Environmentalists Fail in Bid to Close Rock Quarry in Azusa

A Pomona Superior Court judge has rejected an attempt by two environmental groups to overturn a controversial decision by Azusa last year that lets a company continue mining the face of Fish Canyon.

The environmentalists contended that the city has been negligent in overseeing the operation of the 190-acre Azusa Rock Co. quarry, which has produced an 800-foot-high hillside scar. In the suit, the Forest Preservation Society and the Azusa-based Committee to Save the Foothills claimed that the quarry operation was never legally permitted by the city when the quarry opened in the late 1950s.

Moreover, the groups charged, in asking the court to step in, the city knowingly extended an invalid permit late last year.

But last week, Superior Court Judge Thomas F. Nuss ruled that the City Council’s actions were legal and that the controversial modification and 25-year extension of the original quarry permit were within its powers.

Nuss took three months to review the case before making the ruling. Much of that time was spent studying the voluminous administrative record derived from the city’s lengthy hearings last year on the quarry’s permit.

“This court finds substantial evidence in the completed record of the proceedings to support the actions of the city of Azusa . . . and that the city did not abuse its discretion,” Nuss stated in his ruling.

For most of last year, the city fought with Azusa Rock, nearby Duarte and the Committee to Save the Foothills over whether to revoke the quarry’s 33-year-old permit. The city struck a compromise in December, when it passed a resolution extending the permit but adding a battery of measures designed to decrease the quarry’s impact on the environment.

The compromise resolution was approved on a 3-2 council vote despite a unanimous recommendation by the city’s Planning Commission to revoke the permit. The vote ended nine months of legal and political jockeying among the city, neighboring Duarte--whose residents were angered by noise and dust pollution--and Azusa Rock, which faced the possibility of going out of business.

Major Points

Some of the agreement’s major points restricted when and where quarrying could be done, redirected truck traffic away from Duarte, limited blasting, and generally gave the city more control over the quarry operation.

The lawsuit asked Nuss to force the city to apply current state mining and environmental laws to the quarry--which would have made its existence virtually impossible. The city and Azusa Rock argued that the existing statutes do not apply because the land-use predates the laws, a contention that Nuss upheld.

“It was really a pretty clear-cut situation,” said Robert V. Wadden Jr., the city’s attorney. Referring to the environmentalists, he continued: “Having seen how soundly the judge went against their position, they might want to rethink if its worth their time and effort” to consider an appeal.

The Forest Preservation Society’s leader, David Allen James, said he had not seen Nuss’ ruling and was unsure if the group would appeal.

‘We’re Disappointed’

“It took Judge Nuss three months to issue his opinion, and it’s going to take us time to digest it,” James said. “We’re disappointed with the decision.”

At the end of June, the city had spent $16,051 in legal fees, which the society would have to reimburse if it did not prevail on appeal.

In complying with the new mining conditions set forth in the compromise, Azusa Rock--which was acquired earlier this year by CalMat Co. and Owl Rock Products Co.--has made “good faith” efforts to meet deadlines, many of which expire in December, said city planner Dan Watrous.

Irrigation tanks and lines necessary for replanting the hill are being installed, and the company is experimenting with various kinds of plants for the eventual replanting of excavated areas. A planned conveyor belt for hauling rock down from the canyon, central to the compromise’s intent to reduce truck traffic on Encanto Parkway near Duarte, is under review, Watrous said.

James said his group is monitoring the company’s progress in meeting the agreement to ensure that the company abides by the resolution’s intent.

“The jury is still out in our mind as to whether they are making a good faith effort to comply,” he said.