Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 1005 CC REG ITEM 11DTO: FROM: DATE: A G E N D A R E P O R T C I T Y O F M O O R P A R K The Honorable City Council ,n1PA . cALT-. ry Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Development Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner ->-,-T- September 29, 1994 (CC Meeting of 10 -5 -94) SUBJECT: CONSIDER DRAFT COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAFT ENVIR0MMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR TRANSIT MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY AGGREGATE MINE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) NO. 4633 (FORMERLY BLUE STAR READY MIX, INC., AGGREGATE MINE) BACKGROUND A copy of staff's November 13, 1992, report to the City Council on the prior Draft EIR is attached (Attachment 1), and it provides background information on the proposed project. Also attached (Attachment 2 ) is a copy of the comment letter that was sent to the County in November 1992 on the prior Draft EIR. In October 1993, the mining operations and property were acquired by Transit Mixed Concrete (TMC) Company, which proposes to operate the project in accordance with the CUP application filed by Blue Star Ready Mix, Inc., in 1986. The change in project ownership has not changed the project, the CUP process, or the environmental review process. The new applicant is still requesting a 50 -year CUP, with expansion of the area proposed for mining from the prior approved 175 acres to a new total of 533 acres (includes about 146 acres of previously undisturbed areas), and a new asphalt production plant on site. The proposed maximum annual mine production rate is 3,400,000 tons (in comparison, the 1986 annual mine production rate was 1,210,400 tons and the 1992 rate was 954,000 tons). The proposed production rate would result in an estimated 1,718 daily trips (in comparison, the 1986 level of operations at the project site resulted in 810 average daily trips). Because substantial comments were received on the prior 1992 Draft EIR, the decision was made to revise certain sections of that Draft EIR, and recirculate a revised Draft EIR for public review and comment. Responses to comments received on the prior Draft EIR are included in Appendix J of the Revised Draft EIR. Staff reviewed the responses to our November 30, 1992, letter and found that they do not, in all cases, match the actual text changes in the Revised Draft EIR. Therefore, in the following Discussion Section of this 00221 The Honorable City Council September 29, 1994 Page 2 report, we include both new and prior comments that we recommend be included in a comment letter to the County of Ventura. The Final EIR will include responses to all comments received on the Revised Draft EIR. For the City's Council's information, the Revised Draft EIR does include a revised Traffic Study dated July 21, 1994 (Appendix I). An evaluation of the cumulative traffic conditions was based on the City of Moorpark's traffic model for the years 2000 and 2010. Comments on traffic study conclusions are included in the following Discussion section of this report. Additional work on a reclamation plan has also occurred since publication of the prior Draft EIR in 1992. Appendix A of the Revised Draft EIR includes the final revegetation plan and correspondence regarding the Reclamation Plan. The Revised Draft EIR states that mining will be restricted to each individual phase (3 phases are proposed) until marketable materials have been exhausted. Mining is not proposed to be initiated for a subsequent phase, until reclamation work has begun on the final slopes of the previous phase. The applicant has proposed to restrict the total amount of land being actively mined at any time to 50 acres, and the total amount of disturbed land in the CUP permit area to a maximum of 220 acres. Amendments to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), in 1990, require greater regulation of mining and reclamation by the local jurisdiction, including a requirement that the operator submit an annual report to the State Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) and local lead agency regarding status of mining and reclamation, and the requirement that the local lead agency inspect each mine within 6 months of receiving the annual report to verify compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and requirements. In addition, SMARA now requires the mine operator to provide a financial assurance to cover the costs of reclamation to the DMG and local lead agency, and this financial assurance is required to be reviewed and adjusted annually to reflect the acreage of land to be reclaimed and inflation. DISCUSSION Recommended EIR Revisions 1. Figure 13, Access Routes - We repeat our prior November 1992 comment that High Street between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road should not be shown as an access route. In addition, we recommend that East Los Angeles Avenue be deleted, since the City will be assuming maintenance and liability responsibility for that roadway from Caltrans. Following the completion of 00222 The Honorable City Council September 29, 1994 Page 3 the State Route (SR) 23 and SR -118 direct connector facility in 1993, the City Council adopted a resolution (93-977), which revised the designated truck routes through the City. The only roadways so designated are SR's 23 and 118 (including Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark Avenue, Los Angeles Avenue and New Los Angeles Avenue). Figure 13 should be revised to be consistent with City Council Resolution No. 93 -977. 2. Section 5.8.1, Noise, Existing Conditions - The description of noise sensitive receptors in the City is still not correct. We suggest that the text should be corrected to read that noise sensitive receptors potentially impacted by the project include: Residences within the City of Moorpark along the roadways where the haul trucks would pass, including Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark Avenue, Los Angeles Avenue, and New Los Angeles Avenue. Reference to High Street and Spring Road should be deleted, since these roadways are not truck routes and cannot be used as access routes for the project. 3. Section 4.8.4.1, Noise Mitigation Measures, Prohibit Jake Brakes - We repeat our prior request that the mitigation measure include a provision that the City of Moorpark would be given notification of any complaint received regarding the use of Jake brakes in the City of Moorpark. 4. Section 5.4.4, Biological Resources Mitigation Measures, Habitat Compensation - The areas disturbed on -site by pre -1976 mining activities (and, apparently, not subject to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act) should be considered for habitat enhancement, given the long -term cumulative and significant biological impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 5. Section 5.9.2.5, Impacts of Future Transit Mixed Concrete Traffic - The Revised Draft EIR identifies that this section analyzes the traffic impacts associated with the proposed level of operations at the TMC quarry. However, only the short -term, existing - plus - project, and year 2000 cumulative traffic scenarios are fully analyzed. Since the applicant has requested a 50 -year CUP, at a minimum, the year 2010 traffic scenario should also be discussed to the extent that the conclusions are supported. We recognize that Section 5.9.2.8, as commented on below, discusses future year 2010 traffic conditions in the City of Moorpark; however, the discussion on impacts to the County's 2010 Regional Road Network appears incomplete. No information is presented regarding peak hour levels of service at intersections outside of the City limits. 00223 The Honorable City Council September 29, 1994 Page 4 6. Section 5.9.2.8, Moorpark General Plan Buildout - This EIR section presents an overview of future traffic conditions associated with the buildout of the Moorpark area, and is based on data contained in the City's traffic model document for the year 2010 scenario. The conclusions in this section of the EIR are, however, misleading. The City's year 2010 traffic model scenario assumes that future (General Plan buildout) roadway improvements include the following: Extension of SR -118 west to Los Angeles Avenue (west of Gabbert Road) Broadway extension east to a new SR -118 interchange Extension of SR -23 north to connect to Broadway Spring Road extension north and east to the SR -23 bypass Construction of the SR's 23 and 118 bypass arterials, however, is dependent upon fees to be collected from new development, including development outside the City limits, which would otherwise contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts within the City of Moorpark. We do not agree with the conclusion in the Revised Draft EIR and Traffic Study, that "any impacts on the 2010 circulation system associated with the project would be negligible, as the majority of the project traffic would utilize the future S.R. 23 and S.R. 118 Freeway system." Those future bypass roadways will only be constructed if both the County and the City collectively condition projects to pay a mitigation fee to fund them. The County's traffic fee mitigation program does not provide funding for any roadway improvements within the City limits. The City, therefore, considers the proposed project's cumulative traffic impact as significant, and not mitigated, unless the project is conditioned to pay any fee adopted by both the City of Moorpark and the County to fund the extensions of SR -23 and SR -118. 7. Section 5.9.4, Traffic Mitigation Measure, Traffic Complaint Line - We note that this mitigation measure was revised to include a maximum time period for the applicant to respond in writing to the County to each complaint, as we had requested. We again request, however, that a copy of the complaint log be submitted to the City on a periodic basis. The City's interest is in viewing those complaints that may be received from Moorpark residents. B. Section 5.9.4, Traffic Mitigation Measure, Alternative Access Routes - Alternative Access Routes (Mitigation No. 3): Based on the project trip distribution percentages, as illustrated on Figure 38 ( Attachment 3 to staff report) , we recommend that this mitigation measure be revised to also include reference 00224 The Honorable City Council September 29, 1994 Page 5 to the funding of the proposed SR -118 bypass extension. The City is currently conducting a Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee study, and the expected circulation improvements to be funded by the Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fund would be the SR -23 and SR -118 bypass extensions. 9. Section 6.5, Alternative Access Routes, SR -23 North -South Bypass: The description of this bypass alternative is not consistent with the City's Circulation Element. We request that the description be revised to read as follows: This alternative would consist of the extension of SR -23 north to connect to Broadway. The current description incorrectly describes the SR -23 bypass as an extension of Spring Road. 10. Section 6.5, Page 6 -8, Alternative Access Routes, Condition No. 1 - The City disagrees with the current wording, which states that the County could approve the project with the following condition: If and when the Broadway Extension and /or SR -23 Bypass are constructed, TMC mines shall be required to divert truck traffic along these new access routes according to a traffic distribution plan to be prepared by TMC and approved by the County prior to completion of the new access roads(s). TMC shall be required to pay its pro rata share of the new access road costs, to be determined by the County. The language of this condition should be revised to recognize that the decision regarding the allowed use of truck traffic on an extension of Broadway through Specific Plan No. 8 has not been made by the City. The City would need to designate (per City Council Resolution) the allowed use of a City roadway, as a truck route, to permit the diversion of TMC truck traffic to a new access route through the City. 11. Section 6.7, Environmentally Superior Alternative - This alternative was modified consistent with several of our previous comments, and now includes all of the mitigation measures described in the EIR, and the following elements: Issuance of a permit for Phase 1 for a duration of no more than 10 years, with a provision to allow a Major Modification to conduct the Phase 2 mining for no more than 10 years. A new CUP would be required at the end of 20 years to complete Phase 3 mining. If Phase 3 mining is not approved, the applicant will reclaim the site 00225 The Honorable City Council September 29, 1994 Page 6 using the conceptual design and approach described in the proposed reclamation plan, modified for the post - mining conditions after Phases 1 and 2. The applicant either limits average daily traffic (trucks and employee vehicles) to the 1986 levels when the project was consistent with the County General Plan (810 daily, 49 AM and 42 PM peak hour one way trips), or the applicant pays an appropriate traffic mitigation fee to the County's traffic mitigation program. Implementation of either of these alternatives would result in making the project consistent with the County General Plan. Hours for truck deliveries and returns are restricted to 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM, compared to the proposed 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM hours. The restricted hours would reduce the noise impact to residents early in the morning and after 5:00 PM when workers are at home. If and when the Broadway Extension and /or SR -23 Bypass are constructed, TMC mines shall be required to divert truck traffic along these new access routes according to a traffic distribution plan to be prepared by TMC and approved by the County prior to completion of the new access roads(s). TMC shall be required to pay its pro rata share of the new access road costs, to be determined by the County. Ir The City had previously commented that the Environmentally Superior Alternative should include a restriction that peak daily vehicle trips and average daily vehicle trips should be restricted to average 1992 levels, about one -half less than the average vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, until a SR -23 bypass facility has been constructed, which does not require Blue Star trucks to use Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark Avenue, and Los Angeles Avenue through the City of Moorpark. We note that the Environmentally Superior Alternative, as revised, is not consistent with the City's prior comment, and payment of the fee to the County's traffic mitigation program would not mitigate the cumulative traffic impacts of the project within the City limits. Although the 1986 average daily traffic levels are slightly higher than the average 1992 levels (based on the annual mine production rate of 1,210,400 tons for 1986 versus 954,000 tons in 1992), we would find the limitation to the 1986 levels to be acceptable if the language of the Environmentally Superior Alternative was revised to read as follows: 00226 The Honorable City Council September 29, 1994 Page 7 The applicant shall limit average daily traffic (trucks and employee vehicles) to the 1986 levels when the project was consistent with the County General Plan (810 daily, 49 AM and 42 PM peak hours one way trips), and no asphalt batch plant shall be operated on -site, until the applicant pays an appropriate traffic mitigation fee to the County's traffic mitigation program, and a bypass roadway has been constructed which does not require TMC trucks to use Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark Avenue, and Los Angeles Avenue through the City of Moorpark. As previously requested, the Environmentally Superior Alternative should include a provision that would require the applicant to obtain an emergency use permit from the County if any truck deliveries or returns are proposed before 6:00 a.m. or after 6:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and for any truck traffic proposed for a Sunday. The proposal of the applicant that they can operate at night about 60 days per year is too open ended, and could not be effectively monitored or controlled by the County. The City also requests prior notification of any proposal by TMC to operate at night or on weekends. The last element of the Environmentally Superior Alternative should be revised, as previously discussed in comment No. 8. The City would need to designate any future City roadway as a truck route, before the TMC Company would be able to divert truck traffic to a new access route in the City. Project Recommendations Staff proposes that the City of Moorpark would recommend that the County restrict approval of CUP -4633 by selecting the Environmentally Superior Alternative, with certain modifications, as discussed above. The City's comment letter should also recommend that the County require the mine operator to submit any future application for a Major Modification or new CUP a minimum of 18 months prior to permit expiration, to ensure that the mine does not continue to operate without a valid permit as has occurred since 1986. It is staff's opinion that approval of the requested CUP for a 50 -year period (and three mining phases) is not justified based on the following: 1. A 50 -year CUP is beyond the time period covered by both the County and City General Plans. 2. Estimating impacts for a 50 -year period is beyond the capabilities of both the County and the City of Moorpark. (Neither the County or the City have adopted land use projections beyond the year 2010, and traffic modeling 00227 The Honorable City Council September 29, 1994 Page 8 capabilities are similarly limited. Since land use and traffic projections are used as the basis for calculating air quality and noise impacts, the future impacts of the project cannot be accurately estimated.) 3. The proposed project will result in significant noise, visual, air quality, odor, and traffic impacts to City of Moorpark residents. 4. Planned excavation in Phases 2 and 3 could result in significant visual impacts to existing and future residents and open space /recreation area users. Requiring a Major Modification approval for Phase 2 and a new CUP for Phase 3 would allow additional opportunities to address the significance of visual impacts to Specific Plan Areas Nos. 2 and 8, based on approved specific plans. 5. Requiring a Major Modification for Phase 2, and a new CUP for Phase 3, will allow the City and the public additional opportunities to comment on the project impacts, compliance with conditions of approval, and access issues. These approval restrictions would also allow the County the opportunity to impose additional conditions of approval on the Major Modification for Phase 2 and the CUP for Phase 3, if required to minimize project impacts. In addition to the preceding comments on the Revised Draft EIR and the project, staff intends to again request that a copy of the annual status report on mitigation compliance be provided to the City. STAFF RECOMONDATION Direct staff to prepare a letter to the County, which addresses City Council and staff comments on the Revised Draft EIR. Attachments: 1. November 13, 1992 Staff Report 2. November 30, 1992, Comment Letter 3. Figure 38 from Revised Draft EIR 00228 November 30, 1992 FILE COPY MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 Keith Turner Planning Division County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 Attention Janna Minsk SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE BLUE STAR READY MIX, INC., AGGREGATE MINE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP -4633 Dear Keith: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the Blue Star aggregate mine expansion project. Following are comments and recommendations for revisions to the EIR as well as recommendations related to project approval. Recommended EIR Revisions: 1. Sections 3.7.4 and 5.9 - Truck and vehicle trip information in these sections requires clarification. The EIR identifies that the proposed project will result in 1,253 average daily and 1,656 peak daily one -way trips. If these are one -way trips, would the total daily trips for the proposed project be double the identified one -way trips? This clarification is important, since it may affect the City's position regarding the maximum daily trips which should be allowed for the proposed project until an access route is available which does not require Blue Star vehicles to use Walnut Canyon Road and Moorpark Avenue. 2. Figure 13, Access Routes - High Street between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road should not be shown as an access route. Spring Road between Los Angeles Avenue and High Street is an access route until the SR -23 /SR -118 connector is completed. ATTACHMENT 1 PAUL W LAWRASON JR JOHN E WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M PEREZ ROY Er. /. TT�ALLEY,fJ /�R Maya Mayo, a,o 'e^ CouncAv.w r*1 Coumilmember Cou Vr�rt� 2 9 Keith Turner November 30, 1992 Page 2 3. Section 4.5.2, City of Moorpark Projects - In the third paragraph of this section, revise the first sentence as follows: The new land use plan designates wee sax Specific Plan areas within and outside the City to guide land development, consistent with the Land Use Plan Goals and Policies, and the buildout population of 40,856. In the fourth paragraph of this section, revise the first sentence as follows: The overall impact of the new land use plan outside of the City boundaries is the conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses, including agricultural lands. Revise the last sentence of` "this paragraph as follows: The draft f: riail EIR on the Land Use Element update spely identifies eae ' hit the ` 0lhow ng impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of non significance: less xs 5. Section 5.5.4, Consistency with Other County Plans - This section should include a discussion of project consistency with the Ventura County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Since the EIR identifies that the project would significantly impact the level of service (LOS) of the Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road intersection, the EIR should address the consequences to the City of Moorpark and the CMP procedures to be followed. We are concerned that the project may also significantly impact the LOS of the Los Angeles Avenue/ 00230 Keith Turner November 30, 1992 Page 3 Moorpark Avenue intersection (see following comment No. 12). The EIR should also analyze whether EIR LOS traffic data is consistent with CMP LOS data. A mitigation measure should be included which will address County participation in development of a deficiency plan, if required due to any LOS impact to a CMP intersection. 6. Section 5.5.7, Dust Control on Trucks - Suggest mitigation measures be modified to require use of non - potable, reclaimed or recycled water, if feasible. 7. Section 5.6.2, Project Visual Impacts - Page 5.72 should include more emphasis of the visual impact to Moorpark residents from the cut slopes that will result from excavation in Phases 2 and 3. Based on the City's adopted Land Use Element, City Specific Plan areas 2 and 8 would have views of the graded slopes, and significant visual impacts may result. 8. Section 5.7.4, PM -10 Mitigation Measures - For all mitilgation measures which require use of water to control dust, we suggest including a requirement for use of non - potable, reclaimed or recycled water, if feasible. 9. Section 5.8.1, Noise - Existing Conditions, Paragraph 4 - Revise as follows: Residences along Walnut Canyon Road, as well as city streets within Moorpark (such as High Street Street Road Moorpark. Avenue;: Los Angelee'Avenue and Spring o�� ) where haul trucks would pass. 10. Section 5.8.4.1, Noise Mitigation Measures, Prohibit Jake Brakes - Request that the monitoring requirements for the Jake brake mitigation measure include a provision that the City of Moorpark would be given notification of any complaint received by the County for Jake brake use in the City of Moorpark. 11. Section 5.9, Traffic - A correction that should be made throughout this Traffic section is to change "Spring Street" to "Spring Road." 12. Section 5.9.2.5, Impacts of Future Peak Blue Star Mine Traffic, Tables 31 and 32 - We disagree with the cumulative peak hour intersection levels of service listed for the Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue intersection and the identified project impact at that intersection. Recent traffic studies prepared for projects within the City of Moorpark (including Carlsberg Specific Plan, Westland Company Residential Project, and Mission Bell Plaza) have identified a projected, cumulative LOS at that intersection of "E" or wors-e for the P.M. peak hour. Improvements needed for that intersection include converting shared southbound left -turn lane /southbound through lane /southbound right -turn lane to a second southbound 00231 Keith Turner November 30, 1992 Page 4 left -turn lane and converting the southbound right -turn lane to shared southbound through lane /southbound right -turn lane. Several planned projects within the City limits, including those previously identified, have been conditioned to contribute to the cost of intersection improvements based on each project's impact to the intersection. The City recommends that the Blue Star project's cumulative LOS impact for the Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue intersection be recalculated, and that a mitigation measure be included in the EIR to require the Blue Star project to contribute its fair - share to the City's Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution (AOC) Program for the funding of the needed intersection improvements. 13. Section 5.9.2.9, Evaluation of Moorpark's Circulation Element Improvements - Revise as follows: Extension of SR -118 to the west through the City of Moorpark, north of High Street, .................. ............................... connecting to existing SR -118 west of 'Oabbezb, Road and continuing outside of the City limits. 14. Section 5.9.4, Traffic Mitigation Measures - see prior comments related to CMP consistency and Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue intersection LOS impact. 15. Section 5.9.4.4, Traffic Mitigation Measures, Traffic Complaint Line - We request that this mitigation measure be amended to also require that a copy of the complaint log be submitted to the City on a periodic basis. In addition, there should be a maximum time period given for the applicant to provide a satisfactory response to the County for any situation where there is a serious public nuisance or safety issue. 16. Section 6.7, Environmentally Superior Alternative - The City of Moorpark supports selection of the Environmentally Superior Alternative versus approval of the proposed project; however, we offer the following suggestions for this alternative: Require issuance of a permit for Phase 1 only, with a provision that a major modification is required to continue for another ten years for Phase 2, and that a major modification is required for each additional fifteen year time frame for Phase 3. In addition, approval of the requested asphalt batch plant should be conditionally approved to prohibit construction and operation of that processing facility until an alternative SR -23 bypass route is available which does not require Blue Star trucks to use Walnut Cariyon Road, Moorpark Avenue, and Los Angeles Avenue through the City of Moorpark. 00232 Keith Turner November 30, 1992 Page 5 Peak daily vehicle trips and average daily vehicle trips should be restricted to average 1992 levels, about one - half less than the average vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, until a SR -23 bypass facility has been constructed which does not require Blue Star trucks to use Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark Avenue, and Los Angeles Avenue through the City of Moorpark. (The City is concerned that April 1992 levels are not necessarily representative for the year.) Hours for truck deliveries and returns should be restricted to 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no truck deliveries or returns on Sundays. The applicant should be required to obtain an emergency use permit from the County if any truck deliveries or returns are proposed before 6: 00 a.m. or after 6: 30 p.m. , Monday through Saturday, and for any truck traffic proposed for a Sunday. The City requests notification of the issuance of any emergency use permit which would allow hours of operation different from CUP -4633 conditions of approval. We concur with requiring the applicant to prepare a feasibility study on alternate access routes within five years following approval of Phase 1. Clarification should be added that the applicant would be required to pay a pro -rata share of any assessment or other charges to fund or partially fund an approved alternate access route. We concur with restricting total average daily (and total peak daily) vehicle trips to the existing levels until one of the new access roads has been built. However, we do not recommend allowing total average and peak daily vehicle trips to increase above the existing levels if project vehicles use Grimes Canyon Road to SR -118. This will not eliminate traffic impacts to Los Angeles Avenue intersections, since a significant portion of the project's vehicles would still need to use Los Angeles Avenue through the City of Moorpark to access SR -118 eastbound and SR -23 southbound. We recommend that clarification be added that the Environmentally Superior Alternative includes all of the project mitigation measures, as identified in the Draft EIR, with the exception of mitigation measures that are redundant to provisions of this alternative. 00233 Keith Turner November 30, 1992 Page 6 Recommendations Related to Proiect Approval: The City of Moorpark is recommending that the County restrict approval of CUP -4633 by selecting the Environmentally Superior Alternative, with certain modifications, as discussed above. It is the City's opinion that approval of the requested CUP for a 50 -year period is not justified based on the following: 1. A 50 -year CUP is beyond the time period covered by both the County and City General Plans. 2. The proposed project will result in significant noise, visual, air quality, odor, and traffic impacts to the City of Moorpark. 3. The applicant has a past history of alleged non - compliance with conditions of approval and project expansion without appropriate permit approval; therefore, restricted approval is warranted. Approving Phase 1 only at this time, and requiring major modification approvals for Phases 2 and 3, will allow the City and the public additional opportunities to comment on the project impacts, compliance with conditions of approval, and access issues, and will allow the County the opportunity to impose additional conditions of approval if needed to minimize project impacts. 4. Planned excavation in Phases 2 and 3 could result in significant visual impacts to future residents and open space /recreation area users in areas of the City designated as Specific Plans Nos. 2 and 8 on the City's adopted land use plan. Requiring major modification approvals for Phases 2 and 3 would allow additional opportunities to address the significance of visual impacts to Specific Plan Areas Nos. 2 and 8, based on approved specific plans. As previously mentioned in our comments on the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the City requests that the County require the applicant to obtain an emergency use permit whenever trucks will be entering and leaving the project site outside of normal, permitted hours of operation, and requests that the City be provided notification of all emergency use permits for the Blue Star Mine. In addition, if the County approves CUP -4633 for one or more phases, the City requests a copy of the annual status reports that will be prepared to document project compliance with mitigation measures. 00234 Keith Turner November 30, 1992 Page 7 If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact either myself or Deborah Traffenstedt of my staff. Sincerely, %e:/ Aguilera /hfiictor of Community Development JRA /DST cc: The Honorable City Council Steven Kueny, City Manager 00235 =Mile MOORPARK IT139 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 ) 2 86 topy M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Jaime R. Aguilera, Director of Community Development Prepared by Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner DATE: November 13, 1992 (CC Meeting of 11- 18 -92) SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR BLUE STAR MINE, COUNTY OF VENTURA CUP 4633 Backound In 1986, an application for a new Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was submitted to the County of Ventura by Blue Star Ready Mix,'Inc., and the prior CUP for the Blue Star aggregate mine (CUP -1328) expired. Since that time, there has been prolonged environmental review and coordination between the applicant and the County. The current operations at the site are being conducted under authorization by the County while the CUP application is being reviewed. Because the previous CUP has expired, the proposed project is considered a new project and, as such, has received a new permit number, CUP -4633. The proposed project is a CUP request for a 50 -year, three -phase surface mining, sand and gravel operation that would encompass a total area of 533 acres (refer to Attachment 1). The combined new and old mining areas would encompass about 291 acres. The project site contains an existing quarry, ready mix plant, processing plant, offices, and related mining equipment. The applicant is proposing to continue mining and expand the operation in a north - northwest direction. An asphalt batch plant is also proposed. The applicant has requested approval to conduct mining in three phases. Phase 1 encompasses approximately 65 acres and would be completed within 10 years (1993- 2003). Phase 2 would include about 50 acres and would also be completed within 10 years (2003- 2013). Phase 3 would occur over a 30 -year period and would include about 102 acres (2013- 2043). (It is important to note that the applicant has been grading within the Phase 1 area since expiration of CUP 1328 in 1986; therefore, the actual time period for excavation within Phase 1 is a total of approximately 16 years.) ATTACHMENT 2 00236 dst- 11- 13- 921 10t 32amC. \WP5! \QA- SNVIR \CUP4633.CC PAUL W LAWRASON JR JOHN E WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOME RY BERNAHDO M PEREZ ROY E TALLEY JR Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Counr imembrr CounComember Councilmembor p.-n!eo On Rec v. The Honorable City Council November 13, 1992 Page 2 The new CUP application also includes a request by the applicant for a maximum annual mine production rate of 3,4000,000 tons. The proposed maximum annual mine production rate ( "production" represents the processed, marketable material) is substantially greater than the recent annual production rates of the mining under CUP -1328. For example, the annual mine production rates in the last several years are shown below: 1991 838,000 cubic yards or 1,425,000 tons 1990 824,000 cubic yards or 1,400,800 tons 1989 1,075,000 cubic yards or 1,827,800 tons 1988 946,000 cubic yards or 1,608,200 tons The City of Moorpark previously provided written comments to the County of Ventura on a prior Draft EIR for the same Blue Star aggregate mine project in a letter dated July 26, 1991 (attached). The County of Ventura determined that previous Draft EIR to be inadequate, and required a revised Draft EIR to be prepared. The current Draft EIR has been circulated for public review, and written comments have been requested by December 2, 1992. The following discussion summarizes impacts and mitigation measures identified in the revised Draft EIR and includes the Community Development Department's preliminary comments on the Draft EIR. The City Engineer's Office is reviewing the traffic section of the Draft EIR, and their comments will be provided to the City Council at the November 18th meeting. Discussion Impacts It is staff's opinion that the revised Draft EIR for the Blue Star Mine project adequately addresses the impacts of the proposed project that are of concern to the City of Moorpark. The impacts of primary concern to the City are noise impacts to residents along Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark Avenue, and Los Angeles Avenue; visual impacts to Moorpark residents from cut slopes that would result from grading proposed in Phases 2 and 3; air quality impacts due to mining equipment and activities, processing equipment, and haul trucks; odor impacts to Moorpark residents from asphalt haul trucks traveling on City streets; a traffic impact at the Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road intersection; and adverse traffic and nuisance impacts from increased truck traffic on City streets. dat- 11- 13- 921 10: 31amC: \NPS1 \0A- 6NVIR \CVP4633.CC 00237 The Honorable City Council November 13, 1992 Page 3 Mitigation Measures Noise, visual, and air quality impacts are identified as Class I impacts that are not fully mitigated, requiring the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Traffic is identified as Class II impact which can be mitigated. Following is a summary of some of the mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR: Reclamation Plan - The topography shall be properly restored to accommodate planned utilization of the land after mining operations. The reclamation plan must meet all applicable Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) requirements, including but not limited to revegetation plans, topsoil management, erosion control, drainage, and any proposed or adopted statewide standards for reclamation. Mining may only occur within one phase at a time. Prior to mining in the Phase 2 and 3 areas, the Reclamation Plan for the previous phase must be approved by the County. Reclamation shall be implemented on an on -going basis, not just after the completion of each of the three mining phases. No more than 60 acres shall be actively worked at any time during the life of,.the permit. No more than 220 acres of the entire CUP permit areas shall be left unreclaimed at any time. Areas that have been mined to final grade shall be reclaimed within one year. All open -bed trucks leaving the site with products must either be covered with a tarp, or the product must be watered in order to avoid the generation of dust from the bed of the truck. All trucks operated by the mine, and all contract trucks that visit the mine, must be free of excessive soil, particularly around the wheels and axles. If necessary, the wheels and tires of trucks leaving the site should be sprayed and washed of loose dirt. The Reclamation Plan shall be submitted prior to each mining phase and shall emphasize the following elements in order to minimize residual visual impacts: (a) Use gradual and smoothed slopes to create gentle landscape features. Reclaimed slopes shall be graded to create a smooth transition with the adjacent, undisturbed slopes. dat- 11- 13- 92/ 10: 32amC: \NP51 \OA- 6NV1R \CUP4633.CC 00238 The Honorable City Council November 13, 1992 Page 4 (b) Revegetate with native plants that will provide the maximum biomass and areal coverage in order to minimize visual scars from bare soils. (c) The existing two vertical cut slopes above the processing area, created during earlier mining, shall be removed as part of the mining plan to reduce visual impacts and create a gradual slope that can be revegetated. Prior to issuance of the zoning clearance for the Phase 1 mining, the applicant shall submit an Air Emissions Mitigation Plan to the Planning Division for approval which shall contain ozone precursor, PM -10, and asphalt plant mitigation measures as described in the Draft EIR. The applicant shall prohibit all Blue Star and contractor trucks from using "Jake brakes" along Happy Camp Road and Walnut Canyon Road or within the City of Moorpark, unless there is an emergency. If the County receives a complaint about the use of "Jake brakes" by Blue Star Mine associated trucks, the Planning Division may require the permittee to fund an independent monitoring effort to detect the violators. Noise impacts along access roads could be reduced or eliminated by the establishment of an alternative access route. To offset the project's significant impact at the Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road intersection, the project should contribute its fair -share to the Area of Contribution (AOC) program for the funding of the intersection improvements required at this location. The project traffic at this location comprises 1.4% of the total cumulative traffic during the P.M. peak hour and should only be responsible for its fair -share of the improvement costs at this location. The applicant shall establish and maintain at his expense, a dedicated phone line with 24 -hour answering service to collect any complaints about speeding or unsafe truck traffic along Happy Camp and Walnut Canyon Roads. All public complaints shall be logged and submitted to the applicant and County on a weekly basis. The applicant must respond in writing to the County Public Works Agency within 3 days to each complaint, indicating corrective actions. If the County is not satisfied with the corrective actions and/or there is repeated complaints of a similar nature, the County shall investigate the issue and then meet with the applicant to resolve the dat- 11- 13- 911 10: 32a=C:\WPS1\QA- &NVIR\CUP4633.CC 00239 The Honorable City Council November 13, 1992 Page 5 issue. If there is a serious public nuisance or safety issue and a satisfactory response is not forthcoming from the applicant, the County shall have the option of revoking or modifying the permit to address the traffic issue at hand. This program shall remain in place indefinitely, at the County's discretion. In recognition of the adverse traffic and nuisance impacts increased truck traffic on the streets of the City of Moorpark due to the project, and the need for various improvements to mitigate future traffic on these streets as described in the City of Moorpark's Circulation Element, the applicant shall agree to, and participate in, any assessment district or other financing technique, including the payment of traffic mitigation fees, which the County of Ventura may adopt to fund or partially fund the proposed SR -23 bypass extension. If such a district or other mechanism is created, the applicant shall be required pay only its pro -rata share of any assessment or other charges. The Draft EIR does include a detailed mitigation monitoring plan which identifies for each mitigation measure: implementation responsibility, monitoring frequency, monitoring work program /monitoring agencies, and .-tandard of success. Annual site visits and an annual status report are required. Project Alternatives Since not all impacts of the proposed project can be fully mitigated, several project alternatives are proposed which would eliminate significant adverse impacts or reduce them to a level of insignificance. Alternatives studied are as follows: 1) No Project; 2) Alternative Site; 3) Reduced Mining Area and /or Height; 4) Shorter Permit Period; 5) Alternative Access Routes; 6) Operational Changes; and 7) Environmentally Superior Alternative. Alternative No. 7, the Environmentally Superior Alternative, is a combination of several of the other alternatives studied and would consist of the following elements: Issuance of a permit for Phase 1 with a provision for a major modification to continue for another ten years for Phase 2, and another 30 years for Phase 3. The major modification would undergo a public environmental review to ensure that any unmitigated impacts of previous operations could be addressed in the subsequent phase. dot- 11- 13- 921 10: 32amC: \WP51 \OA- ENVIR\CUP4633.CC 00240 The Honorable City Council November 13, 1992 Page 6 Daily average truck trips are restricted to April 1992 levels - 638 daily vehicle (trucks and cars) trips, about one half less than the average vehicle trips associated with the proposed project (1,253 one -way trips). Hours for truck deliveries and returns are restricted to 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., compared to the proposed 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. hours. The restricted hours would reduce the noise impact to residents early in the morning and after 5:00 p.m. when workers are at home. At the middle of Phase 1 (i.e., within 5 years), the applicant shall provide the County with a feasibility study on alternate access routes to the mine, including property acquisition costs, conceptual grading and geometrics, and environmental constraints for the above alternative routes. Total average daily vehicle trips (see above) shall not increase above the existing levels along Happy Camp and Walnut Canyon Roads until one of the new access roads has been built (refer to Attachment 3 for alternative access routes). Increases above the existing levels of vehicle trips are allowed if these vehicles use Grimes Canyon Road to SR -118 and avoid Moorpark city streets. Staff's Preliminary Comments Staff's opinion is that the City Council should recommend to the County the selection of the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the following reasons: The applicant has a past history of alleged non - compliance with conditions of approval and project expansion without appropriate permit approval; therefore, restricted approval is warranted. Approving Phase 1 only at this time, and requiring a major modification approval for Phases 2 and 3, will allow the City and the public additional opportunities to comment on the project, impacts, compliance with conditions of approval, and access issues and will allow for reconsideration of traffic issues. A 50 -year CUP is beyond the time period covered by both the County and City General Plans. dst- 11-1 3- 921 10: 32amC i \F+PS1 \OA- ENVIR \CUP4633.CC 00241 The Honorable City Council November 13, 1992 Page 7 Planned excavation in phases 2 and 3 could result in significant visual impacts to future residents and open space/ recreation area users in areas shown as Specific Plan Nos. 2 and 8 on the City's land use plan. Requiring a major modification approval for Phases 2 and 3 would allow an additional opportunity to address significant visual impacts. Until an alternative access route is available that does not require Blue Star vehicles to travel on City roadways, total vehicle trips should not be permitted to increase beyond a maximum of 638 daily vehicle (truck and car) trips. Staff also intends to include the following suggestions in the comment letter: The Environmentally Superior Alternative should include an additional restriction that the maximum daily vehicle trips would be 638 until an alternative access route is available that does not require Blue Star vehicles to travel on City roadways. In addition, all of the project mitigation measures, identified in the Draft EIR, should be imposed in addition to the Environmentally Superior Alternative restrictions (with the exception of mitigation measures that are redundant to provisions of that alternative). The County should not approve the new processing facilities that are proposed including concrete batch plant, portable combined road base plant and recycling plant, asphalt concrete plant. These plants will require material to be imported, including concrete, asphalt, and oils. The proposed processing facilities represent a substantial expansion of the original permitted use - i.e., sand and gravel mining. Based on the adverse impacts of the overall project, approval of the various processing facilities is not justified. Geologic mitigation measure No. 1, Reclamation Plan, should be modified to reduce the CUP permit area that may be left unreclaimed at any time from 220 acres to approximately 150 acres. The 220 acres is based on the existing situation, which the City believes to be excessive. Traffic mitigation measure No. 4 (traffic complaint line) should be modified to also require a copy of the complaint log to be submitted to the City. dat- 11- 13- 92110: 324mC:\WPSI \GM- 6NVIR \CUP4633.CC 00242 The Honorable City Council November 13, 1992 Page 8 The following corrections should also be made to the EIR prior to certification: Figure 13 - High Street between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road should not be shown as an access route. Spring Road between Los Angeles Avenue and High Street is an access route until the SR -23 /SR -118 connector is completed. Section 4.5.2, page 4 -10 (Description of Moorpark Land Use Plan) - Paragraph 3 - Revise first sentence as follows: The new land use plan designates three ffva Specific Plan areas within and outside the City to 'guide land development, consistent with the Land Use Plan Goals and Policies, and the buildout population of 40,856. Paragraph 4 - Revise first sentence as follows: The overall impact of the new land use plan outside of the City boundaries is the conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses, paEtleularly inc luding agricultural lands. Revise the last sentence of "this paragraph as follows: The dEaft final EIR on the Land Use Element update ea4y identifies eae' that 'the . following impacts that cannot be mitigated to a levelof lion significances less of native Paragraph 5, revise first sentence as follows: Build -out of the pr- epesed Ca.ty' Land Use Plan will result in the increase of average daily trips from 166,300 to 4522,500 approximately 345, ,5OQ by the year 2010, according to the draft f.irial EIR. dst- 11- 13- 92110: 32&=C: \WP51 \QA- ENV1R \CUP4633.CC 00243 The Honorable City Council November 13, 1992 Page 9 Section 5.8.1, Noise - Existing Conditions, Paragraph 4 - Revise as follows: Residences along Walnut Canyon Road, as well as city streets within Moorpark ( such as High StE �pa�x'ir+eu ... nu$ and Spring street Road) where haul tiruck's woul, pass Section 5.9, Traffic - Change Spring Street throughout this section to Spring Road. Section 5.9.2.9, Evaluation of Moorpark's Circulation Element Improvements - Revise as follows: Extension of S.R. 118 to the west through the City of Moorpark, north of High Street, connecting to existing S.R. 118 west d Gab�rt Ra$c and Gonfi .nua nq outside of :::..:.....:..... the City limits. Recommendation Direct staff to prepare a letter to the County which addresses any City Council comments as well as the staff comments, as contained in this report. Attachments: 1. Project Site Map 2. Prior City comment letter to County dated 7 -26 -91 3. Alternative Access Routes Exhibit JRA /DST dat- 11- 13- 92I1 0: 32axC: \NP5 1 \OA- ENVIR \CUP1633.CC 00244 i r r ■ ■ ■ ■ r ■ 0 y _ m' 1 . 1= U Q. m p u2 1 Scale In Was Base map- USGS 7.5' Tcocgrapr. c Cuacrang'.es'. Sirru. CA 1969. ldoorparx. CA 1969. FIGURE 2 PROJECT SITE 00245 Ieff�es & Moore • — _ ' "' � — , r�'4 —. '' '�.. , - /\ �. . ' -'lr� . �1i --•1• ..rte ' ' •- .• � �l y/ -mow.• • ,r)' � /�. Proposed CUP 4633 �.• ^•� �` .���'° _, -:�=' 'r. - ". Boundary •---1 —_ - - Limitsof Propose _-- Mining Area - ; Existing - I --, Quality Rock Mine `s CUP 4158 r 1 . ': •'' it Area Mined - under CUP 1328 �e t.�� -� _'- - 1 - _ cc J y _ m' 1 . 1= U Q. m p u2 1 Scale In Was Base map- USGS 7.5' Tcocgrapr. c Cuacrang'.es'. Sirru. CA 1969. ldoorparx. CA 1969. FIGURE 2 PROJECT SITE 00245 Ieff�es & Moore July 26, 1991 MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 Keith Turner Planning Division County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 Attention Janna Minsk SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE BLUE STAR QUARRY, CUP 4633 Dear Keith: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the Blue Star Quarry expansion project. We are concerned that this EIR understates the significance of traffic, noise, light and glare, and visual impacts, and that proposed mitigation measures throughout the document are vague and will be difficult to effectively enforce as currently written. We recommend the use of a mitigation format which addresses the effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing the magnitude of impact, identifies the party responsible for implementation and the method by which implementation can be assured, and clarifies whether a mitigation measure is acceptable to the responsible party or should be required as a condition of project approval. As currently written, it is difficult to comprehend the effectiveness of mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR and whether or not all or a portion of these mitigation measures will be required as conditicns of project approval. Following are comments related to specific discussion sections in the Draft EIR: Insignificant Environmental Impacts Page 2 -7 - Comments recently received from Moorpark residents and from the Moorpark Branch of the Environmental Coalition appear to contradict the County Planning Division's determination that the project would not produce glare on surrounding properties. The Draft EIR should analyze whether Campus Park West residents and any other residential areas in the City of Moorpark are currently being impacted by light and glare from the Blue Star operations. The light and glare impacts of the proposed project should also be analyzed. 00246 PAUL x + -4 E Keith Turner July 26, 1991 Page 2 Project Description Page 3 -4 - Hours of operation are not clear. Will operation of the quarry 24 hours a day require inbound or outbound truck traffic after 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday? Will the new batch plant be operated 24 hours a day? We are opposed to a 24 -hour a day operation if significant light and noise impacts will result. Truck trip restrictions should be imposed - see comments on Noise section. Page 3 -12 - Proposed Reclamation Plan is vague. Since no known reclamation has been accomplished to date, it is important to.have strict controls on when reclamation activities will be accomplished with the proposed expansion. "As soon as feasible" during each phase is not adequate. Land Use Page 4 -9, paragraph 2 - As written is misleading. Moorpark's Circulation Element update will take into consideration the traffic generated by Happy Camp Regional Park; however, it is not the City's responsibility to mitigate the traffic impacts of that park. Page 4 -9, paragraph 5 Contrary to statement in EIR, City of Moorpark does not consider the project as currently proposed to be consistent with the City of Moorpark General Plan due to the significant hillside grading that is proposed, and significant visual, noise and cumulative traffic impacts that will result. Water Resources Page 4 -29 - Mitigation Measure No. 6 requires additional study to verify pond bottom permeability to preclude groundwater mineralization. This study should be done now; future study is not an acceptable mitigation measure. EIR is unclear as to what the mitigation is if underlying groundwater is currently being contaminated. Transportation, Circulation and Safety Traffic impact analysis is inadequate. The Scope of Work for the EIR infers that the Draft EIR would include traffic data from the City, County, and Caltrans, and that existing deficiencies would be identified. Also, cumulative traffic impacts were to be addressed. The Blue Star Quarry Traffic Study and Draft EIR do not appear to be consistent with the Scope of Work. Current City of Moorpark traffic information on existing and prcjected traffic was not used to analyze traffic impacts. It is the City's opinion that the Blue Star Quarry Traffic Study incorrectly identifies the existing and projected level of service for all Ci-y of Moorpark intersections analyzed. Also, the cumulative traffic data used in the Blue Star 00247 Keith Turner July 26, 1991 Page 3 EIR for the City of Moorpark is not accurate. Several large recently approved as well as proposed projects in the City of Moorpark are not addressed in regard to cumulative traf f is impacts. The Blue Star Quarry Traffic Study identifies that regional access to the quarry site is provided by Highways 23 and 118; however, within the City limits only the intersections along Moorpark Avenue and Walnut Canyon Road are analyzed. The Blue Star expansion project will also affect two critical intersections in the City located along Spring Road -- the Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road intersection and the High Street /Spring Road /Los Angeles Avenue intersection. A recent traffic study completed for the Westland Company Residential Project (located south of Los Angeles Avenue, west of Liberty Bell and east of Maureen Lane) includes traffic count data collected in May 1990 and updated to address 1991 expected traffic conditions. That study identifies for existing plus 1991 traffic that the Los Angeles Avenue /Spring 'Road intersection is operating at LOS C for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and that the High Street /Spring Road /Los Angeles Avenue intersection is operating at LOS D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The Westland Residential Project Traffic Study also identifies that near -term cumulative projects would result in LOS F in the a.m and p.m. peak hours at both of these intersections. Also, that traffic study identifies that near -term cumulative impacts would result in a LOS F in the p.m. at the Moorpark Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue intersection. As an example of its inadequacy, the Traffic Study for the Blue Star project incorrectly identifies the existing plus project plus cumulative LOS at the Moorpark Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue intersection as LOS A. It is also important to note that the City of Moorpark is currently updating its Land Use and Circulation Elements. Since the Blue Star Quarry is requesting a long -term, 50 -year CUP, the cumulative traffic scenario in the Blue Star Draft EIR should also address what effect the Blue Star project proposal would have on the City's proposed circulation system after buildout of the City's revised land use plan. We request that the EIR consultant be directed to obtain a cumulative project list and current traffic count data from the City of Moorpark and that the intersection capacity analysis be recalculated for all intersections within the City limits that will be affected by the proposed Blue Star Quarry expansion project. If significant traffic impacts will result, appropriate mitigation measures should be identified. 11 �: Keith Turner July 26, 1991 Page 4 Air Ouality Page 4 -60 - The odor impact and mitigation discussion is vague. If night time operation of the asphalt plant will result in a significant odor problem, then Mitigation No. 5 should prohibit night time operation of that plant. Page 4 -62 - We recommend that Mitigation No. 9 require that all roads on the project site be paved with roadway sweeping or scraping of these roads to be conducted at specified time periods. Use of petroleum -based dust suppressants to control emissions would not be appropriate unless the adverse effects from their use are analyzed in the Draft EIR. Requiring future study is not an acceptable mitigation measure. For Mitigation No. 13, we recommend prohibiting the coating of truck bodies with kerosene and fuel oil. Mitigation No. 17 is unclear - exactly what is proposed? Noise The Draft EIR identifies that noise levels along Moorpark Avenue at sites tested are generally in excess of 70 dB Leq, with peak truck traffic noise levels at approximately 77 -83 dB. Significant truck traffic currently begins before 6:00 a.m. Additional project traffic is predicted to increase noise levels by 3 -4 dB in the City limits. No noise mitigation is proposed for Moorpark residents other than a vague inference (Page 4 -69, No. 5) that the number of hourly or daily truck trips could be limited. We recommend that truck trips be prohibited on Sundays and restricted prior to 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, prior to 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and after 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays to minimize truck traffic noise impacts during the times of the day when residents would most likely be adversely affected. The Draft EIR does not specifically identify what impact the proposed batch plant will have on noise levels, and does not clarify how a 24 -hour a day operation will affect noise levels. Visual The photographic exhibits in this section are poorly reproduced and do not allow for analysis of existing view impacts. We do not believe that Phase 3 visual impacts on the City of Moorpark can be fully mitigated due to the level of grading that is proposed. At this time, we are strongly opposed to Phase 3 due to the significant visual impacts that will result and the Jack of reclamationlrevegetation details prnvlded. 00949 Keith Turner July 26, 1991 Page 5 Recreation Although Happy Camp Regional Park is outside the City of Moorpark's jurisdiction, we are concerned from the standpoint of recreational users that noise, light and glare, air quality, and visual impacts have not been adequately addressed. Alternative Haul Routes As previously identified, Moorpark is currently updating its Circulation Element. A draft circulation plan has been prepared based on a thorough analysis of planned land use and existing and projected traffic. The City's proposed circulation plan shows an alternative route for Highway 23 (similar to Route D analyzed in the Blue Star EIR) and a rural collector roadway connecting Broadway to Alamos Canyon and Highway 118 (not analyzed in the Blue Star EIR). The Draft EIR should at least reference the City's proposed circulation plan. Based on the City's preliminary Circulation Element update studies, Routes C and E (as shown in the Blue Star EIR) are not acceptable. In summary, based on preceding comments which address individual discussion sections in the Draft EIR and our overall concerns related to inadequate mitigation measures, we are recommending that the Draft EIR be revised and recirculated for public review. We also request that the mitigation monitoring program be included in a revised Draft EIR. Based on the past history of non - compliance with conditions of approval, project expansion without appropriate permit approval, and minimal efforts towards reclamation to date, we are recommending that the County consider an alternative to the project proposal which would involve restricting approval to the requested Phase 1 expansion only (i.e, a ten -year limitation on the CUP). This alternative would require a new CUP for subsequent expansion phases. Requiring subsequent CUP approval for proposed Phases 2 and 3 will aid the County in enforcement of mitigation measures including reclamation /revegetation requirements. Restricting approval to a ten -year period only, will also allow time for further analysis of alternative haul routes consistent with the City of Moorpark's Circulation Element. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding our comments. 'Sincerely, 'Patrick;J: Richards Director of Community Development PJR /DST cc: The Honorable City Council 00 951) Steven Kueny, City Manager 0 o r� (4m a n z 3 m z AV ,J .L PROJECT SITE Z