Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Won't overturning Measure A cost the
city of Azusa millions of dollars?
A: Yes and no. If Vulcan Materials tears down the entire west side
of the quarry, the City could lose a maximum of $12 over the next 28
years. However, based upon the previously reported mining rate
(based upon declared mining extraction taxes paid), the City would
lose less than $2 million. In fact, over the last 22 years, Azusa
Rock has paid the city of Azusa less than $1 in mining extraction
taxes. However, the Development Agreement
specifically forgives Vulcan Materials for potentially millions of
dollars in past underpayments of mining extraction taxes.
We don't think the City Council should have allowed the mining
company to get away with past mining tax underpayments.
Detailed documentation can be
found here.
Q: Why did the City Council opt to pay
for a special election instead of holding the referendum six weeks
later at the municipal elections?
A: We speculate that the City Council members up for re-election did
not want to run at the same time as the referendum against their voting record
to expand mining is
on the ballot. As a consequence, the City will pay an extra $60,000
in costs for the special election.
Q: Vulcan says Measure A restricts mining. Is that true?
A: No! Measure A expands the mining of Azusa's mountains. It represents both an expansion in the destruction of undisturbed wilderness and an expansion of minable rock (which is why Vulcan proposed the plan). For a video explanation of this expansion, see our YouTube video.
Q: Doesn't Measure A have a lot of local support?
A: No! 100% of the financial support for Measure A comes from
Vulcan Materials Company. Canyon City Alliance is the brainchild of
Vulcan's PR company, Shallman Communications. It is composed of
Vulcan Materials, the Azusa Police Officers Association and the
Azusa Chamber of Commerce, both of which are financially supported
by Vulcan Materials. Canyon City Alliance is primarily known for the
lies it produced in its flyers, in an attempt to stop our petition
campaign. They convinced 7 people (out of 2700) to withdraw their
signatures. Watch the YouTube video of
Canyon City Alliance lies.
Q: Why is the referendum (Measure A) only on the
ordinance for the Development Agreement?
A: Legally, citizens can only overturn ordinances produced by local
government. The conditional use permit and mining plan are
quasi-judicial documents that cannot be directly overturned by the
electorate.
Q: Will the new Conditional Use Permit still
be valid if the Development Agreement (Measure A) is overturned?
A: No. Azusa's Municipal Code Section 88.28.030.B requires that a
Development Agreement be approved in conjunction with all Use Permit
applications. In addition, the Conditional Use Permit specifically
requires approval of the Development Agreement. Therefore, overturning the Development Agreement
invalidates the Conditional Use Permit. Vulcan Materials Company
spent $239,047.72 attempting to stop the petition drive
and will probably spend even more opposing the referendum vote against the
Development Agreement. If they thought that overturning the
Development Agreement would not invalidate the Conditional Use
Permit, why spend so much money just to pay the city the extra money
stipulated in the Development Agreement?
More details...
Q: Is Azusans Against Mining Expansion
run by "Outsiders"?
A: No. We are Azusa citizens and patriots who want to bring
accountability back to the city of Azusa. We are opposed to the City
Council's mining ordinance, which hands Vulcan Materials a windfall
profit by expanding their aggregate resource base at the expense of
increased destruction of our mountains. See YouTube video on
Canyon City
Alliance Lies.
Q: Who voted for and against the
ordinance?
A: Mayor Joe Rocha was the only one to vote against the mining
ordinance. All four City Council members (Angel Carrillo, Robert
Gonzales, Keith Hanks, and Uriel Macias) voted in favor of the
revised mining plan. Two of the Council members (Angel Carrillo and Uriel
Macias) are up for re-election on March 8, 2011.
Q: Isn't this case like the Rosemead
Wal-Mart case, where overturning the development agreement just
expedited the process?
A: No. The two legal cases are not remotely related. In the Wal-Mart
case, the opponents assumed the development agreement contained
rezoning of the site. It didn't. So, overturning the development
agreement did not revert the zoning to residential as the opponents
had thought. Instead, it did virtually nothing, other than overturn
the development agreement. In the Vulcan case, the text of the CUP
and staff analysis indicates that the project is predicated on the
approval of the development agreement. In addition, staff made lots
of claims to that effect during the public hearings. The City will
clearly lose the case in a court of law. In addition, despite the
claims of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Vulcan attorneys believe
that overturning the development agreement could stop their project,
since they spent over $100,000 trying to stop the petition. If they
had seriously thought that they could get out of paying the extra
few million dollars the development agreement brought in, they
wouldn't have tried to fight the petition. Vulcan and the City are
running scared.
More details...
Q: Do I have to be a registered Azusa
voter to help?
A: No. The entire San Gabriel Valley will be impacted by the
expansion of mining.
Q: Is the coalition going to be involved
in the March, 2011 City Council elections?
A: Could be!