:
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
__categorically exempt, class
RS negative declaration
_ environmental impact report
FACTS:
YES _ NO RR%%
1. The subject property is triangular in shape, and is located
at the northwest corner of Todd Avenue and Sierra Madre
Avenue. This parcel is 48.4 acres in size, and is developed
with a rock processing plant operated by Owl Rock Company.
2. On May 15, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
8626, which amended a previous use variance for this
property. The use variance, approved in 1963 by Resolution
No. 4520, allowed for the processing of rock material on this
site. Resolution No. 8626 modified the use variance to allow
material to be brought from the Azusa Rock plant across the
San Gabriel River to the Owl Rock plant for processing.
3. Conditions of approval G and I of Resolution No. 8626
required that the use of a temporary haul road across the San
Gabriel River cease after two (2) years and that the roadway
be revegetated. This time constraint was originally intended
to allow for use of the haul road until such time as the
permanent conveyor system across the river was completed.
Due to the lengthy review process that was required for the
conveyor system, work has not yet begun on its construction.
Owl Rock Company has requested that the use of the haul road
be allowed to continue for an additional period of time.
Therefore, an amendment to Resolution No. 8626 has been
requested.
STAFF REPORT - PAS
PAGE 2 OF 2
ANALYSIS•
1. The haul road is an unpaved road which traverses the river
south of Azusa Rock plant and then runs further south to the
Owl Rock plant. This road has been used in the past = by
trucks which have hauled rock and debris out of the river bed
as part of maintaining the river as a flood control channel.
Permission°has been granted to Owl Rock from the U: -S.Army
-Corps of Engineers to cross the river- at this point. --
2. -Owl Rock originally ,"requested use of this haul road to
supplement the processing of rock taken from their own
quarries. As these pits are now nearly fully depleted, the
material coming from the Azusa Rock plant would be the sole
source to keep the Owl Rock plant in operation. A limit ,of
70,000 tons of material- per month to be transported via this
road was set by Resolution No. 8626. A separate request has
been made by Owl Rock to increase the tonnage limit.
However, due,t.to the environmental questions raised by that
request, that matter will be considered as a separate
proposal to be -submitted in the near future, and only after
further staff analysis.
3. Review of the existing trail on several occasions has
indicated substantial compliance with the City's current
requirements. The trail is clearly 'defined, without
.,significant intrusions_;.into surrounding,: areas. Crossings
with the nearby bicycle and'equestrian trails are marked, and
•'a flagman is,posted during working hours. The ;roadway is
wetted down on a regular basis to reduce dust. Markers
alongside the road which are intended to help preserve its
alignment were not in place during the most recent staff
observations, and need to be reinstalled.
` 4. -The time=extension,•requested would allow Owl Rock to continue
to utilize this haul road until December 31, 1992 or until
the conveyor system is operational, whichever is sooner.
This would fulfill the original intent of Resolution No.
8626, which was to recognize Owl Rock's ability to import
material from Azusa Rock, with the haul road to be used on a
temporary basis until a permanent solution is completed.
Observation ,of the.existing trucking „activities indicates
that the current level of operations has resulted in -no
significant environmental impacts. The requested time
extension would therefore be in keeping with the previously
granted approvals for Owl Rock and Azusa -,Rock, without
resulting in any negative impacts; on the surrounding
environment. -
RECOMMENDATION•
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
resolution recommending to the City Council that Resolution No.
j 8626 be amended to extend the time allowed to December 31, 1992;
or the completion date of.the Azusa ,Rock --conveyor system,
3 whichever is sooner.,,___
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
i ROY E. BRUCKNER
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT c
.�ANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER "
REB/DMW/lmr
Attachments - As noted
7a
� F
• y
PAGE 2 0F 2_
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF AZUSA RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
THAT AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 8626 BE APPROVED
The Planning Commission of the City of Azusa does
resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find,
determine and declare the following recommended revision and
amendment to the City Council Resolution No. 8626 was duly
initiated, that notice of hearing was duly given and published,
that said -public hearing was held on tae 10th day of April, 1991,
and that public convenience, necessity and general welfare
require that the following amendment to Resolution No. 8626 be
made.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to
the City Council to change and amend the text of Resolution No.
8626 for the purpose of allowing a time extension for trucks
as described in the attached Env
Assessment.
SECTION 3. The approval hereby granted is conditional
upon the privileges being utilized within six (6) months after
the effective date thereof and if they are not utilized or
construction work is not begun within said time and carried on
diligently in accordance with the conditions imposed, this
approval shall become void and any permission or privilege
granted hereby shall be deemed to have elapsed.
SECTION 4. It is recommended that condition of approval
(6) of Resolution No. 8626 be amended to read as follows:
6. The existing roadway may be utilized
until December 31, 1992, or until
completion of the Azusa Rock conveyor
system to the Owl Rock and Cal Mat
quarries, whichever occurs frist.
Futhermore, that all other conditions of approval of
Resolution No. 8626 shall continue to be met at all times.
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption
of this resolution.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1991.
CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
I
resolution
Azusa at a
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
regular meeting thereof held on the day of
_, 1991, by the following vote of the Commission:
SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
1
J
L7
CITYOF E ��;O � CITYOf VICINITY
AZUSA
1
MPROPOSED PROJECT FOR CASE NO.
or sod loon'
N
0
C:;w6b
4JF;,AZUSA -
ILL,
CITypFON 1�.� NEGA
0 c, avCITY OF USAF ,
TIVE " DECLARATION
RECD CENTRAL
Date: March 7. 1991
NOTICE:,Pursuant to the -provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA-Public Resources Ccde, Section 21100 et. seg.),
the City of Azusa has determined that the project referenced
hereinafter will not have a significant effect on the environment..
PROJECT TITLE. Precise Plantof Design No. P''91=28 and Amendment
to City Council Resolution No. 8626
PROJECT, LOCATION_ 1201 North Todd Avenue,,*
Azusa, Ca. 91702:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to resolution which amended a prior
use variance allowing an extension of tice for truck traffic across the
San Gabriel River to haul rock material -to separate processing plant.
PROJECT PROPONENT: Owl Rock Products Company
A copy of the Initial Study, doc=ent -ng reasons to support the
findings that said project will nct have a significant effect and
containing any mitigating measures orc:osed to be included in the
project to avoid potentially significant effects, is attached
hereto for public review.
An Environmental Impact Report is not required for this project.
APPEALS. Any person or agency aggrieved by this decision may appeal
to the Azusa City Council in ccmPliance with all provisions for
filing of such appeals. Anv such azzea' must be filed within thirty
(30).days after the issuance of t is decision, or it shall be dis-
missed by the City Council.
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER (818) 334-5125 Ext. 262
CONTACT PERSON TZTL TELEPHONE
rAR- Pfop3`i=.WAS 5 19,1
tl
CN
C
TO: COUNTY CLERK
CORPORATIONS
P.O. BOX 151
LOS ANGELES,
I
- r�aFRAL
NOTICE OF PREPARATION vAR 12 1991
FROM: CITY OF AZUSA
DIVISION -- Room 106 213 E. FOOTHILL BLVD.
AZUSA, CA. 91702
CA. 90053
This is to notify all interested parties that a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION has been prepared by the City of Azusa for the
following project:
Precise Plan of Design No. P-91-28 and Amendment to
City Council Resolution No. 8626
1201 North Todd Avenue
Azusa, California 91702
Amendment to resolution which amended a prior use variance allowing an
extension of time for truck traffic across the San Gabriel River to
haul rock material to separate processing plant.
A public hearing has been scheduled before the AZUSA CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION on April 10, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the
Civic Auditorium located at 213 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa,
California.
Copies of the proposed Negative Declaration may be reviewed at
the Azusa Planning Division, 213 E. Foothill Blvd., or the Azusa
Public Library, 729 N. Dalton Ave. Comments may be made in
compliance with Sections 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources
Code for a 21 -day period of time. Further information can_ be
obtained by calling {818} 334-5125, ext. 262.
DATE OF NOTICE:
March
7,
1991
END OF REVIEW PERIOD:
April
10, 1991
DATE OF POSTING:
March
7,
1991
Los Angeles County Clerk's Filing Date:
Os NOTICE w 5 1991
,5 1991T —
DEPM coum CLEBS
si
A
l'
:,-
O �
CITYOF
AZU5A'
INITIAL STUD`( OF
ENVIR0NMENTAL IIII PAC i
r� rrf � (�r11T[�aL
I.BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent/Applicant:
Owl Rock Products Company
2. Address and phone number of Proponent/11p1icant:
5435 Peck Road
Arcaida, California 91006
(818) 443-0111
3. Name of Project (if applicable):
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. P-91-28
AMENDMENT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 8626
4. Description of Project and Address:
Amendment to resolution which amended a prior use variance, allowing an
extension of time for truck traffic across the San Gabriel River to haul
rock material to a separate processing plant.
5. Identification of Environmental Settinc:
Existing rock quarry plant adjacent to the San Gabriel River.
Trucks will be utilizing an existing unpaved road across the
river bed. Roadway lies adjacent to natural alluvial fan
vegetation and wild life habitats.
'[St8 .MMCF • AS POSM
�AFF�AmSA'CU EES
0 A
GAzus,�c� COMMUNITY DEVELOP ,LENT DEPARTMENT
<?•_ INITIAL STUDY
1A0 '.Y yN
�-alyor ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
�nzus�.Lr
A copy of the Initial Study for Community Development Cecar_-er- z.ojects will be available to the pjblic
in the Community Develcr ent Department and In the ,Musa library. Comments from the public on the
projects may be made in writing to the Community Develepmenz _:lector or at the public hearings on the
project.
CProject Description: Precise Plan of Design No. P-91-28 and Amendment to Resolution
No. 8616, amendment to extend time for truck traffic hauling rock across the San Gabriel
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Rigel,
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are requirea cm attached sheets.)
YES NAYBE NO
1. EARTH Will the project result in:
a.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic s_cstr-_ctures?
J(
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovetinz c_ the soil?
c.
Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d.
The destruction, covering, or modification of any unigrze cez:zgic
or physical features?
X
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either c..
the site?
X
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes
in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the crannel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, ic:ez zr 'lake?
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as eartn-
quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
X
2.
AIR Will the project result in:
a.
Substantial air er..missions or deterioration of ambient air t___ity?
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
X
c.
Alteration of air move^ent, moisture or temperature, or am_: z-ahce
in climate, either locally or regionally?
X
3.
WATER Will the project result in:
a.
Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water nz-.erents,
in either marine or fresh waters?
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate arc
amount of surface water runoff?
X
C.
Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d.
Change in the amount of surface water in any water bony?
X
e.
discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration cf s_r:sce water
earth including but :.ot limited to temperature, cissa-vea cx_:gen or
turbidity? -
X
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of grcure waters?
_X
g.
Change in the quality of ground waters, either thrcuah aireaz
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aC�afier
by cuts or excavations?
X
h.
Change in quality of ground water? X
1.
Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise avai=aL:e
for public water supplies?
_ X
J.
Exposure of people or property to water related hazaras stem as
flooding or tidal waves?
X
4.
PLANT LIFE Will the project result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or number of plants
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic p'_anzs)2
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or encangerem species
or plants? X
c.
Introduction of new species of plants into an area, c_ in _ __trier
to the norral replenishment of existing species?
X
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
_X
5.
ANIMAL LIFE Will the project result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species c---
tanimals
animals(birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish an_ sne:_fish,
benthic organisms, insects, or nicrofauna)?
b.
_X
Reoucticn of the rcmbers of any unique, rare or a-man=ere= species
of animals?_
c.
Introduction of new species or animals into an area, Cr ras:_t in a
barrier to the nigraticn or movement of animals?
X
d.
Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? —x_
6.
NOISE Will the project result in:
a.
Increase in existirq noise levels?
X
b.
Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
_X
7.
LIGRT AND GLARE will the project produce new light c_ :_are?
X
8.
LAND USE Will the project result in:
a.
Substantial alteration of the present or planned land zse zf an area?
y
b.
Incompatibility with existing zoning, the General Plan, any specific
_
1
plan, or other applicable land use control? X
__
L
0
15. ENERGY Will the project result in:
YES
MAYBE `•O
9. NATURAL
RESOURCES lull the protect result
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _
X
b.
Substantial ceo_ettcn of any non-renewable natural resc:rce.
X
10.
RISK CF UPSET Ooes the project involve a r:sc of an eco_cs:on or
b. Communications systens?
X
the release of hazareous substances (inclueinn, c-_ -_-_ __-:tee to
d. Sewer or'sent-,c tarns? -
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the eve-tc_ _- accident
e. Storn water drainage?
X
or upset conditions? -
X
11. -POPULATION
Will the project alter the location, gist rtc_t ion, -
a.Creation of ary health hazard or potential health. `azar= (excluding
density or growth rate of the human population of an area?
X
12.
HOUSING Will the project affect existing housing or create a
18. AESTHETICS ` Will the project result in the cbstr_cti^ cf Ery
demand for additional housing?
L
13.
TRANSPORTATION Will the project result in:
to public view?
a.
Generation of substantial additional vehicular move-ent?
X
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities or demand f.._ new _arcing?
X
c.
Substantial impact upon existing transportation syste-s?
}(
d.
Alterations to present patterns of circulation or-cvere-t of
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
people/and or goods?
X
e.
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
�-
fl
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists
- - �-
com^jn_-y, recce the'nurber or restrict the range cfa-rare or
or pedestrians?
endancereg plant or animal or eliminate important exarp_es of the
14.
PUBLIC SERVICES Will the project have an effect open, cr result in a
j(
b. Does the protect have the potential to achieve short -ter-, to the
need for new or altered governmental services in ary one of the areas:
disadvantage of :Ong -term, environmental goals? ( A snort -tem -
a.
Fire protection?
X
b.
Police protection?
X
c.
Schools?
X
d.
Parks or other recreational activities?
-separate resources where the''impact on each resource is relatively
e.
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f.
Other governmental services?
_X
15. ENERGY Will the project result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of energy or fuel?
X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or
- require the develop-ent of new sources of energy?
X
-16.' ;UTILITIES - Will'Ithe pzojeci`result in a need for new systems; "or
,substactial alteraticii to the following utilities?
a. Power or natural gas?' - -
X
b. Communications systens?
X
c. Water?
d. Sewer or'sent-,c tarns? -
X
X
e. Storn water drainage?
X
f. Solid waste a..^.c cisposal? - -
17. HUMAN HEALTH Will -the project result in:-
nYa.
a.Creation of ary health hazard or potential health. `azar= (excluding
mental healtn)? -
X
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazares?
X
18. AESTHETICS ` Will the project result in the cbstr_cti^ cf Ery
scenic vista or view open to the public, or well the prcpcsa_
result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site -pen
to public view?
_ X
19. RECREATION Will the project result in an irpact c. n tri _-na_ity
or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
20. ARCH70LCG1CAL/HIS7CRICAL Will the project result in an alteration
=of -a significant archeological or historical site, structures,
•- -
object or cuilding? -
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the protect have the potential to degrade tre c_a_._: of the
'
- environ-ent, suostantially reduce the -habitat of a fish cr wfld-
-life species, cauie a fish or wildlife population to d== celcw
self-sustaining 'levels, threaten to eliminate a plant --r aniral
-
com^jn_-y, recce the'nurber or restrict the range cfa-rare or
endancereg plant or animal or eliminate important exarp_es of the
major periods of California history or prehistory,
j(
b. Does the protect have the potential to achieve short -ter-, to the
- .---
disadvantage of :Ong -term, environmental goals? ( A snort -tem -
-
impact on the environment is one which occurs in a re_at:reiy
brie_' definitive period of time while long-term _r=acts will
endure well into the future.)
X
c. Does the project have impacts which are indivic;:ai:y _---ted but
cumulatively considerable? 1 A protect ray impact on t:o Or more
-separate resources where the''impact on each resource is relatively
— -
small, but where the effect of the total of those i -pacts on the
' environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which w!!! cause_
-
substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or
`� iddirectly? at '- a
C
CITY OF
0O
+1 CITY CF E
t_0AZUSA%,
0 0
C, C
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
EXPLANATIONS/MITIGATION DISCUSSION
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAT=CN
-SEE ATTACHED SHEET -
IV. MITIGATION MEASURES
Describe mitigation measures inc/::ded in the project, if any are
needed, to avoid potentially significant effects:
-SEE ATTACHED SHEET -
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluat_cn:
I find the proposed project CC..=7 NOT HAVE a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECARATION has
been prepared and is attached.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attac::e_ sheet have been added to
the project. A NEGATIVE DEC_ --�::_0N WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project S_ -,Y ^ave a significant effect
effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
Date: March 7, 1991
Signature:
ANIEL M. WATROUS
Title: SENIOR PLANNER
-DEPUTY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION-ATTACM4ENT- =
PROPOSED PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. P-91-28 AND AMENDMENT TO
CITY .COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 8626
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1.P. Existing roadway traverses the bed of the San Gabriel
River....;,Traffic -shall follow -existing roadway path
without any alteration of the riverbed or the flood
control channel.
` 2.a.
Some dust will raised by the truck trips across the
unpaved road. Emissions will"not be above the existing
w."
levels, as traffic will not be increased above existing
level.
V,
P
3.h.
Oil or other fluids may leak onto the ground and into
either the river stream or through to groundwater
tables.
4.a.&b.
'Roadway passes by existing native vegetation areas, some "
of which have previously been identified 'as possible
candidates for governmental protection.
5.a.b.&d. Various wildlife species are known to inhabit
vegetation areas adjacent to the roadway. This
area is a potential habitat for the San Diego coast ,
horned lizard. No significant impact is anticipated
due to measures to be taken to maintain roadway -
within its current alignment without encroaching on
habitat areas.
6.
No increase in projected noise levels, as no increase
-in
in truck traffic is proposed at this time. Ambient
noise levels from nearby industrial areas is higher than
that oP truck traffic. -
8.a.
Existing quarry operation ---is permitted under- a use
variance -,---granted :-in 1963. Current W (Water
Conservation) zone prohibits all rock, sand and gravel
--operations:
40:"
, Project . would" ; continuerexisting -risk of oil= or" -other
vehicle fluid release from trucks onto the ground and
into either the river stream or through"to groundwater
tables..
13.a.
No increase in truck traffic is proposed above existing
--- - ----- -
levels.
Page 1 of 3" ----.___ --= -- ---------------_. - ,,
NMCE WAS
X1.5 "19; _-. • -
,.
' NEGATIVE DECLARATION ATTACHMENT
PROPOSED PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. P-91-28 AND
AMENDMENT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 8626
Page 2 of 3
13.f. & 14.d. Possible interference with bicycle or equestrian
traffic will not increase from current levels.
17.b.&19. Continued truck traffic will raise possible
conflicts at crossings of roadway with existing
bicycle and equestrian trails.
21.a. Nearby sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitats will
not be disturbed by the proposed project, as trucks will
continue to utilize an existing road which has produced
a pathway devoid of mature vegetation.
21.b. Project will be short-term in nature, with an expiration
date of May 1, 1991. Long-term impacts beyond this time
period would appear to be negligible.
IV. MITIGATION MEASURES
l.f. The existing roadway is marked by monument posts of 25 -
foot intervals on both sides of the roadway through
sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitats. Posts are
inspected every day to assure that the existing roadway
is not changed or widened.
2.a. Road surface will be stabilized using water and
scheduled treatment with nontoxic, biodegradable soil
binding agents. Hauling activities will not occur when
wind conditions are such that they may carry dust
emissions toward residential receptors.
3.h. Measures will be taken to keep trucks in proper
operating conditions to minimize possibility of vehicle
fluids leaking onto roadway and into water suppliers.
4.a.&b. See comments under l.f.
5.a.,b.&d. See comments under l.f.
10. See comments under 3.h.
13.f. Applicant will continue to provide a flagman at the
crossing of the roadway with the bicycle and equestrian
trails during all hours of operation. Truck speeds will
be limited to 20 m.p.h. Signs are also present along
the trails on each side of the road to warn riders of
truck crossing.
Page 2 of 3
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ATTACHMENT
PROPOSED PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. P-91-28 AND
AMENDMENT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 8626
Page 3 of 3
14.d. See comments under 13.f.
17.b. See comments under 13.f.
C19. See comments=•under 13.f.
21.a. See comments under l.f.
Reference is also hereby made to all other Environmental Impact
Reports which have been prepared for projects within the City.of
Azusa for-additional_information.-and-knowledge-of .existing :and
future environmental conditions in the area:
.. J .�.... a.. n • . .. .` _ ..
Page 3 of 3
}