Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge board to require full EIR and pause Lone Pine Canyon quarry amid procedural and health concerns
Summary
Dozens of residents and members of the Lone Pine Canyon Protection Alliance asked the board to pause the proposed Lone Pine Canyon quarry, demand a full environmental impact report and extended public comment, and alleged procedural defects in a 2019 vested‑rights finding and CEQA compliance; speakers cited air quality (asbestos/actinolite), seismic risk, archaeological resources and evacuation safety.
Dozens of residents from Wrightwood and neighboring communities told the Board of Supervisors they oppose a proposed open‑pit quarry in Lone Pine Canyon and asked the county to require a full environmental‑impact report and pause any approvals.
Speakers — including members of the Lone Pine Canyon Protection Alliance and long‑time Wrightwood residents — said the project should not proceed under a mitigated negative declaration and raised multiple objections: they alleged Land Use Services failed to provide required public notice for MRP 2025‑00002, questioned the scope and legal basis of a 2019 vested‑rights determination, and argued the county must evaluate groundwater, seismic risk along the San Andreas Fault, potential asbestos‑bearing rock (actinolite), cultural and archaeological resources, and the safety of Lone Pine Canyon Road as an evacuation route.
"Blasting, drilling, crushing and sifting creates particles that can be blown by the wind up to 60 miles," said a Wrightwood resident citing health concerns about calcium‑carbonate dust and actinolite. Another speaker noted the canyon road currently has a posted five‑ton limit and said the heavy‑truck traffic a quarry would require could rapidly degrade the road and compromise evacuation.
Community representatives requested that the board (1) direct Land Use Services to extend the public comment period by at least 60 days after records requests are fulfilled, (2) require multi‑season biological and cultural resource surveys, and (3) prepare a full EIR rather than rely on a mitigated negative declaration. They also said they have gathered petitions and public meetings showing substantial local opposition.
Board response at the meeting covered process instructions: staff and supervisors advised speakers to file comments with the Land Use Services planning department and to use the department’s public‑record channels; the board did not take a project decision or vote on the quarry at this meeting.
Why it matters: residents claim potential long‑term public‑health, safety and environmental impacts and allege procedural defects in how the county has characterized the proposal. If the county proceeds without additional environmental review, opponents say litigation or administrative appeals are likely.
