The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1991 1002 CC REG ITEM 11E.IJU "7! ITEM.//* . MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Mo rparK, Caiifornia 93021 M E M O R A N D U M ` COU1301 Meeting I 9V A C110N: Sy TO: The Honorable City Counci FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: September 26, 1991 (CC Meeting of 10 -2 -91) SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR QUALITY ROCK AGGREGATE MINE, COUNTY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) NO. 4571 Background The County of Ventura has requested comments on the above referenced Draft EIR. Comments are due by October 9, 1991. The proposed project consists of a new aggregate mine to be located approximately four miles north of the City of Moorpark (see attached map). The project site encompasses 80 acres located at the terminus of Buena Vista Road (private road) about 1.5 miles north of Broadway. The applicant„ Wayne J. Jones of Quality Rock Company, currently leases an 80 -acre property directly east and adjacent to the project site from the owner of Blue Star Ready Mix, Inc. The CUP for the existing Quality Rock Quarry (CUP -4158) is effective through the year 2004; however, the Quality Rock Company's lease on the existing quarry site will expire in December 1991. The applicant has requested a '50 -year CUP for the new mining operation. Discussion Staff's comments on the proposed new mining operation and the environmental impacts that will resu ",.t are summarized below. General: The EIR assumes that mining operations will not continue at the existing Blue Star Ready Mix owned site, although the CUP for that property will not expire until. 2004. All project impact discussions are based upon this expectation. Staff intends to recommend that the County not approve CUP No. 4571 unless CUP No. 4158 is concurrently revoked and a. program for reclamation of the existing quarry site is initiated. St-aff ` also intends to recommend that the County not approve CUP No. ':5- for a time period longer C:\WP51\0A- &NVIR\CUP4571 PAUL W LAWRASON JR RFRNARDO M PLREZ SCOTT MON' ;� �F F HC� 'ALLL• - JORN E WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor P,o Lew Councurn� ro ��.mc memc - Councilmember The Honorable City Council September 26, 1991 -Page-2------ than 10 years, with a provision that the permit may be extended for an additional 10 years, by a Minor Modification approval, if the operation continues to be in compliance with all conditions of approval and there is no increase in truck trips to and from the site. Project Description: Days of operation are not given. Staff recommends that no operations be permitted on Sundays and that any operations or truck trips on Saturdays be restricted to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The EIR identifies that night -time processing will occur for emergency orders. Staff recommends that night -time processing be prohibited unless a temporary use permit is obtained from the County to control the frequency of night -time operations. Installation of the new processing equipment (i.e., ready mix cement, asphalt batching, and recycling) should require a formal CUP Major Modification application, since the location and scope of these facilities is not adequately addressed. Erosion Control, Biological Resources, and Visual Resources: Revegetation list given on page 3 - -5 is not adequate. Mitigation measures on pages 5 -39 and 5 -43 each impose slightly different revegetation requirements. Recommend that- revegetation mitigation measures be consistent. SMARA Requirements: The list of 1990 Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) amendments given on pages 4 -2 and 4 -3 should all be included as mitigation measures for potential geologic impacts and hazards to ensure that the County will effectively monitor compliance. Cumulative Impact Analysis: The cumulative project list is not adequate. The Dry Canyon Multi - Use Facility project and the QUOR proposal. for Happy Camp Regional Park should also be considered in conjunction with the Blue Star Quarry expansion in the unincorporated area of the County north of Moorpark. Within Moorpark, the cumulative project discussion should reference the City's current. General Plan Update and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study, and identify the overall land use and circulation changes which could occur as a .result of this update. C:\WP51\OA- ENVIR\CUP457I The Honorable City Council September 26, 1991 - Page -3 - Visual Resources: The potential for lighting and glare impacts should be addressed since there is reference to occasional night -time operations. Air Quality: The impact discussion should address the potential for odor impacts. Mitigation measure No. 5, page 5 -74, should be revised to require that all material transported off -site shall be sufficiently covered to prevent excessive fugitive dust. The use of water instead of a cover is difficult to monitor, is not effective for long hauls, and is a waste of water. A mitigation measure should be added which requires that the primary access road to the site and to the parking and stockpile areas be paved to reduce dust emissions. This road could eventually be removed in association with final reclamation activities. Traffic: See prior comments regarding cumulative project list. Cumulative traffic impacts will be significant and adverse unless extensive circulation improvements are funded and constructed. An update to the City's Circulation Element is currently under preparation which will address required improvements to accommodate the City's proposed land use plan. Based on the City's traffic study for the Circulation Element update, the Quality Rock Draft EIR and traffic study understates existing and projected intersection levels of service. The proposed expansion of range of products and use of new processing equipment is not specifically addressed in the traffic section of the Quality Rock Aggregate Mine EIR. Although this EIR does identify that yearly production is required to remain the same (i.e., 300,000 tons per year) regardless of whether or not new processing equipment is added, clarification should be provided as to whether or not truck trips could increase based upon new product and new supply requirements. Alternatives: Disagree with conclusion for Alternative 6.4, Reduced Mining Area (i.e., reduction of 20 or more acres). Since the applicant is transferring existing equipment and has already purchased the site, reducing the mining area is not, proven by the description of this alternative to be infeasible. What should be clarified in the description of this alternative is whether reducing the mining area and production by a specific amount would fully mitigate cumulative C:\WP51\OA- ENVZR\CUP4571 r,�- IN ONO CD =, fir,'\ \ _ �I If, lv -.44— zz!� C, 77 c Aw rn