Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 91-C153RESOLUTION NO. 91-C153 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR RESOLUTION NO.91--CI54 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 8626 INCREASING THE MAXIMUM TONNAGE ALLOWED TO CROSS THE SAN GABRIEL RIVER TO THE OWL ROCK PRODUCTS COMPANY AND APPROVING PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN P-91-20, SUBJECT TO CON- DITIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Azusa hereby finds: A. WHEREAS, an Initial Study of Environmental Impact and a Negative Declaration was prepared on or about June 19, 1991 and July 14, 1991, respectively, for Resolution No.917C154kmending Resolution No. 8626 (hereinafter "Project") in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines; B. WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission for the City of Azusa on or about July 24, 1991 and the City Council of the City of Azusa on September 18, 1991 at which times evidence was heard on the proposed Project and the Negative Declaration; C. 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; D. 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 as conditioned; E. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa further finds and determines that, as a result of the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review process, the Project is subject to the Fish and Game CEQA fee as set forth in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 735.5(a)(4) which shall be paid to the Los Angeles County Clerk on or before the filing of the Notice of Determination. SECTION 2: The Negative Declaration for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein, is hereby certified and approved and shall be filed with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles. SECTION 3: The Project proponent, Owl Rock Products Company, shall pay the appropriate fee set forth in Title 14 -1- PCA/RES596535 0 California Code of Regulations Section 735.5(a)(4) to the Los Angeles County Clerk on or before the filing of the Notice of Determination and a receipt verifying such payment shall be attached to said Notice of Determination. SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. of PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this October 1 1991. 21 St day 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 1st day of October , 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: DANCLFIS, STEMRICH, A.LEXANDFR, MOSES NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:NARANJO -2- PCA/RES596535 0 TERRY A. HAYES ASSOCIATES Urban and Environmental Planning Consultants MEMORANDUM: TO: Mr. Daniel Watrous Community Development Department City of Azusa FR: Terry Hayes RE: Proposed Amendment to City Resolution 4520 Air and Noise Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Expanded Use of River Crossing Haul Road DATE: June 4, 1991 PURPOSE OF THIS MEMORANDUM The purpose of this memorandum is twofold: o Determine the significance of air and noise impacts that would result from the proposed Amendment to Resolution 4520 allowing an increase in hauling from approximately 70,000 tons per month to approximately 273,500 tons per month. o Should impacts be identified, are there mitigation measures that should be imposed to reduce impacts to an acceptable level or to ensure existing levels of environmental quality. For purposes of comparing predicted air quality and noise levels from hauling activities to established standards and guidelines, it is necessary to translate monthly projections into daily projections. Table 1 illustrates daily changes in activity. Currently, Resolution 4520 allows 70,000 tons per month. This translates into approximately 47 loads per day -- assuming use of Euclid B-70 haulers with a 70 ton capacity and an average of 21.167 work days per month. In contrast, the Proposed Amendment would allow approximately 273,500 tons per month. This level of activity would translate in to approximately 185 loads per day. Also shown on Table 1 are the estimated allowable daily activity levels that would result from the Corps of Engineers (Right of Entry Permit, Condition 7) which allows Owl Rock 100 rointe, Suite 105 Culver City, CA 90230 (213) 337-7900 0 0 PAGE 2 to haul across the San Gabriel riverbed. The Corps restricts the number of round trips to 70 per day. Assuming use of the Euclid haulers would thus translate into approximately 104,000 tons day. This suggests that in order for the 273,500 ton per day proposal to be achieved, an amendment would also have to be made to the Owl Rock Right of Entry Permit with the Corps of Engineers to allow 115 more round trips per day (2.64 times more than the current level allowed). TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF ALLOWED AND PROPOSED ACTIVITY LEVELS Permit Authority I Tons Per Month Loads of Aggregate Per Da Resolution 4520 70,000/a/ 47/b/ Corps of Engineers 104,000/c/ 70/d/ Proposed Amendment 273,521/e/ 185/f/ Notes: a. City of Azusa Resolution 4520 b. 47 = 70,000 tons divided by 21.167 days and divided 70 tons per load. c. 104,000 tons = 70 loads times 70 tons per load times 21.167 days per month. d. Corps of Engineers, Owl Rock Right of Entry Permd, Condition 7. This permit allows 70 daily trips: 4 round trips per hour between 7:00 am and 9:00 am (8 trips), 9 round trips per hour between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm (54 trips), and 4 round trips per hour between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm (8 trips). e. 20 month average for period 1986-1988. f. 185 = 273,521 tons divided by 21.167 days and divided by 70 tons per load. AIR QUALITY Table 2 translates projected hauling activity levels into daily vehicle miles of travel and applies a particulate emissions factor. The emission factor formula has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).' This emission factor relates the pounds of fugitive dust generated to the number of vehicle miles of travel by the haul vehicles. The calculated emissions factor has been further reduced by 50 percent to take into account the current haul road wetting procedure. ' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollution Emissions Factors, Volume I, Stationary Point and Area Sources, Supplement B. September 1988, Section 11.2.1 'Unpaved Roads.' ruu corporate Pointe, Suite 105 Culver City, CA 337- 0 Ll PAGE 3 As can be seen from Table 2, the estimated daily emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's threshold criteria for a significant impact. The Proposed Amendment would exceed the 150 pounds per day threshold criteria by over 1,200 pounds per day. In cases where threshold criteria are exceeded, the SCAQMD requires further impact analysis. This is particularly important in the Azusa -Duarte area where the State 24- hour standard for particulates less than 10 microns in diameter (known as PM10) is exceeded. According to 1989 statistics from the Azusa Monitoring Station 59.3 percent of the samples taken exceeded the 50 microgram per cubic meter state standard. Towards this end, a computerized fugitive dust dispersion model developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was utilized to determine whether the proposed amendment would cause the threshold of 100 micrograms per cubic centimeter standard -- established in SCAQMD Rule 403 -- to be exceeded'. Specifically, the Rule indicates that the difference between with and without project fugitive dust concentration levels cannot exceed 100 micrograms per cubic meter. 2 The Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) (Report No. EPA/SW/DR-90/04a, EPA -910/9-88-202R) Is a computerized Gaussian -plume air quality dispersion model, specifically designed for estimation of concentrations and deposition impacts from fugitive dust sources. The model was developed by TRC Environmental Consultants under contract to the US EPA. The model has undergone several upgrades and modifications since its Initial development. The version used In this assessment Is Version No. 91070 (dated 3/15/91). 100 Corporate Pointe, Suite 105 Culver City, CA 90230 (213) 337-7900 0 0 PAGE 4 The Fugitive Dust Model was run for two receptor locations. One located just south of the Fish Canyon Road levee in Duarte and one location on the east side of Azusa Greens in Azusa (See Figure 1). It was estimated that the haul road would be located as close as 1,700 feet from the residential receptor in Duarte and as close as 500 feet to the residential receptor in Azusa. The model also assumed worst case wind angles and the highest hourly average wind speed recorded at the Azusa monitoring station. The results of the fugitive dust dispersion modeling are shown in Table 3. Table 3 indicates that the estimated concentration at the Duarte receptor would be 49 micrograms per cubic centimeter, when the down canyon wind concentration is compared to a negligible up canyon wind air concentration. This concentration would be less than 50 percent of the Rule 403 standard. The estimated concentration in Azusa would be 76.4 micrograms per cubic centimeter for the down canyon wind direction and 95.7 micrograms per cubic centimeter for the up canyon wind direction. Neither concentration would exceed the Rule 403 limit of 100 micrograms per cubic meter. Thus, Rule 403 limits would not be exceeded at either receptor location, and no significant impacts would be anticipated under normal wind conditions. It should be noted that there may be times, however, when peak winds or gusty winds would increase particulate emissions at nearby residential receptors, and the 100 micrograms per cubic centimeter standard could be exceeded. TABLE 3 MODELED FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS OWL ROCK HAUL ROAD AND RIVER CROSSING RECEPTOR LOCATION CONCENTRATION IN MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER Up Canyon Wind Down Canyon Wind Duarte. Residence South of 0.0 49.1 Fish Canyon Road Levee Azusa. Apartment east of 95.7 76.4 Azusa Greens Note: Concentrations based on the output of the US EPA Fugitive Dust Model (FDM). Model assumptions are as follows: 1. Particle Size and Distribution 5 micron (23%), 17.5 microns (24%) and 30 microns (68%). Distribution assumes gravel unpaved surface. 2. Disposition velocity calculated by model. 3. Stability Class C 4. Wind Speed 3.58 meters/second (8.0 mph) 5. Haul Road Emissions = 0.0055 grams/meter/second. Factor includes a 50 percent reduction for periodic wetting. 6. Wind Angles (in degrees from north): Down Canyon = 47 degrees and 358 degrees. Up Canyon = 178 degrees and 227 degrees. Worst case wind angles found using CALINE4 model. Estimates do not Include background or ambient particulate concentrations. 100 Corporate Pointe, Suite 105 Culver City, CA 90230 (213) 337-7900 FIGURE 1 0 0 RELATIONSHIP OF HAUL ROUTE TO RECEPTORS IN DUARTE AND AZUSA l� - yank 1 c 1' fE`'Mllc 4 n MAP SCALE: 1 Inch - 2,000 Feet 0 0 PAGE 6 Mitigation Measures: The following measures should be instituted to ensure that particulate concentrations do not exceed Rule 403 limits: 1. Projected dust emissions assume continuation of the current practice to wet the haul road. Specifically, the length of the haul road shall be wet -swept on a continual basis during the workday. Should this procedure not be feasible due to drought conditions, then one of the following measures shall be instituted: a. Reduce total allowed tons to 136,750 tons per month b. Reduce off-road vehicle speed to 10 miles per hour. 2. Off-road haul vehicles shall pass through a wheel and undercarriage wash on leaving both the Owl Rock plant while empty and the leaving the Azusa Rock Plant full. The feasibility of this measure shall depend on adequate water availability. 3. Soil binding agents shall be applied to the haul road on an established schedule to ensure that the roadway surface will remain stabilized. Stabilizing agents shall be selected that would not have an adverse impact on plant/animal habitats near the haul road. 4. Hauling activities will be suspended during periods of strong winds, e.g. winds greater than 25 mph (11.2 meter/second). NOISE In order to assess potential noise impacts, field measurements were taken for off-road haul vehicles currently using the riverbed crossing route. Measurements were taken at a reference distance of 50 feet. The duration of the maximum sound level produced was also recorded. The results of these measures indicated the Euclid B-70 haulers produced a maximum level of 85 decibels at a distance of 50 feet. The sound level produced at this reference distance was then translated for the nearest distance between residential receptors in Duarte and Azusa to the haul road. For a residence located just south of the Fish Canyon Road levee in Duarte this worst case distance would be 1,700 feet. In Azusa, the worst case distance would be 500 feet for an apartment located adjacent to Azusa Greens. At these distances the maximum sound level produced by the off-road haul vehicles would be 62 decibels in Duarte and 70 decibels in Azusa. When compared to ambient daytime noise (approximately 59 decibels), noise iw t.orporate rointe, Suite 105 Culver City, CA 90230 (213) 337-7900 0 .I PAGE 7 generated by the haul trucks would be 3 decibels greater than the ambient in Duarte and 11 decibels greater than the ambient in Azusa. In both cases the noise would be discernible. Based on individual haul vehicle noise emissions, the sound level that would result from 370 vehicle trips per day (185 full loads and 185 empty return loads) was estimated (See Table 4). Taking into account 370 total vehicle trips with maximum noise duration of 5 seconds for each vehicle would mean that there would be approximately 30 total minutes of maximum haul truck noise out of a 10 -hour work day. Using this noise duration in a calculation procedure established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the increase in the existing ambient noise level is estimated to be 0.02 decibels in Duarte and 0.8 decibels in Azusa'. These changes in the overall daytime noise level are not significant and would not exceed the generally accepted 3-5 decibel sound level change threshold. This statement should not be interpreted to mean that haul trucks will not be heard. To the contrary, noise from the haul vehicles could be audible when background noise is low, but over a 10 -hour work day the overall change in the average daily noise levels would not likely be noticeable to persons with normal hearing sensitivity. TABLE 4 POTENTIAL HAUL ROAD NOISE IMPACTS REFERENCE MINIMUM =UL EXISTING NEW AMBIENT NOISE OF HAUL DISTANCE AMBIENT NOISE NOISE LEVEL VEHICLE AT A BETWEEN AT LEVEL (LEQ)/e/ WITH HAUL DISTANCE OF 5o RESIDENTIAL OM ACTIVITY FEET/a/ RECEPTOR AND L HAUL ROAD 85 dBA 500 Ft (Azusa) /b/ 70 dBA 59 dBA 1 59.80 dBA 85 dBA 1700 Ft (Duarte)/c/ 82 dBA 59 dBA 59.02 dBA a Based on held measurements of Euclid B-70 haulers currently in use. b Apartment located in Azusa Greens c. Residence located south of Fish Canyon Road levee. d Assumes a line type noise source with sound propagation over a soft surface. This assumes noise levels will decrease at a rate of 4.5 decibels for each doubling of the distance between the receptor and the nolle source. Reference. Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Nose Prediction Model, RD -77-108, 1978. Calculation assumes a maximum noise level duration of 5 seconds for each haul vehicle pass by. 370 pass-bys over a total period of 38,000 seconds (10 hours). e. Based on field measurements Lowest level recorded was used to represent worst case conditions. 3 Source of the calculation equation is US EPA, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With An Adequate Margin of Safety, 1974, Equation A-9, page A-8. 100 Corporate Pointe, Suite 105 Culver City, CA 90230 (213) 337-7900 0 0 PAGE 8 Mitigation Measures: The following measures shall be implemented to minimize the potential annoyance from off-road haul vehicle pass-bys: 1. Vehicle operations shall be restricted during the early morning hours (7:00 am to 9:00 am) similar to the Corps of Engineers Right of Entry Restrictions. Thus, between 7:00 am and 9:00 am, 4 round trips (8 total round trips) shall be allowed per hour. 2. All vehicles shall be equipped and maintained with appropriate mufflers. 3. All vehicles shall be maintained to eliminate noise from loosely fitted or unattached parts, fittings or objects. rw i;orporate Pointe, Suite 105 Culver City, CA 90230 (213) 337-7900 0 NOTICE OF PREPARATION MYOF OAZUSA� TO: COUNTY CLERIC CORPORATIONS DIVISION -- Room 106 FROM: P.O. BOX 151 213 E. LOS ANGELES, CA. 90053 AZUSA, CITY OF AZUSA FOOTHILL BLVD. CA. 91702 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-91-20, an amendment to a resolution which amended a prior use variance, allowing an increase in truck traffic across the San Gabriel River to haul rock material to a separate processing plant through 1992. A public hearing has been scheduled before the AZUSA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION on Julv 24 1991 at 7:30 n the Civic Auditorium located at 213 East Foothill Boulevard, iAzusa, 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: June 19 1991 END OF REVIEW PERIOD: July 19, 1991 DATE OF POSTING: June 20 1991 Los Angeles County Clerk's Filing Date: yCITY OFO H LA <,.. �= NEGATIVE DECLARATION ffy L AzusA'? Date: 7/14_ /_ 91 NOTICE: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental the City of Quality Act (CEQA-Public Resources Code, Section 21100 et. seg.), Azusa has determined referenced hereinafter will not ave asignificant h eff ct onat therthecenvironment. PROJECT TITLE; Precise Plan of Design No. P-91-20 and Amendment to City Council Resolution No. 8626 PROJECT LOCATION; 1201 North Todd Avenue Azusa, California 91702 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to resolution which amended a prior use variance allowing an increase in truck traffic across the San Gabriel River to haul rock material to a separate processing plant through 1992. PROJECT PROPONENT: Owl Rock Company A copy of the Initial Study, documenting reasons to support the findings that said project will not have a significant effect and containing any mitigating measures proposed 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 compliance with all provisions for filing of such appeals. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30).days after the issuance of this decision, or it shall be dis- missed by the City Council. DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER (818) 339-5125 Ext. 262 CONTACT PERSON TITLE TELEPHONE FIuAZUSA( CIFYOF > o " CITYOF i-GAZUSAVI1 I.BACKGROUND INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1. Name of Proponent/Applicant: Owl Rock Products Company 2. Address and phone number of Proponent/applicant: 5435 Peck Road Arcadia, California 91006 (818) 443-0111 3. Name of Project (if applicable): Precise Plan of Design No. P-91-20 Amendment to City Council Resolution No. 8626 4. Description of Project an¢ Address: Amendment to resolution which amended a prior use variance, allowing an increase in truck traffic across the San Gabriel River to haul rock material to a separate processing plant through 1992. 1201 North Todd Avenue Azusa, California 91702 5. Identification of Environmental Setting: 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 wildlife habitats. 0 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ATTACHMENT PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. P-91-20 III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIO 1.b. Additional truck traffic may cause incremental compaction on existing unpaved roadway. No additional grading or direct compaction measures will be implemented on the roadway. l.f. Existing roadway traverses the bed of the San Gabriel River. Additional traffic shall follow existing roadway path without any alteration of the riverbed or the flood control channel. 2.a. Fugitive dust caused by truck traffic along the unpaved haul road will increase with the requested increase in tonnage to be transported along this road. As described within the attached memorandum assessing the noise and air impacts of this project, the particulates of less than 30 microns in size which would be generated by the truck traffic would increase from 528.6 pounds per day to 2080.1 pounds per day. Using a fugitive dust dispersion model, the worst case scenarios for exposure at nearby receptor locations in Azusa and Duarte would not exceed the 100 microgram per cubic centimeter limit established by SCAQMD Rule 403. Peak wind conditions could cause the levels to exceed these thresholds of significance. Other air emissions from vehicles will not be increased from existing levels, as truck trips will simply be diverted from a paved pathway to the unpaved haul road. 3.a,b,&c Additional truck traffic will follow existing roadway path, without alteration of water course, drainage patterns or flood channels. 3.h Additional truck traffic increases the risk of oil, gasoline or other vehicle fluids leaking from trucks onto the ground and into either the river stream or through 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. Page 1 of 4 0 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ATTACHMENT PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. P-91-20 PAGE 2 OF 4 6.a. Noise created by the trucks will be noticeable above ambient noise levels. According to the attached memorandum assessing the noise and air impacts of the project, the maximum sound level produced by the trucks would be 62 decibels at the Duarte receptor and 70 decibels at the Azusa receptor, both of which are higher than the current daytime ambient noise level of approximately 59 decibels. Using the total daily noise duration in a calculation procedure established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the increase in the ambient noise level is estimated to be 0.02 decibels in Duarte and 0.8 decibels in Azusa. This increase would be noticeable when background noise is low, but the overall change over the course of a 10 -hour work day would not likely be noticeable. 8.a. Project will not alter the existing use of the roadway for truck travel. 8.b. Existing quarry operation is permitted under a use variance granted in 1963. Current W (Water Conservation) zone prohibit all rock, sand and gravel operations. 9.a&b Extraction of natural resources from Azusa Rock quarry will not depend on proposed truck traffic. Transportation of rock material will be simply diverted from one route to another by this project. 10. Additional truck traffic increases the risk of oil, gasoline or other vehicle fluids leaking from trucks onto the ground and into either the river stream or through to groundwater tables. 13.a. Truck traffic would increase from a level of hauling 70,000 tons per month to 273,500 tons per month. 13.f. Truck route crosses existing bicycle and equestrian trails. Increased truck traffic will heighten conflicts and potential for accidents between trucks and cyclists or equestrians. 14.d&19. Use of existing bicycle and equestrian trails will be interrupted more frequently by crossing truck traffic. 17.a&b Trucks crossing bicycle and equestrian trails could endanger cyclists and equestrians. 18. Trucks will be utilizing existing roadway, and will not detract from existing appearance of the area. 20. Several sites of historical significance have been identified to the southwest of the truck roadway, but will not be disturbed by the current path. Page 2 of 4 0 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ATTACHMENT PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. P-911-20 PAGE 3 OF 4 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 December 31, 1992. Long-term impacts beyond this time period would appear to be negligible. IV. MITIGATION NEASUREs l.f. The existing roadway is marked by monument posts at 25- foot intervals on both sides of the roadway through sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitats to assure that the existing roadway is not changed or widened. 2.a. The length of the haul road shall be wet-swept on a continual basis during the workday. Should this procedure not be feasible due to drought conditions, then either the total allowed tonnage shall be reduced to 136,750 tons per month, or the speed of off-road vehicles shall be reduced to 10 miles per hour. Off-road vehicles shall pass through a wheel and undercarriage wash on leaving both the Owl Rock plant while empty and leaving the Azusa Rock plant full. The feasibility of this measure shall be subject to evaluation by the Planning Division depending on water availability. Soil binding agents shall be applied to the haul road on an established schedule to ensure that the roadway surface will remain stabilized. Stabilizing agents shall be selected that would not have an adverse impact on plant or animal habitats near the haul road. Hauling activities will be suspended during periods of strong winds, e.g. winds greater than 25 miles per hour (11.2 meters/second). 3.a,b,&c See comments under l.f. 3.h. Measures will be taken to keep trucks in proper operating condition to minimize possibility of vehicle fluids leaking onto roadway and into water supplies. 4.a&b See comments under l.f. 5.a,b&d See comments under l.f. 6.a. Vehicle operations shall be restricted during the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. to four (4) round trips per hour, in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Right of Entry restrictions. All vehicles shall be maintained with appropriate mufflers. All vehicles shall be maintained to eliminate noise from loosely fitted or unattached parts, fittings or objects. 10. See comments under 3.h. Page 3 of 4 0 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ATTACHMENT PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. P-91-20 PAGE 4 OF 4 13.f. Owl Rock Products Company 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 mph. Signs are also present along the trails on each side of the road to warn riders of truck crossing. 14.d. See comments under 13.f. 17.a&b See comments under 13.f. 19. See comments under 13.f. 21.a See comments under l.f. A detailed study has been performed by an environmental consultant to examine the potential impacts of the project and its findings are incorporated by reference. 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. Page 4 of 4 E Ln EAOCITY Of NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CRY OF AZUSA'� TO: COUNTY CLERK FROM: CITY OF AZUSA CORPORATIONS DIVISION -- Room 106 213 E. Foothill Blvd. P.O. Box 151 Azusa, California 917 Los Angeles, Ca. 90053 OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, Ca. 95814 Date: PROJECT TITLE: Precise Plan of Design No P-91-20 PROJECT LOCATION: 1201 North Todd Avenue Azusa, California 91702 7/24/91 PROJ:CT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to resolution which amended a prior use variance, allowing an increase in truck traffic across the San Gabriel River to haul rock material to a separate processing plant through 1992. This is to advise that the City of Azusa has approved the above de- scribed project and has made the fol:o�ing determinations regarding same; 1. The project in its approved fc= ❑ will, 0 will not have Significant effect on the env_rc-.-ent. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this pro- ject pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. © A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pur- suant to the provisions of C=Q-. 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations ❑ was,0 was not, adopted for this project. 5. Mitigation measures Q were, ❑ were not, made a condition of approval of the project. DANIEL M. WATROUS SENIOR PLANNER (818) 334-5125 Ext, 262 CONTACT PERSON TIT:.E TELEPHONE NUMBER CITYOf OV1 VICINITY�MAP +� CITY OFv I-rj uS4� UPROPOSED'PROJECT FOR CASE NO. • 37 Sup,e�T II C sire -- R 3 b R -- CF 7D CF :L, M2 A R3b N9 0 R 3 Ria CF MI- C t MZ R2 Ric Soo' 1000 N on SAci COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ate,YOF INITIAL STUDY -AZUSn ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A copy of the Initial Study for Community Development Department projects will be available to the public in the Community Development Department and in the Azusa Public Library. Comments from the public on the projects may be made in writing to the Community Development Director or at the public hearings on the project. Project Description: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all -yes- and -maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES 1. EARTH Will the project result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth- quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. AIR Will the project result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. WATER Will the project result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water earth including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquafier by cuts or excavations? h. Change in quality of ground water? i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards sucn as flooding or tidal waves? 4. PLANT LIFE Will the project result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species or plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. ANIMAL LIFE Will the project result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects, or nicrofauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangerea species of animals? c. Introduction of new species or animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE Will the project result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE Will the project produce new light or glare? 8. LAND USE Will the project result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. Incompatibility with existing zoning, the General Plan, any specific plan, or other applicable land use control? MAYBE NO X _X- X X X X X X X X X X _ X X _ X —X X X X —X _ X X X _ —ai X X X _ X X X X 9. NATURAL ::k'SJL'RC}•S -'.)I the prefect 1.11111. In: YES RAYHE a, Increase In t`e rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion Of any non-renewable natural ZCaeetee. _ 10, RISK OF UPSET Coes the project involve a risk of an ex-losion or the release of hazardous substances (Includinn, bat not !1-Ited to Oil- pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? —� 11. POPULATION Will the project alter the location, dlatricctlon, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. HOUSING Will the project affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? 17. TRANSPORTATION Will the project result in: a. Generation of substantial addltlonal v,•hlcnlar mnvem,•nt? X b. Plrerts on oxl•tliug hauklnq lacllltlrs er (1,•mtnd fur rn•w ).trkln,lf c. Substantial irpact coon existing transportation systers? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or moveeent of people/and or goods? e. Alterations to watercorne, rail or air traffic? I. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Will the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any one of the areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? — d. Parks or other recreational activities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? �_ I. Other governmental services? 15. ENERGY Will the project result in: a. Use of substantial arounts of energy or fuel? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the develeprent of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES Will the project result in a need for new sls=ens, or substantial alteratlr.s to the following utilities? a. Power or natural gasz b. Communications systc-s? c. Water? --- -- d. Sewer or septic tan<s? e. Storm water dra:racc' f. Solid waste ara duscosal? 17. HUMAN HEALTH Will t`.e project result in! a. Creation of Ary health hazard or potential health hazara (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _X- 18. AESTIIETICS Will the project result in the obstruction c` nny scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the prup­,sal result In the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION hill the Droject result In an irpact upon t -e gnalily or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20, ARCHEOLCGICAL/IIISTCRICAL Will the project result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, struct-res, object or building? 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the cial_ty of the envlro--ent, substantially reduce the habitat of a I1sn or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop celow self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant o,- animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important cxa^plea of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? ( A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long-term irpacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have Impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ( A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the Impact an each resource Is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those irpacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly? x _L X X X X _X _X X _x _7C_ X X X -X ..=x= X - -X- _X- X X • 6 �CIIYOF � N- r-01AENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CA0 �= CITYOF � EXPLANATIONS/MITIGATION DISCUSSION �Azusr�� III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION See Attached Sheet MITIGATION MEASURES Describe mitigation measures included 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 evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD 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 attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: 6/19/91 Signature DANIEL M. WATROUS Title: SENIOR PLANNER