HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2013 1016 CCSA REG ITEM 09A ITEM 9.A.
CAndifiedZit
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL �� Y
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Joseph R. Vacca, Principal Plann - .
DATE: October 3, 2013 (CC Meeting of 10/16/2013)
SUBJECT: Consider Public Workshop Related to Appeal to Ventura County
Board of Supervisors of Ventura Planning Commission Certification
of Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Grimes Rock,
Incorporated Mining Facility, and Approval of a Modified Conditional
Use Permit No. 4874-2 and an Amended Reclamation Plan, Located
at 3500 Grimes Canyon Road
BACKGROUND
For several years, staff has been tracking expansion proposals by three (3) sand and
gravel mining operations in unincorporated Ventura County. The proposed expansion
of operations, although different for each company, involves an increased number of
truckloads permitted, increased hours of operation, increased days of operation, and
potential changes to haul routes. Grimes Rock, Inc. has proposed an expansion of their
mining facility and an extension of their Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for operation of
the facility, as reflected in the aerial photo, showing the proposed conditional use permit
boundary, (Attachment 1).
On June 27, 2013, the County of Ventura Planning Commission considered and
approved an application of Grimes Rock, Inc. to expand its mining operations and
extend the effective term of its CUP, a copy of the Ventura County Planning
Commission Agenda report is provided, (Attachment 2). The approval included
certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations (SOC) and approval of CUP 4874-2 and a modified
Reclamation Plan, described as follows:
69
Honorable City Council
October 16, 2013
Page 2
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of Modification No.2 of Conditional Use Permit 4874
(CUP 4874-2) and the approval of a modified Reclamation Plan prepared pursuant
to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). The requested approvals
would authorize:
• Changes to the permit boundary including the expansion of surface mining areas.
The permit boundary would be expanded from approximately 164 acres to 231
acres.
• Creation of a new driveway access point which provides a direct connection from
Grimes Rock mining facility, through the former "Egg City" property, and directly
onto State Route 23, (this access connection to SR23 is shown within the narrow
red outline on the aerial photo of the proposed conditional use permit boundary
map, in Attachment 1).
• The excavation area would be expanded from approximately 45.8 acres (current
condition) to 135.3 acres. (Note: The current permitted area of excavation
encompasses 48.4 acres.)
• An extension of the effective term of the CUP from 2013 to an estimated end
date of surface mining operations in 2040.
• An increase in sand and gravel production (i.e. material export) from 952,500
tons per year to approximately 1.8 million tons per year.
• Material hauling to occur Monday through Saturday, 6:00 a.m. until dusk.
• Onsite mining operations to occur 24 hours per day on Monday through
Saturday.
• An average daily hauling truck traffic volume of 460 one-way trips.
• A maximum peak daily hauling truck volume of 600 one-way trips, (currently 300
of which only 64 may go through Moorpark on the southern haul route on Grimes
Canyon Road).
• Material hauling along any route to any customer location.
• The elimination of volume and timing restrictions on trucks going south, allowing
for the ability to use any route including, Walnut Canyon Road as a haul route
(currently not permitted).
• Upon termination of mining at the site the proposed end use of the land is to be
Open Space.
On June 26, 2013, Margaret M. Sohagi, of the Sohagi Law Group, PLC., working on
behalf of the City of Moorpark, submitted a detailed comment letter to the Ventura
County Planning Commission on the inadequacy of the FEIR prepared for the project; a
copy of this letter is provided, (Attachment 3), and summarized as follows:.
The letter indicated that the City has undertaken a comprehensive review of the
FEIR and finds it to be legally inadequate under the California Environmental
Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et. seq. "CEQA') and the CEQA
Guidelines, (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) as well as the California
Water Code §§ 10910-10915. The letter included arguments that the massive
S:\Community Development\OTHER AGENCIES\Ventura County\Grimes Rock Mining\Agenda Reports\CC Agenda Report Grimes_131016 Final.doc
70
Honorable City Council
October 16, 2013
Page 3
amount of truck traffic associated with this project would negatively impact City
residents on a daily basis. At least 600 Moorpark residents live immediately
adjacent to the proposed truck route, and already regularly experience the
deleterious effects of this traffic including noise and air quality impacts.
Thousands of other Moorpark residents are faced with the negative impacts of
project trucks as they move through their daily lives; when they attempt to cross
the street, travel to work and school, and engage in myriad other life activities.
Moorpark opposed any action on the expansion until all of the project's impacts
on the City are truly mitigated, and requested that the Commission delay further
consideration of this project until a legally adequate EIR is prepared that fully
complies with CEQA and the project conforms to current requirements. The
letter stated that the FEIR suffers from numerous inadequacies including the
following significant flaws:
• The FEIR incorrectly dismisses construction of the SR 23 bypass as
infeasible; leaving City residents subject to noise, air quality and health
impacts that severely affect quality of life along the haul routes.
• The FEIR's traffic analysis fails to include a Saturday analysis, even though
the amended CUP allows up to 600 truck trips on Saturdays.
• The FEIR completely fails to analyze the significant and unavoidable noise
impacts of project-related truck traffic.
• The County failed to perform a SB 610 water supply assessment in violation
of CEQA and the Water Code.
• The studies relied upon for the FEIR's analysis of impacts are extremely
outdated (many are over 10 years old) and do not adequately represent
conditions on the Project site.
• The FEIR is legally inadequate for its failure to provide analysis of criteria
pollutant PM2.5.
• The cumulative impact analyses for numerous resource areas consider only
the impacts of mining projects, instead of the impacts of all past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future projects as required by CEQA.
• The FEIR's project objectives are impermissibly narrow and constrain the
selection of project alternatives in violation of CEQA.
• The FEIR's alternatives analysis fails to present alternatives designed to
avoid or substantially reduce all the significant impacts of the Project as
required by CEQA.
On June 27, 2013, Brian Baca, Ventura County Planning Manager, provided a
Memorandum to the Ventura County Planning Commission, in response to Ms. Sohagi's
comment letter; a copy of this letter is provided, (Attachment 4). This Memorandum
S:\Community Development\OTHER AGENCIES\Ventura County\Grimes Rock Mining\ genda Reports\CC Agenda Report Grimes_131016 Final.doc
71
Honorable City Council
October 16, 2013
Page 4
was considered by the Ventura County Planning Commission as part of their decision
making process on the project application.
There were two public speakers who voiced opposition of the Grimes Rock project
applications, to the Ventura County Planning Commission during the public hearing, as
follows:
➢ David Bobardt, representing Moorpark, opposed due to lack of mitigation to
address quality of life impacts on Moorpark residents.
➢ Resident / Property Owner on Bardsdale Avenue, opposed due to concerns of
having multiple truck trips, travelling at high speeds, past her property.
On July 3, 2013, the City of Moorpark filed an appeal of the Ventura Planning
Commission's approvals on this project and requested a de novo (new) hearing on the
application by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors.
Next Steps
The appeal has been scheduled for October 22, 2013, to be heard by the Ventura
County Board of Supervisors on that day at 2:00PM (time certain).
DISCUSSION
PROJECT HISTORY AND EXISTING OPERATIONS
The Grimes Rock project site was historically used for surface mining in the 1950s and
1960s under a previous mining operator. The site was abandoned in 1967. During its
existence, the operation had mined an approximate 15-acre area. Since there were no
CUP or reclamation requirements in place for mining sites in Ventura County at that
time, the site was left in a disturbed and unstable condition with respect to slopes and
erosion. The site was left un-reclaimed with a level area of approximately three acres,
and tall pinnacles flanking the flat area were left partially mined with very steep slopes.
Since mining operations ceased in 1967, the site has also been used for livestock
grazing.
In 1998, the County of Ventura issued CUP 4874 to Grimes Rock, Inc. to operate a new
mining operation at the previous mining site. The permit has been formally modified five
times since then. The existing permit area encompasses 164 acres. Within this area
mining excavation is authorized to occur in over 48 acres. The operation involves an on-
site plant production of 952,500 tons per year, conducted five days per week, excluding
weekends and holidays. The current permit allows a maximum of 300 one-way truck
trips with operating hours generally limited to 6 a.m. to dusk. Trucks serving this mine
are currently prohibited from using Walnut Canyon Road, and arrivals and departures
can only occur every 15 minutes during certain AM hours.
S:\Community Development\OTHER AGENCIES\Ventura County\Grimes Rock Mining\Agenda Reports\CC Agenda Report Grimes_131016 Final.doc
72
Honorable City Council
October 16, 2013
Page 5
The previous CUP required that "nearly all" of the materials produced at the site be
delivered to the State Ready Mix batch plant at Vineyard Avenue and State Route
(SR)118 in Saticoy. Under the CUP, delivery may take place via two approved routes:
1) A northern haul route which runs from the project site north on Grimes
Canyon Road (SR-23) to SR-126, west on SR-126 to SR-118, then south to
the State Ready Mix plant, and;
2) A southern haul route which extends from the project site southward on
Grimes Canyon Road (SR-23) to Broadway, west on Broadway to Grimes
Canyon Road South to SR-118, then west to the State Ready Mix plant.
Only 64 of the originally permitted daily maximum of 300 one-way truck trips (21.3%)
were allowed to use the southern haul route. In addition, project related trucks using the
southern haul route had limitations on their arrival and departure times in order to
minimize traffic volumes during peak travel hours, and during school bus operations.
BACKGROUND ON THE CITY OF MOORPARK — ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE
ROUTE— 23 BYPASS
The State Route (SR)-23 Bypass was not analyzed as an alternative haul route in the
FEIR for the project. The City believes that the County should have analyzed SR-23 as
a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure as it has been included in City's
plans for over twenty years and has been studied extensively. Furthermore, the City
has repeatedly requested that the County include analysis of the SR-23 Bypass in the
Grimes Rock environmental documents.
The Bypass has been included in the City's General Plan Circulation Element since its
adoption in 1992. It is also listed in the documents of other area transportation
agencies. For example, it is listed on the long-term project list in the Ventura County
Congestion Management Program, and the Ventura County Transportation Commission
has adopted the SR-23 Bypass as part of its priority list of highway and rail capacity
improvement projects for the allocation of State Transportation Improvement Program
funds.
The City has conducted extensive and detailed studies of the SR-23 Bypass. In 2004,
the City Council authorized an agreement with Parsons to prepare a feasibility study for
North Hills Parkway and adopted Resolution No. 2004-2216 which appropriated funds
from the City-Wide Traffic Mitigation Fund, Fund 2002, for the North Hills Parkway
feasibility study. In 2005, the City executed an amendment to the Parsons agreement
for Parsons to prepare a feasibility study for the SR-23 Bypass. The study was funded
by Fund 2002, the City's traffic mitigation fund. The feasibility study, presented to the
Moorpark City Council on May 21, 2008, contained detailed conceptual design and
analysis of the Bypass including two build alternatives, analysis and discussion of the
environmental and land use constraints of constructing the Bypass, a project cost
S:\Community Development\OTHER AGENCIES\Ventura County\Grimes Rock Mining\Agenda Reports\CC Agenda Report Grimes_131016 Final.doc
73
Honorable City Council
October 16, 2013
Page 6
estimate, and maps and plans. The Council found the design and alignment of the
preferred alternative to be consistent with the General Plan, and directed City staff to
move the project forward. The Council directed City staff to work with developers of
properties within and outside the boundaries of the City on efforts to fund, design and
construct future projects to implement the SR-23 Bypass. This would include necessary
environmental analyses and acquisition of necessary right-of-way. The Council also
directed City staff to coordinate with Caltrans regarding the horizontal and vertical
alignment of the SR-23 Bypass, including topographic elevations, extents of earthwork
and connections to the existing SR-23 Freeway.
A second and more detailed study was prepared by RBF Consulting in 2010 to develop
the horizontal and vertical alignments of the SR-23 and North Hills Parkway, including
design criteria, earthwork estimates, environmental constraints and cost estimates. The
City Council adopted Resolution 2009-2863 authorizing the RBF study and
appropriating funds from the City-Wide Traffic Mitigation Fund, Fund 2002, for the study.
The purpose of the more detailed RBF study was to advance the conceptual design of
the SR-23 Bypass to a more detailed design level including the horizontal and vertical
roadway alignment and extents of earthwork with the goal of ensuring seamless
connections of the proposed SR-23 Bypass to Broadway Road and the proposed North
Hills Parkway. A summary report of the study was submitted to the City by RBF in
August 2010 for staff review and future consideration by the Council.
The City owns much of the right-of-way required for the Bypass, and has required
applicants owning reserved property in the Bypass right-of-way to grade that property.
Pardee Homes is required to grade two portions of the right-of-way as conditioned by
the City's approval of its subdivision.
Environmental Analysis
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Grimes Rock mining
expansion project was prepared and circulated for public review in the summer of 2006.
The County, as the CEQA lead agency, received a substantial number of written public
comments on the 2006 DEIR and the County prepared written responses to these
public comments pursuant to CEQA. In June 2009, the County prepared a proposed
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and released it for public review and
comment. In addition, the County's Environmental Report Review Committee (ERRC)
held several public hearings (July 15, 2009, August 12, 2009, and March 3, 2010) on
this FEIR and received public comment and testimony on the FEIR. On March 3, 2010,
the ERRC voted to find the FEIR "technically adequate." The 2009 FEIR was not
forwarded to the County Planning Commission for its consideration of the Grimes Rock
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Major Modification request.
Since the preparation of the 2006 DEIR and the 2009 FEIR for the Grimes Rock project,
two primary changes in circumstances have occurred that affect the CEQA analysis of
the Grimes Rock project and that required the recirculation of the Draft EIR for public
review and comment.
S\Community Development\OTHER AGENCIES\Ventura County\Grimes Rock Mining\Agenda Reports\CC Agenda Report Grimes_131016 Final.doc
74
Honorable City Council
October 16, 2013
Page 7
1) The applicant amended the proposed Reclamation Plan and revised the project
description in terms of total acreage disturbed, configuration of the final
reclaimed surface, re-vegetation standards, volume of material to be extracted,
and extended further into the future the estimated date for the termination of
surface mining activities.
2) In June 2010, the County adopted updates and revisions to its Administrative
Supplement to the State CEQA Guidelines and its Initial Study Assessment
Guidelines. These changes to the County's CEQA compliance guidelines
necessitated substantial revisions to the Grimes Rock DEIR in terms of
discussing potential environmental impacts, mitigation measure development,
and general formatting of information.
Second Access to the Site
There was a change proposed to the driveways and access to the site with the most
recent application updates. The September 2012 Recirculated Draft EIR, and project
application, were changed to re-route all project related traffic around Grimes Grade
itself. No project-related heavy truck traffic would travel through the grade at any hour of
the day. To accomplish this, the applicant proposed to construct a new internal access
road within the project site and through adjacent property owned by the applicant. One
end of the road starts at the existing project access road at the bottom of the grade,
travels through the mining site, and up the existing slope to the previous "Egg City" site
at the top of the grade.
The other end of the road is one of the existing access points to "Egg City". This road,
Grimes Way, is a paved road approximately 30 feet in width which runs in a primarily
north/south alignment to the west of and roughly parallel to SR-23. On its northern end,
the road begins at the south edge of the mining permit boundary, and on the south end
it intersects with SR-23 approximately 700 feet north of Shekell Road. The road has
moderate grades and its steepest portion of grade is 11%. Grimes Way is currently
used to access the Egg City site from SR-23, and it would be used by south-oriented
gravel trucks entering and exiting Grimes Rock from SR-23.
City staff sent the County Planning Division a comment letter on the Notice of
Preparation for the DEIR on the Grimes Mining expansion, dated December 17, 2003.
Staff also sent the County Planning Division a comment letter on the DEIR, dated
August 4, 2006. The EIR Consultant, Envicom Corporation, sent staff a letter in
response to our comments which was included in the 2009 FEIR. Staff sent the County
Planning Division a comment letter on the Response to Comments prepared for the
Final EIR, dated August 19, 2009. Staff sent the County Planning Division a comment
letter with Requested Project Conditions, dated March 24, 2010. Finally, staff sent the
County Planning Division a comment letter on the Recirculated Draft EIR , dated
October 26, 2012.
S:\Community Development\OTHER AGENCIES1Ventura County\Grimes Rock Mining\Agenda Reports\CC Agenda Report Grimes_131016 Final.doc
75
Honorable City Council
October 16, 2013
Page 8
On June 27, 2013, the Ventura County Planning Commission certified the Final EIR,
(FEIR). Along with the certification of the FEIR, the Ventura County Planning
Commission adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, (SOC), finding the
following impacts to be significant and unavoidable:
o Project specific potential loss of paleontological resources;
o Project-specific alteration of public views from SR23;
o Cumulative offsite dust generation along trucking routes; and
o Cumulative impacts on biological resources, loss of paleontological resources
and alteration of public views from SR23.
It should be noted that shortly before approving the expanded permit for Grimes Rock,
the County revoked the permit for Best Rock, a neighboring aggregate mine.
Staff believes that the FEIR certified by the County Planning Commission does not
adequately address the environmental impacts of the proposed Grimes Rock expansion
and its effects on the quality of life of Moorpark's residents and businesses. The
increased truck trips through and across Moorpark associated with the expansion will
result in impacts on air quality, noise, vibration, and traffic congestion in our community,
which is already heavily impacted from the presence of trucking through Moorpark. The
City has consistently presented its concerns that these issues were not adequately
addressed by the County's environmental review process. The City's comments and
concerns were ultimately disregarded by the Ventura County Planning Commission and
Staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Hold Public Workshop, receive public comment and direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Attachments:
1. Aerial Photo: Grimes Rock, Inc., proposed Conditional Use Permit boundary
2. Ventura County Planning Commission Agenda Report, dated June 27, 2013
3. City of Moorpark, comment letter (Sohagi Law Group, PLC), dated June 26, 2013
4. Memorandum to Ventura County Planning Commission, from Brian Baca,
(Ventura County Staff) dated June 27, 2013
S:\Community Development\OTHER AGENCIES\Ventura County\Grimes Rock Mining\Agenda Reports\CC Agenda Report Grimes_131016 Final.doe
76
ITEM 9.A.
P;r. -,4 .,,',
....
t. ' .•I''''
f; 4%. . — ,•,V } .,ir ,t.rAlifIlei'Afir. :
• ..!.... ..,..-..--,A1011. •
.,,,,.._ If;.%'-'sx.', . , ..,,,.,.:2-:,,,,:, •,,,-, ,
\+- r•lil"' •—Ny • ''''''.A.,,!.....*. ::..1. 4.2,,t_s?:'.''.•. ' ',
••,.. -,'.: ..•••.•t•411 r• c.,• : ''N.,v '+ ..t• 4 'c ','-, -",,
_ .r, ' N.,-,...,.... . :.:S,‘-„,'y- 4,, s ,),1 t\., ' :;.,. •'-,■ -1:, d", 1 ' .
'',. 'r.-4-1‘.'e" ..-Ro'-',,Z. ,,.40-•1., 's,•.•.; .4 ,r•it.' . -- '
.-''' .;:.'-7.:.}'•.-'' ,s: :),:-,..:':-.-:._:.-z.-.... i:.- '41.se'''. , '
1'1;."-,i- • N. il -..., k:,-„=1,,-:..1-‘,..;;;-=. 4,--..;,:i•„-- -- '. i
i
. i; .-,' .,
N':-
IV "'''AJ;.'-*!...37;.7-z.'"' -':'' ,•.:::,1 t.vg.; y .
1,4' ••.*••• "*".7--..,••• • , """, i ', -,..f: ;'-'4\ ,`, - ' -./ ..
i, ■ N. - ..° ,--
i ',.
. , •
•'/4‘. '
iii....40,1 . ,;....tis.,,s■ „.,.. .:',,,1 i , .,,....,' ,(kip,-,,,,,.....•:, , r,,..- kir._P:$1, '44
4,14-.42,1„,- : .... •-.....,.
,,.. ,: . Ne . :1-441' f bt,.4-,_, \„...•...,, • ,', 1 'Y'f'.0i - '. '. '-. ,‘-?k
silk
., , -7::_ ;',-; . — -", 'i•,/ '''\1•47,t,1,.--% '..8 ', )-ts: • 't '05.V.-1,‘' ' _
. s.t" ' - `•-; ',. •. ,"°° 4- ' .1, :.;•', --- ' .''
' ',.'''..si f.,IN \:),-;',"es„ is'...-/ t....."1"..;', ,, • ,
...IL.... \, ,, ,,..q. , y. ,,s•,, , .,
f .#
- ...i• 41. \ i.:-. ,.,, . . -4-
i 11‘... . .•, , \ v, ,,, ,A,--,t,
iii\
ko,
,,,
■ • '-- -.....a; - -'e,..4.- ,-.N‘, ,,v, ,....sv _ ,• ,
c.
''.
. .
,-",''.:1,' ' ■,'-.; '1 ''ttie
- * ''s .. .,u,\ ‘:, *. • °I *614'''':i , •-, I itc.1-6
. a _.j,:k.V.', ' f .k.,., '..-.:-,;" . - •.,
'''' 'I' 5,•,.* kr,„..4,, ,, ',. .., \ '' ,J., ..; .10,,, ,
<1'-.:1'... "'4''' • 1 r''tsi'4 . - • ',A,-, / 'IN' .
` e>
mr„,1
,.. ,*.
. ..'
, 1
,., I' ' I
' ,
,,,..
, , 1.-••—.11 !f ,..
.1 •., /i I :, I
. +i",.....'. A- ksr '''' ■r ,
' _ ; ■
‘ ;, • 1' t c
... r.
i
. ,
. i
. i ---,:k,:-: _ J. - . k ' •
„, p i- . - -----..:-- AViji • , •
1 ' , ,V • ,4-•■:-='-'7-: ' \; f,.
,
t.,
-i,- --- ..,..., . l'i--”' -.!,-,.;;;;.; , I .:-.4,,/,:::-.).'""'tt_.-1-___,'1, .----:,.-..x&Ir",..-__t_3___ L_ :-Its°,'•
•
.c.v$•, . ..te , .
opose ,,, '
.i
Prd CUP Boun
da ry 74i. s....L .f . /
•■C' _• V t!' ,j,:f:1;-.--. ,
: - i.-i..‘t 1. ;. .<:Y i',''',..1-''' i 1;4' , ,„.....,-i. •I
D Existing Mining Boundary
/ '---, .„,f • , / 1
,_,,,. *rs•.''...t.,'..-.i 1; i I. 0 , ,„.•41` i ' ' ',,''%,r
Area of impact from Proposed Mining Expansion ',e-'4e-r,t-,:'
Ell Jurisdictional Streambeds/Ripanan Habitats
't,
1
. • -,„, 3 ,..„,41'• 4 , ' , ,t, • ., ,,
(.%‘■"4.
'- 4 ti"-:.%' 1::.&_,'..'_'e I / L ''. ..,el ■____ _ S ,
' ''-' • '
NI :'COUNTY OF VEMTURA
Vent u re County Amoco
Mem pemenlAgercy Intanstbz Systems
Jurisdictional Riparian Habitats iii 14.6-2
CC ATTACHMENT 1
77
Le, Planning Commission Agenda
0
411
4 ! County of Ventura • Resource Management Agency• Planning Division
®1}1't p" 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740•(805)654-2478•ventura.org/nna/p1anning
The next regular hearing of the PLANNING COMMISSION will be held on Thursday,
June 27, at 8:30 a.m. in the Hearing Room of the Board of Supervisors, County
Government Center, Hall of Administration, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura,
California.
AGENDA
1. 8:30 A.M. HEARING CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS —Time set aside for comments by citizens on matters not
appearing on the Agenda (Time limit per item—five minutes)
5. CUP 4874-2— Russell Cochran, 11011 Azahar Street, Suite 2, Saticoy CA 93004
(representing Grimes Rock, Inc.)
Request: The applicant requests that the Planning Commission grant proposed
Modification #2 of Conditional Use Permit 4874 and approve the proposed
Amended Reclamation Plan to authorize changes in operational limitations,
expansion of the excavation area, and the continuation of surface mining
activities to the year 2040 at the existing Grimes Rock mining facility; and to
certify the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared under CEQA for this
project. (File: PL12-0159; CA Mine ID#91-56-0032)
Project Location: The project site is located at 3500 Grimes Canyon Road,
approximately 5 miles north of the City of Moorpark in the unincorporated area of
Ventura County.
CEQA Doc: Final Environmental Impact Report
Case Planner: Brian R. Baca
Assessor Parcel Nos:
500-0-050-13 500-0-090-27
500-0-090-29 500-0-090-32
500-0-090-05 500-0-090-33
500-0-090-26 500-0-050-34
CC ATTACHMENT 2 78
County of Ventura Planning Commission Hearing Agenda
June 27, 2013
Page 2 of 2
6. DISCUSSION:
a) Report by the Planning Director on Board Actions and Other Matters
b) Items the Planning Commission may wish to introduce
7. MEETING ADJOURNMENT
, lit ofd
L. 'rillhart, Directo
Ventura County Planning Division
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the
agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Division at the Public Counter located at
800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura, CA 93009, during normal business hours. Such documents are also
available on the Planning Division website at htto://www.ventura.org/rma/planninq/hearfigs-agendas/live-
broadcasts.html, subject to staff's ability to post the documents prior to the meeting.
Persons who require accommodation for any audio, visual or other disability in order to review an agenda,
or to participate in a meeting of the Planning Commission per the American Disabilities Act (ADA), may
obtain assistance by requesting such accommodation in writing addressed to the Clerk of the
Commission, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740 or telephonically by calling(805)654-
2478. Any such request for accommodation should be made at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled
meeting for which assistance is requested.
If you challenge the action taken on the items in this agenda in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the Ventura County Planning Division at,or prior to, the public hearing.
SPECIAL NOTICE:
The Planning Division offers an E-mail Public Hearing Notification Service that allows
interested stakeholders, applicants, and citizens to receive e-mail notification when a
new Planning Commission Hearing is posted. You may subscribe to this service by
going to the Planning Division website at http tl/www.venture:orpIrma1plannin l/heanngs-
agendas/planninq-commission-hearinus.html and then click on Subscribe to our email
notification service for these hearings.
79
i Planning Commission Staff Report : Hearing on June 27,2013
c , , County of Ventura ' Resource Management Agency• Planning Division
,fit - 6 �4" 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93079-1740•(805)654-2478•ventura.org/rma/planning
Table of Contents
Section Contents Page
A Project Information 1
B CEQA Compliance 10
C General Plan Consistency 19
D Zoning Ordinance Compliance 29
E Conditional Use Permit Findings 36
F Reclamation Plan Findings 42
G Public Hearing Notice 43
H Staff Recommendations 44
A. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Request: The applicant requests that the Planning Commission grant proposed
Modification No. 2 of Conditional Use Permit 4874 and approve the proposed
Amended Reclamation Plan to authorize changes in operational limitations,
expansion of the excavation area, and the continuation of surface mining
activities to the year 2040 at the existing Grimes Rock mining facility; and to
certify the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared under CEQA for this
project. (File: PL12-0159; CA Mine ID#91-56-0032)
2. Applicant: Russell Cochran, 11011 Azahar Street, Suite 2, Saticoy CA 93004
(representing Grimes Rock, Inc.)
3. Property Owner: Russell L. and Linda S. Cochran 11011 Azahar Street, Suite 2,
Saticoy CA 93004
4. Applicant's Representatives:
Warren R. Coalson EnviroM/NE, Inc., 3511 Camino Del Rio
South, Suite 403, San Diego CA 92108
Amy Forbes Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 333 South
Douglas Champion Grand Avenue, Los Angeles CA 90071-
3197
5. Decision-Making Authority: Pursuant to Sections 8105-4, 8107-9.6.9, and
8111-1.2 et seq., of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance (NCZO),
the Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the requested modified
Conditional Use Permit and the concurrently-processed Amended Reclamation
Plan.
1
80
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 2 of 45
6. Project Site Location and Parcel Number: The project site is located at 3500
Grimes Canyon Road, approximately 5 miles north of the City of Moorpark in the
unincorporated area of Ventura County. The Tax Assessor's parcel numbers for
the parcels that include the project site are depicted in Exhibit 2 and listed below:
500-0-050-13 500-0-090-27
500-0-090-29 500-0-090-32
500-0-090-05 500-0-090-33
500-0-090-26 500-0-050-34
7. Project Site Land Use and Zoning Designations:
a. Countywide General Plan Land Use Map Designation: Open Space (10-
acre minimum parcel size)(Exhibit 2)
b. Zoning Designation:
OS-160 ac/MRP (Open Space, 160-acre minimum lot size with Mineral
Resource Protection Overlay)
OS-130 ac/MRP (Open Space, 130-acre minimum lot size with Mineral
Resource Protection Overlay)
AE-40 ac/MRP (Agricultural Exclusive, 40-acre minimum lot size with
Mineral Resource Protection Overlay) (Exhibit 2)
8. Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses/Development(Exhibit 2):
Location in
Relation to the Zoning Land Uses/Development
Project Site
AE-40 ac/MRP (Agricultural Undeveloped grazing land and State
North Exclusive, 40-acre minimum lot Highway 23.
•
size with Mineral Resource
Protection Overlay)
OS-160 ac/MRP (Open Space, Undeveloped open space, State
East 160-acre minimum lot size with Highway 23, and the Wayne J Sand and
Mineral Resource Protection Gravel mining facility.
Overlay)
OS-20 (Open Space, 20-acre Undeveloped land. Former site of the
South minimum lot size) and OS-130 "Egg City'facility.
(Open Space, 130-acre minimum
lot size)
AE-40 (Agricultural Exclusive, Existing mining facility (Best Rock
West 40-acre minimum lot size with Products, Inc.).
Mineral Resource Protection
Overlay)
2
81
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 3 of 45
9. Permit History: The project site was used for surface mining from 1957 to 1965.
The previous mine operator, SP Milling, abandoned the site in 1967 and left it in
an un-reclaimed condition. Such abandonment was allowed prior to the
enactment of the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) (Pub.
Res. Code section 2710 et seq.) in 1975. Approximately 15 acres were disturbed
as part of the SP Milling operation. This disturbance includes the remnant
"highwall" located along the western boundary of the site. The property was used
for cattle grazing after the 1967 mine closure.
a. Initial CUP:
On May 21, 1998, the County of Ventura granted Conditional Use Permit 4874 to
Grimes Rock, Incorporated to operate a new mining operation for 15 years until
May 21, 2013 on the subject property. CUP 4874 authorized a permit area of
164 acres, an excavation area of 48 acres, throughput or production of 952,000
tons of aggregate per year, and an associated maximum truck traffic of 300
Average Daily Trips(ADTs).
b. Subsequent CUP Changes:
CUP 4874 has been the subject of several permit adjustment applications and
one modification request since 1998, which are described below:
November 20, 1998: A Permit Adjustment was approved by the County to amend the
text of Condition of Approval No. 71 regarding erosion and sedimentation control.
January 7, 1999: A Permit Adjustment was approved by the County to make
administrative changes to the conditions of approval to better reflect to the timing
of when specific conditions must be implemented.
December 13, 1999: A Permit Adjustment was approved by the County to add a
piece of equipment (i.e., a "trimmer") to top off out-going trucks carrying product
piled too high in the truck cargo area.
February 2, 2000: The County approved a request to allow deviations of the
defined northern and southern haul routes to allow deliveries to a customer in
Moorpark until either. (1) the operator of the facility authorized by CUP 4633
(now CEMEX) elects to pay certain fees allowing them to use unused vehicle
trips(i.e. ADTs); or(2) CUP 4874 is amended to make the change permanent.
This approval was appealed by the City of Moorpark; on March 30, 2000 the
appeal was upheld by the Planning Commission, thereby negating the Permit
Adjustment approval. In addition, CEMEX paid the required trip fees, thereby
triggering the first the above conditions, which negates any increase in ADTs
allowed by this Permit Adjustment.
3
82
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 4 of 45
This Permit Adjustment was terminated by the County on June 8, 2000.
March 28, 2000: An application for a CUP modification (Case No. 4874-1) was
filed by the Permittee to request that the facility be allowed an increase in truck
traffic by 60 one-way truck trips per day. This application was withdrawn on
August 22, 2001.
October 30, 2000: An Emergency Use Authorization was granted by the County
to increase project-related truck trips by an additional 240 ADT for thirty days to
assist in river levee construction in the City of Fillmore.
February 22, 2001: A Permit Adjustment was approved to construct a concrete
pad for truck refueling and to modify water quality reporting requirements.
June 20, 2001: A Permit Adjustment was approved by the County that expanded
the authorized mining excavation area by 4.1 acres and the CUP area by 4.38
acres, and amended the text of Condition of Approval No. 89 to specify a time
frame for certain records to be maintained.
May 13, 2003: A Permit Adjustment was approved by the County to authorize a
second portable aggregate screening device.
c. Current CUP Modification:
In 2003, the mine operator (Grimes Rock, Inc.) applied for modification No. 2 of
CUP 4874. This 2003 modification request included many of the components of
the current modification request before your Commission at this time. These
common components included requests for an increase in the volume of material
to be excavated, an enlarged footprint of disturbance, an increase in the
authorized production rate with an associated increase in transport truck traffic,
and additional years of operation. The original application, however, did not
include a SMARA-compliant Reclamation Plan.
A Notice of Preparation for a project environmental impact report (EIR) was
issued in November 2003 and circulated for public comment until January 2004.
The County held a public scoping meeting in December 2003 on the EIR.
Meetings with interested parties and various stakeholders were held in 2004. A
Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review from June 5, 2006 to
August 7, 2006. The County prepared a Final EIR (the 2009 FEIR) and made it
available for public review in July 2009. The former County Environmental
Report Review Committee held public hearings on this 2009 FEIR from July 2009
to March 2010.
The 2009 FEIR, and the proposed CUP modification, were not forwarded to the
County Planning Commission for their consideration in 2010 because of a 2010
4
83
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 5 of 45
appellate court decision (Nelson v. County of Kern) found that a SMARA-
compliant Reclamation Plan is required to be concurrently reviewed with a
surface mining expansion request. At about the same time, the County adopted
revised Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (ISAGs) in June 2010.
The applicant prepared a new amended Reclamation Plan that substantially
changed the project description in terms of the estimated end date of mining, the
volume of material extracted and the footprint of excavation. As a result of these
changes, the County Planning Division prepared a Recirculated Draft EIR and
provided it for public review from September 10, 2012 to October 26, 2012.
The Planning Division responded to the comments provided on the RDEIR and
published a Final EIR on May 29, 2013. This document is part of the documents
provided to the Planning Commission for the June 27, 2013 hearing. Refer to
Section B. of this staff report for further information on the environmental review
of the Grimes Rock project.
10. Project Description: The "Project Description" presented below constitutes the
applicant's request. Any authorization granted by the County of Ventura will be
limited to the conditions of approval imposed on a granted CUP and the content
of an approved Reclamation Plan.
Summary:
The applicant requests approval of Modification No. 2 of Conditional Use Permit
4874 (Case No. CUP 4874-2)and the approval of an amended Reclamation Plan
prepared pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). The
requested approvals would authorize:
• Changes to the permit boundary including the expansion of surface mining
areas. The permit boundary would be expanded from approximately 164
acres to 231 acres. Parcels to be added to the CUP boundary include
500-0-050-34, 500-0-090-29, 500-0-090-05, and 500-0-090-33. The
excavation area would be expanded from approximately 45.8 acres
(current condition) to 135.3 acres. (See Exhibit 3.) (Note: The current
permitted area of excavation encompasses 48.4 acres.)
• An extension of the effective term of the CUP from 2013 to an estimated
end date of surface mining operations in 2040.
• An increase in sand and gravel production (i.e. material export) from
952,500 tons per year to approximately 1.8 million tons per year.
• Material hauling to occur Monday through Saturday, 6:00 a.m. until dusk.
• Onsite mining operations to occur 24 hours per day on Monday through
Saturday.
• An average daily hauling truck traffic volume of 460 one-way trips.
• A maximum peak daily hauling truck traffic volume of 600 one-way trips,
5
84
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 6 of 45
• Material hauling along any route to any customer location.
• The elimination of volume and timing restrictions on trucks going south.
• An end use of Open Space.
Mineral extraction operations:
Under the proposed modified CUP 4874-2 and amended Reclamation Plan, the
mining facility will continue sand and gravel excavation and processing
operations similar to those that are currently permitted under the existing permit
with the changes as described above. Proposed mining excavation and
reclamation will occur over three phases as shown on the amended Reclamation
Plan maps and cross sections (Appendix G in FEIR Volume 2, Exhibit 4).
Anticipated operations at the site will include phased recovery of sand and gravel
resources and materials processing. Mineral resource recovery operations
(excavation) will be accomplished through the use of conventional earthmoving
equipment. The extracted materials will be loaded into a crusher and conveyor
system for movement to the processing plant (see Figure 2-5 one page 2-17 of
FEIR Volume 1, Exhibit 4). In some areas, off-highway haul trucks may be used
to move extracted rock to the processing plant area. The products exported from
the subject facility would include washed concrete sand, washed gravel and fill
sand. The total anticipated future production (post-2011) of the extraction
operation is estimated to be approximately 50 million tons. This tonnage
assumes a conversion factor of 1.6 tons per cubic yard applied to the estimated
31 million cubic yards of material volume. The tonnage figure has been adjusted
to account for production that has occurred since the topographic base map used
to prepare the Reclamation Plan was created in 2011. Annual production
amounts are anticipated to be approximately 1.8 million tons of aggregate and
the project will generate approximately 460 average daily one-way trips
(assumes 230 loads per day x 25 tons/load x 312 working days per year).
The operator will continue to utilize the existing processing plant and equipment
to operate and process materials.
The mining activities would involve the removal of hills located within the
proposed excavation area. The mining method will be to place a bulldozer on top
of the promontory and push material off the top and down the face of the slope,
moving from the peak of the hill towards the base of the hill. A front-end loader
will place the bulldozed material on the conveyor system for processing. All new
slopes will be cut to 2:1 horizontal:vertical (h:v). The lower one-third of final
slopes will be graded in a concave configuration in order to blend with the floor of
the mine.
The mineral resource extraction is proposed to occur in three phases as
discussed below. The timing for these phases may change in the future
depending upon market demand.
6
85
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 7 of 45
Phase 1 will consist of extracting aggregate resource from the existing
disturbance limits down to the current (2013) pad elevation near the wash plant
(approximately 1,130 feet AMSL). Also during Phase 1, existing highwalls that
are located along the western property line will be removed. Excavation during
Phase 1 will also progress toward the eastern and southeastern areas of the site.
This plan will allow the operator to construct a new haul road that will be used by
trucks that are entering or exiting through the southern end of the site. This haul
road will be used throughout the project duration in order to eliminate southbound
truck traffic on the hairpin turns located near the site along Grimes Canyon Road.
Northbound truck traffic would continue to use the existing northern access road
and also avoid travelling on the hairpin turns.
Phase 1 will result in the extraction of approximately one-third of the total
aggregate reserve included in the Reclamation Plan. Extractive operations in
Phase 1 are expected to continue for approximately 10 to 15 years depending on
the demand for aggregate resources. At the maximum production rate, Phase 1
will take 10 years to complete. Topsoil will be salvaged from new disturbance
areas and stockpiled on-site for use during reclamation. Final slopes will be
graded to a maximum slope ratio of 2:1 (h:v) with undulating surfaces to blend in
with the surrounding natural terrain. Upon completion of extraction operations
within Phase 1, Phase 2 will commence.
In Phase 2, excavation will continue to progress toward the eastern end of the
site down to a pad elevation of approximately 1,130 feet AMSL. A gradient of
approximately 1% will be maintained for the interim floor created by Phase 2
excavation. Extractive operations in Phase 2 will result in an excavation footprint
that encompasses approximately 58 acres. The total quantity of material to be
excavated in this phase is estimated to be approximately one-third of the total
aggregate reserve included in the Reclamation Plan. It is anticipated that Phase
2 will continue for approximately 10 - 15 years depending on the demand for
aggregate resources. At the maximum production rate, Phase 2 will take 10
years to complete.
Final slopes of 2:1 (h:v), with undulating surfaces, will be established. Also
during Phase 2, topsoil will be salvaged from new disturbance areas and
stockpiled onsite for use during reclamation.
Phase 3 will involve continued extraction of aggregate resource until the final pad
elevation on approximately 1,000 feet AMSL is reached. A 1% gradient will be
created for the final floor configuration. Mineral extraction in Phase 3 is expected
to remove the remaining approximately one-third of the total aggregate reserve
included in this Reclamation Plan and will continue for approximately 10 - 15
years depending on the demand for aggregate resources. Final slopes will be
graded to a maximum 2:1 (h:v) slope ratio with undulating surfaces. The lower
one-third of final slopes will be graded in a concave configuration in order to
7
86
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 8 of 45
blend with the floor of the mine. Topsoil will be salvaged from newly disturbed
areas of the site and either placed directly on final slope areas or stockpiled for
later use.
Material hauling trucks will be filled from the stockpiles of processed materials by
front-end loaders and subsequently weighed at on-site scales. Prior to departing
the site for product delivery, truck exteriors will be swept to control sand, grit, or
gravel that may fly off and become airborne during transport.
Total future material production from the site is estimated to be 50 million tons
(31,250,000 cubic yards). Excavation would occur over a 135.3-acre area with a
maximum slope height of 365 feet. The total CUP/Reclamation Plan area will be
231 acres.
The estimated date for the termination of mining, based upon the proposed
extraction rate and total volume of material to be exported, is January 1, 2040.
Reclamation:
Reclamation activities will occur on an ongoing basis throughout the project life
as planned mining excavations are completed. The reclamation plan maps and
cross sections (Appendix G of Exhibit 4) depict the volume of material to be
excavated and the proposed finished slope contours after each phase of the
mining operations are completed. The site will be reclaimed to a configuration
that includes a nearly level floor surrounded by maximum 2:1 gradient slopes.
Runoff from the slopes will drain across the floor to be discharged at the low
point (approximately 1,000-foot elevation) where an existing drainage course
intersects the floor. It is anticipated that the western slope will be reclaimed first,
followed by the southerly slope, and then by the easterly slope.
Reclamation phasing will generally follow the proposed extraction phasing
described above. As extraction progresses to lower elevations in each phase,
upper slopes will be reclaimed. Reclamation of final slopes will consist of
establishing 2:1 (h:v) slope configurations and revegetation. The processing plant
area will be one of the last areas to be mined and reclaimed.
The processing plant is currently(2013) located on the western portion of the site
and will remain in place until the remaining reserves located beneath the plant
site are excavated (during Phase 3). It is anticipated that reclamation will be
divided into a minimum of four areas over the course of the project.
Reclamation will commence with the easterly-facing slope on the western portion
of the site, within the Phase 1 area. It is expected that this area will be reclaimed
near the end of Phase 1 mining operations. Next, the slopes within the
southwestern and southern portions of Phase 1 will be reclaimed. It is
anticipated that this area will be reclaimed at the beginning of Phase 2 mining
8
87
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2 I Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 9 of 45
operations. The third area to be reclaimed will be the southeastern and eastern
portions of the pit slopes. It is anticipated that these areas will be reclaimed
sometime during Phase 2 and Phase 3.
The fourth area to be reclaimed will be the lower slopes of all three phase areas
(from an elevation of 1,130 feet AMSL down to 1,000 feet AMSL). These slopes
will be reclaimed at the completion of mining operations and once the ultimate pit
depth has been reached during Phase 3. Final reclamation will include removal
of the processing plant and all mining equipment, followed by revegetation of any
remaining disturbance areas that are not necessary for post-extraction uses (e.g.
access roads) All compacted areas will be ripped to achieve a consistency and
permeability similar to that of the original soils.
When final slopes are established in individual areas, the land surface will be
reclaimed. This will include revegetation of the areas outlined in the revegetation
plan (Figure 2-4c of Exhibit 4). The lower one-third of final slopes will be graded
in a concave configuration in order to blend with the floor of the mine. Any roads
that are not necessary for the proposed open space end use will be removed and
revegetated in accordance with the revegetation plan.
Upon reaching the final contours of the finished mined slopes, the operator will
revegetate disturbed areas with native plant species consistent with the
surroundings and the vegetation that existed prior to disturbance from mining.
Finished slopes will be revegetated with a native revegetation seed mix approved
by the County of Ventura and the State Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR). The
objective is to restore the mining site with native vegetation that is similar in
species composition and density to the pre-mining vegetation.
The revegetated surfaces will be compatible with native flora, self-perpetuating,
provide habitat value to wildlife, and stabilize the onsite soils. Using a native
seed mix (as specified in the proposed modified Reclamation Plan), the finished
slopes will be revegetated in the fall of the year each mined area is completed.
This timing is intended to take advantage of seasonal rainfall to start plant
growth. A Coastal Sagebrush mix will be used to seed the side slopes, while a
Grass Woodland mix will be used for the flat areas. No irrigation will be used to
germinate and establish plants as the selected species are adapted to the
climate and rainfall conditions at the project site. The finished slopes will be
overlain with topsoil that is salvaged from new disturbance areas. However, no
topsoil has been salvaged from the existing disturbance areas. In any case,
topsoil and suitable growth media, including fine material that is used to augment
the topsoil, will be redistributed over the disturbance areas at a minimum
thickness of 3 inches.
Upon completion of all surface mining activities and the commencement of final
reclamation, the operator will remove most of its plant facilities and all equipment
from the site. Some infrastructure improvements (including the access road and
9
88
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2 Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 10 of 45
water supply pond) would remain on-site to support the future end use. All
unused foundations, pavement, and the plant will be removed. The shop and
office buildings will be converted to storage use and would remain to support
maintenance of the property and future by-right uses of the land. The compacted
areas will be ripped and reworked to a consistency and permeability similar to
that of the original soils, and remaining unvegetated areas will be re-graded to
conform with the local topography and revegetated.
The Grimes Rock site was abandoned in 1967 by a previous operator. Several
"highwalls," or near vertical banks were left on the site at that time. The proposed
mining project would create flatter slopes throughout the proposed project area.
The "highwalls" would be eliminated with the proposed project. Any previously
disturbed areas that are disturbed again by the proposed project must be
reclaimed pursuant to the SMARA and County requirements. Material obtained
from reclamation of the "highwalls" will be sold as product.
It is proposed that the site will be reclaimed to an end use of open space
consistent with the County General Plan designation of the site.
B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines
(Title 14, California Code or Regulations, §15000 et seq.), the subject CUP and
Reclamation Plan applications comprise a "project" that is subject to environmental
review.
In response to the 2003 application for a modified conditional use permit, County staff
prepared an Initial Study in accordance with the County's Initial Study Assessment
Guidelines. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, the County prepared
an Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and made the DEIR available for public
review and comment in May and June of 2006. The 2006 DEIR was revised in response
to the several hundred public comments included in the 51 letters received by the
County. In June 2009, the County prepared and released a Proposed Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for further public review and comment. This
document was found to be "technically adequate" by the County Environmental Report
Review Committee in March 2010.
Neither the 2009 FEIR nor the CUP modification request were brought before the
Planning Commission for its consideration because an appellate court decision (Nelson
v. County of Kern) found that a SMARA-compliant Reclamation Plan is required to be
concurrently reviewed with a CUP modification request. This appellate court decision is
applicable to the Grimes Rock proposal and affects the County's permitting process.
Subsequently, the mine operator prepared an Amended Reclamation Plan, and an
associated revised project description. In addition, revisions of the County of Ventura's
Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (ISAGs) were adopted in June 2010. The ISAG
changes involved land use, biological resources, and other issues. The analysis of the
10
89
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 11 of 45
amended Reclamation Plan and the new project description, and the use of the new
ISAGs, required revision of the 2009 FEIR.
This 2009 FEIR was substantially revised and a "Re-circulated Draft EIR" (RDEIR) was
released for public review and comment from September 10 to October 26, 2012. In
addition to a notification published in the Ventura Star, all property owners within 1,000
feet of the project site or within 300 feet of the proposed material hauling routes
received a written notice of the availability of the RDEIR. The Notice of Availability and
the RDEIR were posted on the County Planning Division website. The RDEIR was also
provided to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies.
The 2013 FEIR under consideration by your Commission includes the letters of public
comment received on the RDEIR and specific responses to each comment (See FEIR
Volume 3). The 2013 FEIR includes revisions in the text necessary to address issues
raised by the public.
1. Certification of the Final EIR: The CEQA Guidelines §15090(a) state:
Prior to approving a project the lead agency shall certify that:
(1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
(2) The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the
lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and
considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to
approving the project;and
(3) The final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and
analysis.
Subsequent to the September 10 to October 26, 2012 public review and
comment period, the RDEIR was revised in response to comments [see Exhibit
41. This revised document will be referred to as the Final EIR(FEIR).
The FEIR identifies the following potentially significant environmental impacts
that could result from project implementation:
Traffic/Circulation
Air Quality
Hydrology/Water Resources
Biological Resources
Paleontological Resources
Visual Resources
Feasible mitigation measures are identified in the FEIR that would reduce most
of the identified impacts to a less than significant level. These measures include
11
90
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 12 of 45
limitations on peak-hour truck traffic, payment of in-lieu fees to fund air pollutant
emission reduction programs, installation of flood control facilities, and protection
of offsite biological habitat areas. With incorporation of the mitigation measures
(and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program included in each measure)
into the conditions of approval for the modified CUP, significant and unavoidable
impacts would remain as follows:
Proiect-specific impacts:
Paleontological Resources: Loss of fossil resources.
Visual Resources: Alteration of views from SR 23.
Cumulative impacts:
Air Quality: Offsite dust generation along trucking routes.
Biological Resources: Effects on habitat and sensitive species.
Paleontological Resources: Loss of fossil resources.
Visual Resources: Alteration of views from SR 23.
Nineteen comment letters were received in response to the RDEIR. Most of the
commentary was focused on the effects of the truck traffic associated with
material export from the mining site. These comments did not provide a basis for
substantial revision of the analysis of traffic issues in the RDEIR. The analysis of
offsite (on road) noise impacts presented in the RDEIR was substantially revised
to conform to the 2010 County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines. The
threshold of significance for noise impacts established in these guidelines reads
as follows:
Any project that produces noise in excess of the standards for noise in the
Ventura County General Plan Goals, Policies and Programs (Section
2.16) or the applicable Area Plan, has the potential to cause a significant
noise impact. Noise-generating uses that either individually or when
combined with other recently approved, pending, and probable future
projects, exceeds the noise thresholds of General Plan Noise Policy
2.16.2-1(4) are considered to have a potentially significant impact.
The proposed expanded mining facility would be a "noise-generating" use subject
to General Plan Noise Policy 2.16.2-1(4). This policy states:
(4) Noise generators, proposed to be located near any noise sensitive
use, shall incorporate noise control measures so that ongoing outdoor
noise levels received by the noise sensitive receptor, measured at the
exterior wall of the building, does not exceed any of the following
standards:
12
91
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2 i Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 13 of 45
a. Leg1H of 55dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever
is greater, during any hour from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
b. Leg1 H of 50dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever
is greater, during any hour from 7:00 p.m. to 10.•00 p.m.
c. Leg1H of 45dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever
is greater, during any hour from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Section 2.16.2(4) is not applicable to increased traffic noise along any of
the roads identified within the 2020 Regional Roadway Network (Figure
4.2.3) Public Facilities Appendix of the Ventura County General Plan (see
2.16.2-1(1)). In addition, State and Federal highways, all railroad line
operations, aircraft in flight, and public utility facilities are noise generators
having Federal and State regulations that preempt local regulations.
[emphasis added]
As stated in the General Plan policy above, the noise limitations listed in Policy
2.16.2-1(4) do not apply to increased traffic noise along any of the roads in the
County regional roadway network or along Federal or State highways. The local
haul routes identified for the project (e.g. State Route 23, Grimes Canyon Road
South) are all part of the regional road network or a State highway. Thus, the
increased traffic noise along these roads due to expanded mining operations
does not constitute an impact under the County Initial Study Assessment
Guidelines. The discussion of project-related traffic noise presented in the RDEIR
has been deleted from the FEIR.
No other issue areas required substantial revision or a change in the level of
impact. Thus, recirculation of the RDEIR is not required. As stated above,
detailed responses to each letter of comment are included in the FEIR (Sections
A and B of FEIR Volume 3, Exhibit 4).
Staff recommends that the decision-makers certify that the FEIR has been
prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the County Initial Study
Assessment Guidelines, and find that this document reflects the County's
independent review and analysis of the effects of the proposed project. Exhibit 6
of this staff report is a draft resolution of the Planning Commission to certify the
FEIR.
2. Findings for Approval of the Project: The CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)
state:
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has
been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental
effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written
findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
13
92
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2 I Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 14 of 45
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
The CEQA Guidelines§15091(c) also state:
The finding in §15091(a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the
finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with
identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in
subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified
mitigation measures and project alternatives.
The project-specific and cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts
identified in the FEIR are listed in the table below along with a summary of the
proposed CEQA findings of approval included as Exhibit 6.
Table 1 — Identified impacts and summary of CEQA findings
Issue area Impact Summary of CEQA Findings
Paleontological Project-specific and The loss of paleontological resources
resources cumulative loss of will be minimized through the
paleontological resources implementation of mitigation measure
due to the expansion of the PR 1-1 as a condition of approval of
area and depth of excavation. the modified permit. This measure
requires that new excavation areas
be surveyed prior to disturbance and
that representative samples of any
fossils discovered by retained. A
qualified paleontologist shall also be
on call to recover any substantial
fossil remains uncovered during
mining excavation. Thus, changes or
alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as
14
93
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 15 of 45
identified in the final EIR.
Visual Project-specific and Mitigation measures VR 1-1 and BR
Resources cumulative impact on public 11-1 serve to minimize the impacts of
views from SR 23 due to the the proposed project on public views
expansion of the area along SR 23. These measures limit
disturbed by mining activities. the acreage of disturbed land during
mining operations and limit the use of
night lighting. Thus, changes or
alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as
identified in the final ER.
Air Quality Cumulative impact involving Mitigation measures AQ 1-1, 1-2, and
the generation of fugitive dust 1-3 would minimize the fugitive dust
along trucking routes. generated by project operations.
These measures require the
preparation of an enhanced dust
control plan, compliance with APCD
rules and regulations and the
covering of material loads. Thus,
changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EIR.
Biological Cumulative loss of existing Implementation of mitigation
resources habitat due to mining measures BR 1-1, 1-2, 1-5, 4-1, 7-1,
excavation. 7-2A, 7-2B, 10-1 and 11-1 would
minimize the effects of the proposed
project on biological resources.
These measures would require the
permanent protection of offsite
habitat land, protect sensitive
species found on the site, limit the
area of active mining operations,
require coordination with the State
and Federal wildlife agencies, and
limit the use of night lighting. Thus,
changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EIR.
Based on the information presented above, the decision-maker can make the
findings required by Sections 15043, 15090, 15091, 15092 and 15093 of the
15
94
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 16 of 45
CEQA Guidelines. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution included as Exhibit 7 of this staff report.
3. Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting: CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA
Guidelines §§15091(d) and 15097state that, when approving a project for which
a EIR has been prepared, the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting
on, or monitoring, the changes which it has either required in the project or made
a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental
effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements, or other measures.
The mitigation and monitoring program is incorporated into each mitigation
measure identified in the FEIR. Each of the required measures has been
incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval (Conditions 22-27 and
29-50, Exhibit 5)for the requested modified conditional use permit.
Based on the foregoing information, the decision-maker can satisfy the
requirement to adopt a mitigation monitoring program through the imposition of
the recommended conditions of approval.
4. Overriding Considerations: The CEQA Guidelines §15093(a) state:
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-
wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the
project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a
proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,
the adverse environmental effects may be considered 'acceptable.'
The CEQA Guidelines §15093(b)further state:
When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the
occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but
are not avoided or substantially lessened (to a less-than-significant level),
the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action
based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The
statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
As disclosed in the FEIR (Volume 1, Exhibit 4) and discussed above, the
proposed expansion of the Grimes Rock mining facility will have significant and
unavoidable impacts on the environment related to paleontology, visual
resources, air quality and biological resources. . The beneficial effects of the
approval of this mining project are discussed below. it is staff's recommendation
16
95
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 17 of 45
that these benefits be found to outweigh the adverse effects of the project. A
draft Planning Commission Resolution to certify the FEIR and adopt a Statement
of Overriding Considerations (SOC) is attached as Exhibit 7 of this staff report.
The reasons to approve the project despite the significant and unavoidable
impacts are focused on the economic necessity for adequate aggregate (sand
and gravel) resources sufficient to satisfy the ongoing societal need for this
material. In addition, the permitting of local sources for this material will reduce
overall air pollutant emissions and vehicle miles travelled by material haul trucks.
The following factors justify the adoption of a SOC for the proposed project:
1. Development of mineral resources of Statewide significance: The project site
has been designated as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) by the State
Mining and Geology Board. This designation is placed on lands underlain by
known mineral resources that are present in sufficient quantities to be of
economic significance to the region or State. Pursuant to Section 2762 of
SMARA, lands designated as MRZ-2 must be incorporated into the land use
General Plan of the Lead Agency to "emphasize the conservation and
development of identified mineral deposits." The proposed mining site is
identified in the County General Plan as a Mineral Resource Area and in the
County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance with a Mineral Resource Protection
Zone Overlay. Thus, continued production of aggregate from the project site
is consistent with State policy, County policy and the County Non-Coastal
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Need for additional permitted aggregate reserves: According to the California
Department of Conservation (DOC), Ventura County had permitted 106
million tons of aggregate reserves for extraction in 2006. This amount
constitutes only 34 percent of the DOC-estimated 309 million tons of
aggregate needed to satisfy the 50-year (2006-2055) aggregate demand in
the County, taking into account estimated population growth and associated
increases in demand for construction materials. Approval of the proposed
Grimes Rock mine expansion project would add approximately 50 million tons
to the permitted aggregate reserves of Ventura County. The resulting 156
million tons (based on 2006 data) would represent 50 percent of the
estimated 50-year demand for such resources in the County. A local
aggregate supply is preferred over a supply from a more remote mining
facility. The availability of a local source reduces the adverse economic and
environmental effects of the long-distance transport of aggregate materials. A
50-year supply of permitted aggregate reserves for each production-
consumption area of the State is a goal set by the State Mining and Geology
Board.
3. Provision of a local aggregate supply: Authorization of continued and
expanded surface mining at the Grimes Rock site would provide for a long-
term local source of aggregate mineral resources. Aggregates are a high
17
96
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 18 of 45
volume, tow value mineral material. The unit price of this material largely
depends on the transport cost from the mining site to the point of delivery.
With a local source centrally located in Ventura County, the cost of importing
this material from more distant mining facilities, including those located
outside of Ventura County can be avoided. Public projects, such as road
maintenance and repair, and private construction projects would benefit from
reduced material cost. The availability of a local aggregate source would
provide this general economic benefit.
4. Reduction in criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions: Although
the FEIR estimates the emissions from the proposed project and identifies
required mitigation as required under CEQA, the denial of the proposed
permit could have a substantial adverse effect on regional air quality.
Because aggregate is an essential component for the manufacture of
concrete and paving products, the demand for this material will always be
met. The only question is: "Where will this commodity come from?" Absent
adequate local sources of aggregate, this material would be imported to
County job sites and end users from more remote surface mining facilities,
including those located at substantially greater distance in adjoining
jurisdictions. The additional vehicle miles travelled (VMTs) would increase the
emissions of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases per ton of
aggregate delivered. Such a result would conflict with current California
efforts under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health &
Safety Code section 38500 et seq.) and the Sustainable Communities and
Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) to reduce VMTs and, thus, improve
air quality and climate sustainability. Authorization of the proposed project
would minimize the VMTs and have a corresponding air pollution reduction
and represent a region-wide and statewide environmental benefit.
5. Project does not involve the development of a new mining site: The Grimes
Canyon area is the major source of aggregate in the County of Ventura.
Mining has occurred in this area for more than 40 years with four mining
facilities, including Grimes Rock, currently in operation. Grimes Rock has
been in operation for the last 15 years since its current permit was granted in
1998. As with the other three mines, the existing setting for the Grimes Rock
facility includes an existing processing plant, a large area of disturbance and
ongoing material excavation and trucking operations. The permitting and
development of a new mining operation at an alternative location to meet
current and future County demand would involve substantially more impacts
on the environment (such as increased disturbance of biological habitat) than
the continued utilization and expansion of the existing facility.
6. Improvement in traffic safety and flow on Grimes Grade: The proposed
development of a southem entrance to the Grimes Rock mining site will
eliminate the travel of Grimes Rock-related material hauling trucks on the
steep and winding Grimes Grade section of State Highway 23. The removal
18
97
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 19 of 45
of these truck trips from this section of the highway would improve traffic flow
and reduce hazards.
For the reasons listed above, staff recommends that the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, included as Exhibit 7 of this staff report, be adopted for the
proposed expansion of the Grimes Rock mining project.
With the certification of the FEIR (Exhibit 4) and the adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 7), the proposed project will have been
reviewed in conformance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines requirements.
C. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
The Ventura County General Plan Goals, Policies and Programs(2011, page 4) states:
...in the unincorporated area of Ventura County, zoning and any permits issued
thereunder, any subdivision of land, any public works project, any public (County,
Special District, or Local Government) land acquisition or disposition, and any
specific plan, must be consistent with the Ventura County General Plan Goals,
Policies and Programs, and where applicable, the adopted Area Plan.
Furthermore, the Ventura County NCZO(§8111-1.2.1.1.a) states that in order for a CUP
to be granted, a proposed project must be found consistent with all applicable policies of
the Ventura County General Plan. In this case, the proposed project would be
authorized with the granting of a CUP and the approval of an Amended Reclamation
Plan.
Evaluated below is the consistency of the proposed project with the applicable policies
of the General Plan Goals, Policies and Programs.
1. Resources Policy 1.1.2-1: All General Plan amendments, zone changes and
discretionary development shall be evaluated for their individual and cumulative
impacts on resources in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act.
As discussed in Section B (above) and in the FEIR prepared for the proposed
project (Exhibit 4), the project's individual impacts and contribution to cumulative
impacts on resources have been evaluated in compliance with CEQA.
Based on the discussion above, the proposed project is consistent with Policy
1.1.2-1.
2. Resources Policy 1.1.2-2: Except as otherwise covered by a more restrictive
policy within the Resources Chapter, significant adverse impacts on resources
identified in environmental assessments and reports shall be mitigated to less
19
98
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 20 of 45
than significant levels or, where no feasible mitigation measures are available, a
statement of overriding considerations shall be adopted.
As discussed in Section B (above) and in the FEIR (Exhibit 4), the proposed
project will have potentially significant but mitigable impacts on hydrology/water
resources, air quality, biological resources and traffic. The CUP would include the
mitigation measures identified in the FEIR as conditions of approval (Exhibit 5,
Condition Nos. 22 through 27 and 29 through 50). With the implementation of
these conditions of approval, impacts in these issue areas will be less than
significant.
The FEIR also identifies significant and unavoidable impacts in the following
issue areas:
Proiect-specific impacts:
Paleontological Resources: Loss of fossil resources.
Visual Resources: Alteration of views from SR 23.
Cumulative impacts:
Air Quality: Offsite dust generation along trucking routes.
Biological Resources: Effects on habitat and sensitive species.
Paleontological Resources: Loss of fossil resources.
Visual Resources: Alteration of views from SR 23.
Despite the inclusion of several mitigation measures into the CUP conditions of
approval, residual impacts in the above-listed issue areas remain significant. A
Statement of Overriding Considerations is included as Exhibit 7 of this staff
report. For the reasons stated in Section B.4 of this staff report, staff
recommends that this statement be adopted by the decision-makers.
Based on the discussion above, the proposed project is consistent with Policy
1.1.2-2.
3. Resources Policy 1.2.2-3: Discretionary development that would have a
significant adverse air quality impact shall only be approved if it is conditioned
with all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate
(offset) for the air quality impact. Developers shall be encouraged to employ
innovative methods and technologies to minimize air pollution impacts.
The proposed project will be subject to conditions of approval (Exhibit 5) to
minimize and offset air pollutant emissions. Condition of Approval No. 29
requires the preparation and implementation of an enhanced dust control plan.
Condition of Approval No. 31 requires that all material loads be covered or
otherwise contained in accordance with State Law during transport. Condition of
20
99
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 21 of 45
Approval No. 32 requires the Permittee to pay in-lieu fees of $210,455 to help
fund air pollutant emission reduction programs to offset the emissions of ozone
precursors that will result from the project. Condition of Approval No. 32 also
allows the Permittee the alternative of implementing equipment improvements at
the mining facility to reduce pollutant emissions. Thus, the proposed project has
been conditioned to avoid, minimize and compensate for identified air quality
impacts.
Based on the discussion above, the proposed project is consistent with Policy
1.2.2-3.
4. Resources Policy 1.2.2-5: Development subject to APCD permit authority shall
comply with all applicable APCD rules and permit requirements, including the use
of best available control technology(BACT)as determined by APCD.
The proposed project will be subject to Condition of Approval No. 30 (see Exhibit
5) that requires all construction and operation to be in conformance with APCD
rules and regulations.
Based on the discussion above, the proposed project is consistent with Policy
1.2.2-5.
5. Resources Policy 1.3.2-4: Discretionary development shall not significantly
impact the quantity or quality of water resources within watersheds, groundwater
recharge areas or groundwater basins.
As discussed in Chapter 4.5 of the FEIR, the proposed project involves an
increase in the use of groundwater of 48.9 Acre-Feet per Year(AFY). Total use
of groundwater would be 121.9 AFY upon implementation of the proposed mine
expansion. The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) has
established a pumping allocation of 198.72 AFY for the wells that serve the
project site. Thus, the Grimes Rock facility will have an adequate water supply
that is in conformance with FCGMA regulations. In addition, the changes in site
topography due to mining excavation would not adversely affect groundwater
recharge. Because the slope of the groundwater recharge area would be
lessened with project implementation, average annual recharge would increase
as a result of the project. Based on these factors, impacts on the quantity of
groundwater will be less than significant.
Potentially significant impacts on the quality of surface water and groundwater
due to the storage of hazardous materials and the future use of the site for
animal keeping are disclosed in the FEIR. Feasible mitigation measures are
identified in the FEIR, and included in the conditions of approval, that reduce
these impacts to less than significant.
21
100
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 22 of 45
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with this
policy.
6. Resources Policy 1.3.2-8: All discretionary development shall be conditioned
for the proper drilling and construction of new oil, gas and water wells and
destruction of all abandoned wells on-site.
According to the California Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources
(DOGGR), four abandoned oil wells are located on the project site. The mine
operator will be required (Condition of Approval No. 69, Exhibit 5) to locate and
re-abandon any well that would be affected by the proposed mining excavation
prior to the initiation of such excavation.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with this
policy.
7. Resources Policy 1.4.2-1: Applications for mineral resource development shall
be reviewed to assure minimal disturbance to the environment and to assure that
lands are reclaimed for appropriate uses which provide for and protect the public
health, safety and welfare.
The proposed expanded mining project would increase the total disturbed
acreage from 48 to 135 acres. The project would be conditioned, however, to
have no more than 60 acres disturbed at any one time. This would involve an
increase in disturbed acreage of 12 acres (60 — 48 = 12) over the current
condition. The impacts on wildlife habitat would be addressed by several
mitigation measures incorporated into the project (Conditions of Approval Nos.
40 through 49, Exhibit 5), including the requirement to permanently protect
existing habitat on offsite land. For a major mining project, this level of exposed
excavated land represents minimal disturbance of the environment.
The mined lands would be reclaimed in accordance with the proposed amended
Reclamation Plan. This Reclamation Plan has been reviewed by the County
Planning Division and the State Office of Mine Reclamation. It has been found
by the staff of both agencies to meet the requirements of County Ordinance, the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act and the State Mining and Geology Board
reclamation regulations. These regulations require that the mining site be
reclaimed to a condition suitable for an alternate end use. The creation of stable
slopes and the revegetation of the site are among the minimum reclamation
requirements.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with this
policy.
22
101
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 23 of 45
8. Resources Policy 1.4.2-2: Mining operations shall comply with the requirements
of the County Zoning Ordinance and standard conditions, and State laws and
guidelines relating to mining and reclamation.
The proposed expanded mining project will be subject to the requirements of
Section 8107-9 of the Ventura County NCZO, the standard conditions of approval
developed by the County Planning Division, the requirements of the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act, and the State Mining and Geology Board
reclamation regulations. The expanded mining facility will be required to operate
in conformance with the conditions of approval of the requested modified CUP
and the requirements of the amended Reclamation Plan.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with this
policy.
9. Resources Policy 1.4.2-8: Discretionary development within a Mineral Resource
Area (see Resource Protection Map) shall be subject to the provisions of the
Mineral Resource Protection (MRP) Overlay Zone, and is prohibited if the use will
significantly hamper or preclude access to or the extraction of mineral resources.
The proposed project involves the expansion and continued operation of an
existing mining facility. This project involves increased access to and extraction
of mineral resources.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with this
policy.
10. Resources Policy 1.5.2-1: Discretionary development which could potentially
impact biological resources shall be evaluated by a qualified biologist to assess
impacts and, if necessary, develop mitigation measures.
The project site has been evaluated by qualified biologists during the review of
the proposed mining project. A list of reports prepared from 2001 to 2004 that
address various biological issues is provided in Section 4.6 of the FEIR. In
addition, field inspections of the project site were conducted in 2012 by the
County Planning Division biologist and biologists from the California Department
of Fish and Game to confirm the findings presented in the earlier reports. Based
on the available studies, impacts have been evaluated and mitigation measures
identified in the FEIR.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with this
policy.
11. Resources Policy 1.7.2-1: Notwithstanding Policy 1.7.2-2, discretionary
development which would significantly degrade visual resources or significantly
alter or obscure public views of visual resources shall be prohibited unless no
23
102
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 24 of 45
feasible mitigation measures are available and the decision-making body
determines there are overriding considerations.
As identified in the FEIR, the proposed expanded mining project would involve
significant and unavoidable impacts on visual resources. Despite implementation
of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, significant impacts would
remain. Public views of lands disturbed by mining activities from SR 23 would be
increased with the proposed expansion of the Grimes Rock facility. Staff
recommends that a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 7) be
adopted for the reasons presented above in Section B.4 of this staff report.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with this
policy.
12. Resources Policy 1.8.2-1: Discretionary developments shall be assessed fix
potential paleontological and cultural resource impacts, except when exempt
from such requirements by CEQA. Such assessments shall be incorporated into
a Countywide paleontological and cultural resource data base.
Appendix F of the FEIR includes the archaeological and paleontological
assessment reports for the Grimes Rock mining site. These reports are
incorporated into the County database.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with this
policy.
13. Hazards Policy 2.13.2-1: All discretionary permits shall be required, as a
condition of approval, to provide adequate water supply and access for fire
protection and evacuation purposes.
Public Facilities and Services Policy 4.8.2-1: Discretionary development shall
be permitted only if adequate water supply, access and response time for fire
protection can be made available.
Water is supplied to the project site by three existing water wells located on the
mining site and the adjacent "Egg City" property. According to the mine operator,
these wells can individually produce from 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 600
gpm. These wells currently supply approximately 73 AFY to the mining site and
would supply about 121 AFY should the proposed project be approved. In
addition to the well capacity, a water truck is available on the site along with a
concrete pond that holds 1 acre-foot of water. Thus, the amount of water
available on the site is substantial and sufficient to meet any fire suppression
requirement.
24
103
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 25 of 45
The existing entrance road to the site is connected to SR 23 and paved. This
entrance road is used by material hauling trucks and provides adequate access
for fire protection and evacuation purposes.
The project site is located approximately 5 miles north of an existing fire station
located in the City of Moorpark. Response time from this station would be
adequate.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with
policies 2.13.2-1 and 4.8.2-1.
14. Hazards Policy 2.13.2-2: All discretionary permits in fire hazard areas shall be
conditioned to include fire-resistant vegetation, cleared firebreaks, or a long-term
comprehensive fuel management program as a condition of approval. Fire
hazard reduction measures shall be incorporated into the design of any project in
a fire hazard area.
The proposed mining project involves the clearing of vegetation over the active
excavation area. Thus, little to no vegetation would be present in the areas where
heavy earth-moving equipment would be operating. The excavation areas would
effectively serve as cleared firebreaks. Thus, the project is designed to minimize
fire hazards.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with this
policy.
15. Hazards Policy 2.16.2-1: All discretionary development shall be reviewed for
noise compatibility with surrounding uses. Noise compatibility shall be
determined from a consistent set of criteria based on the standards listed below.
An acoustical analysis by a qualified acoustical engineer shall be required of
discretionary developments involving noise exposure or noise generation in
excess of the established standards. The analysis shall provide documentation of
existing and projected noise levels at on-site and off-site receptors, and shall
recommend noise control measures for mitigating adverse impacts.
(1) Noise sensitive uses proposed to be located near highways, truck routes,
heavy industrial activities and other relatively continuous noise sources shall
incorporate noise control measures so that:
a. Indoor noise levels in habitable rooms do not exceed CNEL 45.
b. Outdoor noise levels do not exceed CNEL 60 or Leg1H of 65 dB(A)
during any hour.
(2) Noise sensitive uses proposed to be located near railroads shall incorporate
noise control measures so that:
25
104
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 26 of 45
a. Guidelines(1)a. and(1)b. above are adhered to.
b. Outdoor noise levels do not exceed L10 of 60 dB(A).
(3) Noise sensitive uses proposed to be located near airports:
a. Shall be prohibited if they are in a CNEL 65 or greater, noise contour.
b. Shall be permitted in the CNEL 60 to CNEL 65 noise contour area only
if means will be taken to ensure interior noise levels of CNEL 45 or less.
(4) Noise generators, proposed to be located near any noise sensitive use, shall
incorporate noise control measures so that ongoing outdoor noise levels received
by the noise sensitive receptor, measured at the exterior wall of the building,
does not exceed any of the following standards:
a. Leg1H of 55dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is
greater, during any hour from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
b. Leg1H of 50dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is
greater, during any hour from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
c. Leg1 H of 45dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is
greater, during any hour from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Section 2.16.2(4) is not applicable to increased traffic noise along any of the
roads identified within the 2020 Regional Roadway Network(Figure 4.2.3) Public
Facilities Appendix of the Ventura County General Plan (see 2.16.2-1(1)). In
addition, State and Federal highways, all railroad line operations, aircraft in flight,
and public utility facilities are noise generators having Federal and State
regulations that preempt local regulations.
(5) Construction noise shall be evaluated and, if necessary, mitigated in
accordance with the County Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control
Plan.
The proposed expanded mining site would be a noise generator and not a noise
sensitive use. Thus, sections (1), (2), and (3) of the above policy are not
applicable to the proposed project.
The proposed expanded mining site is located approximately 2,400 feet from the
nearest existing residence. As indicated in the FEIR, the noise generated on the
project site would be substantially attenuated (reduced) by both the distance to
this sensitive use and intervening topography. The FEIR concludes that the
noise detected at the nearest sensitive receptor due to daytime and nighttime
operations at the mining site would not exceed County standards listed under
Section (4) above. In addition, Condition of Approval No. 61 addresses potential
noise effects on the future residences that may be constructed in the future on
the lots included in the currently-unrecorded Tract Map 5277.
26
105
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 27 of 45
The proposed project also involves an increase in the volume of truck traffic to
transport aggregate materials. Project-related trucks would travel on SR 23 to
either the City of Fillmore on the north or the City of Moorpark on the south. The
proposed haul routes (SR 23, SR 126, Grimes Canyon Road south) are either
State highways or roads included in the County regional road network. Thus,
Section (4) of the policy is not applicable to the increased traffic noise associated
with the proposed project.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with this
policy.
16. Public Facilities and Services Policy 4.1.2-1: Discretionary development shall
be conditioned to contribute land, improvements or funds toward the cost of
needed public improvements and services related to the proposed development.
Mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the
recommended conditions of approval include the payment of a Traffic Impact
Mitigation Fee and a requirement to improve the entrance road to the facility.
Thus, the applicant will be required to contribute improvements and funds to
address the effects of the proposed project.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with this
policy.
17. Public Facilities and Services Policy 4.1.2-2: Development shall only be
permitted in those locations where adequate public services are available
(functional), under physical construction or will be available in the near future.
Adequate public and private services are currently available and being utilized at
the existing mining operation. No new services are required to support the
proposed expansion of the Grimes Rock facility.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with this
policy.
18. Public Facilities and Services Policy 4.2.2-4: Except as otherwise provided in
the Ojai Area Plan, County General Plan land use designation changes and zone
changes shall be evaluated for their individual and cumulative impacts, and
discretionary development shall be evaluated for its individual impact, on existing
and future roads, with special emphasis on the following:
(a) Whether the project would cause existing roads within the Regional
Road Network or Local Road Network that are currently functioning at an
acceptable LOS to function below an acceptable LOS;
27
106
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 28 of 45
(b) Whether the project would add traffic to existing roads within the
Regional Road Network or the Local Road Network that are currently
functioning below an acceptable LOS;and
(c) Whether the project could cause future roads planned for addition to
the Regional Road Network or the Local Road Network to function below
an acceptable LOS.
Public Facilities and Services Policy 4.2.2-5: [in relevant part] ... discretionary
development that would individually cause any of the impacts identified in
subparagraphs (a) through (c) of Policy 4.2.2-4 shall be prohibited unless
feasible mitigation measures are adopted that would ensure that the impact does
not occur or unless a project completion schedule and full funding commitment
for road improvements are adopted which ensure that the impact will be
eliminated within a reasonable period of time.
The potential effects of the applicant-proposed increases in truck traffic on the
level of service at area intersections and along key roadway segments are
evaluated in the FEIR consistent with Policy 4.2.2-4. This analysis is summarized
in the following table:
Table 2 - Potentially significant traffic congestion impacts
identified in the FEIR.
Impact type Facility type Facility affected
Unsignalized None
intersections
Signalized SR 23/SR 126 during AM and PM peak periods
Project-specific intersections
SR 23 north of Best Rock and south of Grimes Rock,
Road segments AM and mid-day peak periods
SR 23 south of Wayne J, PM peak period
Cumulative Unsignalized SR 23 at Bardsdale, AM and PM peak periods
intersections SR 23 at Broadway, AM and PM peak periods
Signalized SR 23 at SR 126,AM and PM peal periods
intersections
Road segments SR 23 AM and PM peak periods
The above listed impacts all reflect the estimated increase in the average daily
Peak Hour Trips (PHTs) of truck traffic associated with the proposed increase in
the aggregate production rate. Mitigation measures T 1-1, T 1-1A, T 1-1B, T 1-4,
T 3-1 are identified in the FEIR and will be incorporated into the CUP as
Conditions of Approval Nos. 22 through 25 (Exhibit 5). These measures impose
limitations on the generation of new PHTs, require that a new external access
point be developed on SR 23, authorize overnight parking of trucks on the mining
site, require entrance road improvements, and the payment of County, City of
Moorpark and City of Fillmore traffic impact fees. With the implementation of
28
107
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 29 of 45
these measures, project-specific and cumulative impacts would be less than
significant.
In summary, the project has been reviewed consistent with Policy 4.2.2-4 and the
impacts listed in sections (a), (b), and (c) of this policy have been avoided
through imposition of feasible mitigation measures incorporated into the
conditions of approval.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would be consistent with
policies 4.2.2-4 and 4.2.2-5.
D. ZONING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 8105-4 of the Ventura County NCZO, the
proposed mining facility expansion is allowed in the Agricultural Exclusive (AE) and
open Space (OS) zone districts with the granting of a CUP. A Reclamation Plan is also
required pursuant to Section 8107-9.6.9 of the NCZO, SMARA and the SMGB
regulations. Upon the granting of the CUP, and the approval of an amended
Reclamation Plan, the proposed project will be authorized in accordance with the
requirements of the Ventura County NCZO.
The proposed expansion and continued operation of the Grimes Rock mining facility is
subject to the special use guidelines and standards set forth in Sections 8107-9.5 and
8107-9.6 of the NCZO. The conformance of the proposed project with the applicable
guidelines and standards is evaluated in the following table.
Table 3—Special Use Standards Consistency Analysis
Special Use Standard In conformance?
§8107-9.5.1: All mining and reclamation Yes.
shall be consistent with the County General The proposed project will be consistent with the County
Plan, the Ventura County Water General Plan, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act,
Management Plan, and the state Surface and the State Mining and Geology Board reclamation
Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 regulations. Refer to Section C of this staff report. as
(SMARA), as amended, and State policy discussed in Section C, above.
adopted pursuant to SMARA.
Yes.
The project involves the expansion and continued
§8107-9.5.4: All surface mining activities operation of an existing mining facility. The continued
shall strike a reasonable balance with other extraction of aggregate minerals from this site would
resource priorities such as water, farmland, minimize the environmental effects of the development of
fish and wildlife and their habitat, additional mineral reserves. The proposed project would
groundwater recharge, sediment for not involve residual significant effects on groundwater
replenishment of beaches and the protection resources or farmland. No public or private structures
replenishment lens and t of beaches
structures and facilities. would be substantially affected by the project. Impacts on
of wildlife and habitat would be addressed through several
mitigation measures, including the permanent protection
of offsite undisturbed habitat lands.
29
108
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 30 of 45
Table 3—Special Use Standards Consistency Analysis
Special Use Standard In conformance?
Based on the above discussion, the project would reflect
a balance of resource priorities consistent with this
standard.
Yes.
§8107-9.5.7: Appropriate and reasonable The operation will be subject to mandatory annual site
monitoring and enforcement measures shall inspections for SMARA compliance and periodic
be imposed on each mining operation which condition compliance review. The requirements for
will ensure that all permit conditions, monitoring the proposed operation are included in the
guidelines and standards are fulfilled. recommended conditions of approval of the requested
modified CUP.
§8107-9.5.8: Reclamation of a site shall Yes.
include the removal of equipment and The proposed amended Reclamation Plan includes the
facilities and the restoration of the site so removal of equipment and facilities, and reclamation of
that it is readily adaptable for alternate land the site consistent with SMARA standards. The proposed
use(s)which is consistent with the approved amended Reclamation Plan includes phased reclamation
reclamation plan as well as the existing and of the site.
proposed uses in the general area.
Reclamation shall be conducted in phases
• on an ongoing basis,where feasible.
§8107-9.6.1: Projects shall be located, Yes.
designed, operated and reclaimed so as to Issues involving traffic, aesthetics, dust, noise, lighting,
minimize their adverse impact on the groundwater, and flood control are addressed in the
physical and social environment, and on FEIR. Mitigation measures have been identified to
natural resources. To this end, dust, noise, minimize adverse effects in these issue areas and are
vibration, noxious odors, intrusive light, incorporated into the recommended conditions of
aesthetic impacts, traffic impacts and other approval of the CUP. The proposed amended
factors of nuisance and annoyance, erosion, Reclamation Plan has been found to meet SMARA
and flooding shall be minimized or performance standards for slope stability, revegetation,
eliminated through the best accepted mining erosion control and restoration of wildlife habitat.
and reclamation practices, applicable to
local conditions, which are consistent with
contemporary principles and knowledge of
resource management, storm water quality,
groundwater quality and quantity, flood
control engineering and flood plain
management.
§8107-9.6.2: No processing equipment or Yes.
facilities shall be permanently located, and The design of the proposed expanded mining facility as
no mining or accessory uses shall occur, depicted in the proposed amended Reclamation Plan is
within: in conformance with these setback standards.
a) 100 feet of any dedicated public street or
highway unless the Public Works Agency
determines a lesser distance would be
acceptable;
b) 100 feet of any dwelling not accessory to
the project, unless a waiver is signed
pursuant to Section 8107-9.6.13 of the
NCZO allowing the setback to be reduced.
In no case shall permanent processing
facilities, equipment, or mining be located
30
109
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 31 of 45
Table 3—Special Use Standards Consistency Analysis
Special Use Standard In conformance?
less than 50 feet from said structures.
c) 200 feet of any institution, school or other
building used as a place of public
assemblage, unless a waiver is signed
pursuant to Section 8107-9.6.13 of the
NCZO allowing the setback to be reduced.
In no case shall permanent processing
facilities or equipment or mining be located
less than 100 feet from said structures.
Other facilities and structures shall be set
back distances which ara applicable for
accessory structures for the zone in which
the use is located.
§8107-9.6.3: Mining operations and their Yes.
accessory uses, access roads, facilities, The engineering practices utilized as part of the existing
stockpiling of mineral resources and related mining operation will not change with the proposed
mining activities shall be consistent with expansion of this facility. The conditions of approval will
current engineering and public works require that drainage from the site be conveyed
standards and in no case shall obstruct, consistent with County standards. As indicated in the
divert, or otherwise affect the flow of natural proposed amended Reclamation Plan, the site will be
drainage and flood waters so as to cause reclaimed in accordance with the performance standards
significant adverse impacts, except as for drainage, erosion control and slope stability
authorized by the Public Works Agency. established in the SMGB reclamation regulations.
Yes.
The conditions of approval will assure that the water
pollution in surface runoff will be minimized in
accordance with applicable regulations. These conditions
§8107-9.6.4: Contaminants, water run-off require the operator to comply with NPDES and State
and siltation shall be controlled and stormwater regulations, limit the gradient of final
generally contained on the project site so as reclaimed slopes, and require drainage facilities to be
to minimize adverse off-site impacts. installed in conformance with the Watershed Protection
District hydrology and hydraulics design manuals. The
design of equipment maintenance areas will also be
required to minimize the potential for leakage of fuels
and other fluids used as part of the operation.
Yes_
§8107-9.6.5: The project site and all roads The recommended conditions of approval of the modified
or hauling routes located between the public CUP 4874-2 include the requirement to prepare and
right-of-way and the subject site shall be implement an enhanced dust control plan.This plan must
improved or otherwise treated as required include measures to minimize the emanation of dust from
by the County and maintained as necessary the onsite roadways. Compliance with the adopted Rules
to prevent the emanation of dust. and Regulations of the Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District will also be required.
Yes.
§8107-9.6.6: Light emanation shall be A condition of approval requires that project lighting shall
controlled so as not to produce excessive be shielded such that lighting elements will not be visible
levels of glare or abnormal light levels to drivers along SR 23. In addition, the intensity of light
directed at any neighboring uses. spillover into lands outside the limits of disturbance shall
not exceed 0.5 foot-candles.
31
110
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 32 of 45
Table 3 -Special Use Standards Consistency Analysis
Special Use Standard In conformance?
§8107-9.6.8: The permit area shall be Yom'
maintained in a neat and orderly manner so This issue is addressed in a standard condition of
as not to create unsightly conditions visible approval (Condition 5, Exhibit 5).
from outside the permitted area or any
hazardous conditions. Equipment and
materials may be stored on the site that are
appurtenant to the operation and
maintenance of mining operations.
§8107-9.6.9: No mining permit shall be Yes.
approved without an approved reclamation The requested modified conditional use permit is being
plan, unless it is exempted from said processed concurrently with an amended Reclamation
reclamation plan by the State Department of Plan. This amended Reclamation Plan has been
Conservation. Where reclamation plans are reviewed by staff of the County Planning Division and by
not processed concurrently with a the California Department of Conservation, Office of
discretionary land use entitlement, at least Mine Reclamation. These agencies have found this
one noticed public hearing on the amended Reclamation Plan to be in conformance with
reclamation plan must be held prior to its the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance, the
approval. Such reclamation plans are Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), and the
subject to all rights of appeal associated with State Mining and Geology Board reclamation regulations.
permit approval. All reclamation plans must
be found to be consistent with and approved A Financial Assurance of $459,814 is currently posted
in accordance with: the Ventura County with the County and State Department of Conservation to
Zoning Ordinance, as amended; the assure reclamation of the site in conformance with the
provisions of SMARA (Public Resource current Approved Reclamation Plan. The amount of
Code (PRC) § 2710 et seq.), PRC Section Financial Assurance posted for the site must be updated
2207, and State regulation Title 14 California annually to reflect the physical conditions on the mining
Code of Regulations (CCR) § 3500 et seq., site,anticipated disturbance over the upcoming year, and
as amended; the regulations, guidelines and the requirements of the applicable Reclamation Plan.
other measures adopted by the State Mining Given the expanded surface mining activities, it is likely
and Geology Board; Ventura County Public that the Financial Assurances required for the facility will
Works Agency standards; any and all locally increase.
adopted resource management goals and
policies; and compatible with the existing
geological and topographical features of the
area. Additional considerations, such as the
following, shall also be addressed in the
reclamation plan and permit: (AM. ORD.
4092-6/27/95)
a. The creation of safe, stable slopes and
the prevention of subsidence;
b.Control of water run-off and erosion;
c.Views of the site from surrounding areas;
d.Availability of backfill material;
e. Proposed subsequent use of the land
which will be consistent with the General
Plan and existing and proposed uses in the
general area;
f. Removal or reuse of all structures and
equipment;
g. The time frame for completing the •
32
111
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 33 of 45
Table 3 -Special Use Standards Consistency Analysis
Special Use Standard In conformance?
reclamation;
h. The costs of reclamation if the County will
need to contract to have it performed;
i. Revegetation of the site;
j. Phased reclamation of the project area;
k. Provisions of an appropriate financial
assurance mechanism to ensure complete
implementation of the approved reclamation
plan.(ADD.ORD.4092-6/27/95)
Upon receipt of a complete reclamation
plan, the Planning Director shall forward the
plan to the State Department of
Conservation for review. Following review by
the State, the reclamation plan may be
approved by the County in accordance with
the requirements of SMARA, as amended.
Termination of the use or revocation of the
use permit does not absolve the responsible
parties for the reclamation of the site
pursuant to the adopted reclamation plan
and/or SMARA requirements. Failure to
reclaim mined lands constitutes a violation
of this Chapter and the property owner is
ultimately responsible for such reclamation.
§8107-9.6.10: All equipment, except that Yes.
which is required to complete the Removal of mining equipment is incorporated into the
reclamation plan, and all facilities and proposed amended Reclamation Plan. The timing of
structures on the project site, except those removal, consistent with this standard, is included in the
approved for retention in support of the recommended conditions of approval (Condition 2,
authorized "end use", shall be removed from Exhibit 5).
the site in accordance with the reclamation
plan, within 180 clays after the termination of
the use, unless a time extension is approved
by the Planning Director.
§8107-9.8.14: The permittee shall Yes.
immediately notify the Planning Director of A standard condition of approval(Condition 19, Exhibit 5)
any incidents such as fires, explosions, requires notification of the Planning Director of major
spills, land or slope failures or other events and the preparation of a written report if
conditions at the permit site which could requested by the County.
pose a hazard to life or property outside the
permit area. Upon request of any County
agency, the permittee shall provide a written
report of any incident within seven calendar
days which shall include, but not be limited
to, a description of the facts of the incident,
the corrective measures used and the steps
taken to prevent recurrence of the incident.
§8107-9.6.15: The permittee shall provide Yes.
the Planning Director with the current This requirement is included in the recommended
name(s) and/or position title, address and conditions of approval (Condition 17, Exhibit 5) of the
•
33
112
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 34 of 45
Table 3—Special Use Standards Consistency Analysis
Special Use Standard In conformance?
phone number of the person who shall modified conditional use permit.
receive all orders, notices and
communications regarding matters of
condition and code compliance. The
person(s) in question shall be available by
phone during the hours that activities occur
on the permit site, even if this means 24
hours a day.
§8107-9.6.17: Monitoring of the permit or Yes.
aspects of it may be required as often as Annual inspections of the site are ongoing and mandated
necessary to ensure compliance with the by SMARA and the SMGB Regulations.The ability of the
permit conditions. In any case, the permit Planning Director to file a permit modification application
and site shall be reviewed and inspected by is established in existing ordinance. In any case, the
the Planning Division or its contractors at provisions of this standard will be incorporated into the
least once a year. The purpose of said recommended conditions of approval (Condition 2,
review is to ascertain whether the permittee Exhibit 5).
is in compliance with all conditions of the
permit and current SMARA requirements
and whether there have been significant
changes in environmental conditions, land
use or mining technology, or if there is other
good cause which would warrant the
Planning Director's filing of an application for
modification of the conditions of the permit.
If such an application is filed, it shall be at
the County's expense and modification of
conditions would not occur without a duly
noticed public hearing. More frequent
inspections may be mandated at the
discretion of the Planning Director after
violations have been discovered on the site.
The permittee shall pay the County the
annual inspection fee established by
resolution of the Board of Supervisors. _
§8107-9.6.18: Permit conditions shall be Yes.
imposed which will enable the County to Provisions for County cost recovery are included in the
recover the reasonable and appropriate recommended conditions of approval (Condition 12,
costs necessary for the reviewing and Exhibit 5).
monitoring of permit operations and the
enforcing of the applicable requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of
this permit.
§8107-9.6.20: Performance bonds or other Yes.
securities may be imposed on any permit to The mine operator is required to post a Financial
ensure compliance with certain specific Assurance with the State and County to assure
tasks or aspects of the permit. The amount reclamation of the site in conformance with the
of the security shall be based upon the applicable approved Reclamation Plan. The required
actual anticipated costs for completing the Financial Assurance is subject to annual review and
subject task if the County were forced to adjustment by the County.
complete it rather than the permittee. The
performance security may be posted in
34
113
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 35 of 45
Table 3—Special Use Standards Consistency Analysis
Special Use Standard In conformance?
phases as tasks are undertaken or required
to be completed.
§8107-9.6.21: The permittee shall maintain, Yes.
for the life of the permit, liability insurance of Insurance requirements are included in the
not less than $500,000 for one person and recommended conditions of approval (Condition 2,
$1,000,000 for all persons, and $2,000,000 Exhibit 5).
for property damage, unless the Ventura
County Risk Management Agency deems
higher limits are necessary. This
requirement does not prelude the permittee
from being self-insured.
§8107-9.6.22: Unless herein exempted, Yes.
operations associated with an approved According to the noise analysis included in the FEIR, the
mining permit shall not produce noise, noise from onsite operations will not exceed the listed
measured at a point outside of occupied standards at any nearby sensitive receptor. Pursuant to
sensitive uses such as residences, schools, General Plan Policy 2.16.2-1(4), noise generated by
health care facilities, or places of public project-related truck traffic on State Highways and roads
assembly, that exceeds the following included in the regional road network are not subject to
standard or any other more restrictive the noise standards listed in NCZO§8107-9.6.22.
standard that may be established as a
condition of a specific permit. Noise from the
subject property shall be considered in
excess of the standard when the average
sound level, measured over one hour at the
sensitive use, is greater than the standard
that follows. The determination of whether a
violation has occurred shall be made by the
Planning Director in accordance with the
provisions of the permit in question, where
such provisions exist. If the permit has no
such violation determination provisions,then
best common practice shall be used.
Nomenclature and noise level descriptor
definitions are described in the Ventura
County General Plan Goals, Policies and
Programs and the Ventura County General
Plan Hazards Appendix. Measurement
procedures shall be guided by the Ventura
County General Plan Hazards Appendix and
other contemporary procedures in effect.
The maximum allowable average sound
level is as follows:
One Hour Average Noise Levels(LEQ)
• Leg1 H of 55 dB(A) or ambient noise level
plus 3 dB(A), whichever is greater, during
any hour from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
• Leg1H of 50 dB(A) or ambient noise level
plus 3 dB(A), whichever is greater, during
any hour from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• Leg1 H of 45 dB(A) or ambient noise level
35
114
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 36 of 45
Table 3—Special Use Standards Consistency Analysis
Special Use Standard In conformance?
plus 3 dB(A), whichever is greater, during
any hour from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
The proposed project is located within a Mineral Resource Protection (MRP) Overlay
Zone and, therefore, is subject to the standards set forth in Section 8109-4.4 of the
Ventura County NCZO. Table 3 below lists the applicable MRP Overlay Zone standards
along with an evaluation of the conformance of the project to those standards.
Table 3- Mineral Resource Protection Overlay Zone
Standards Consistency Analysis
Overlay Zone Standard Compiles?
Discretionary permits shall not be granted Yes.
within areas with a "MRP" overlay zone The proposed project involves enhanced access to
designation if the use will significantly mineral resources in the MRP overlay zone.
hamper or preclude access to, or the
extraction of,a mineral resource ...
E. CUP FINDINGS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
The Planning Commission must make certain findings in order to grant a conditional use
permit pursuant to Section 8111-1.2.1.1 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning
Ordinance. The ability to make the required findings is evaluated below.
1. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and provisions of
the County's General Plan and of Division 8, Chapters 1 and 2, of the
Ventura County Ordinance Code [§8111-1.2.1.1.a].
Based on the information and analysis presented in Sections C and D of this staff
report, the finding that the proposed development is consistent with the intent
and provisions of the County's General Plan and the NCZO can be made.
2. The proposed development is compatible with the character of
surrounding, legally established development[§8111-1.2.1.1.b].
The Grimes Rock mining facility has been in operation since 1998 at a site that
was previously mined by another company in the 1960s. Thus, the site has been
disturbed by mining activities for at least the past 40 years. Implementation of the
proposed mine expansion will increase the visual impact of this facility but will not
substantially change the disturbed character of the site. This disturbed character
of the site is similar to that of the two other surface mining operations (i.e., Best
Rock and Wayne J Sand and Gravel) located directly east and west of the site.
To the south of the site is property upon which the Egg City facility formerly
36
115
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 37 of 45
operated. The Egg City property is now vacant and undeveloped. (Please see
Finding No. 5 below for additional information on this property.) To the north of
the site is undeveloped agriculturally-zoned (AE-40) grazing land. The mining
facility is located in a remote mountainous area away from dense residential
uses. Upon the completion of mining excavation, the site would be reclaimed to
an open space use. Given these factors, the proposed expanded mining
operation is compatible with the character of surrounding development.
Based on the above discussion, this permit approval finding can be made.
3. The proposed development would not be obnoxious or harmful, or impair
the utility of neighboring property or uses [§8111-1.2.1.1.c].
The Grimes Rock mining facility has been in operation since 1998 at a site that
was previously mined by another company in the 1960s. Thus, the site has been
disturbed by mining activities for at least the past 40 years. Implementation of the
proposed mine expansion will increase the visual impact of this facility but will not
substantially change the disturbed character of the site. This disturbed character
of the site is similar to that of the two other surface mining operations (i.e., Best
Rock and Wayne J Sand and Gravel) located directly east and west of the site.
To the south of the site is property upon which the Egg City facility formerly
operated. The Egg City property is now vacant and undeveloped. (Please see
Finding No. 5 below for additional information on this property.) To the north of
the site is undeveloped agriculturally-zoned (AE-40)grazing land.
The mining facility is located in a remote mountainous area away from dense
residential uses. The proposed expansion and continued use of the Grimes Rock
facility would have no adverse effect on the other adjacent and nearby surface
mining operations. In addition, this project poses no new obnoxious or harmful
effect on the undeveloped neighboring properties to the north and south. The
current uses of these properties would not be impaired by the proposed project.
Note that the neighboring property to the south of this project may be
residentially developed in the future in accordance with an existing subdivision
tract map. There are provisions in the Conditions of Approval that address the
potential effects that the proposed mining project might have on that
development. See Finding No. 5 below for more detail.
Upon the completion of mining excavation, the site would be reclaimed to an
open space use in accordance with the amended Reclamation Plan. The ultimate
reclaimed condition of the site is not anticipated to have any adverse effect of
neighboring properties.
As discussed in Section C of this staff report, the proposed project will be
consistent with County General Plan policies that pertain to air quality (Policies
1.2.2-3 and 1.2.2-5), reclamation of the site (Policy 1.4.2-1), visual resources
37
116
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 38 of 45
(Policy 1.7.2-1), fire hazards (Policy 2.13.2-2), noise generation (Policy 2.16.2-1),
and traffic (Policy 4.2.2-5).
Based on the above discussion, this permit approval finding can be made.
4. The proposed development would not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience, or welfare [§8111-1.2.1.1.d].
As described in Section C of this staff report, the proposed project will be
consistent with County General Plan policies that pertain to hazards and safety.
Refer to the discussion in Section Con policies 2.13.2-1, 2.13.2-2, and 4.1.2-2.
There are adequate services and resources to assure the continued safe
operation of the mining facility.
The proposed project is evaluated in the FEIR (Exhibit 4) for impacts related to
traffic/circulation, visual resources, air quality, biology, water resources,
community character, paleontological resources, and climate change. The only
project-specific significant and unavoidable impacts involve paleontology and
visual resources. These issues do not represent a new project impact that would
be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare.
Although noise from material hauling trucks is not an environmental impact
assessed under the County's Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (refer to the
discussion of the ISAG noise thresholds on pages 11-14 above), the noise
generated by material hauling trucks travelling on area roadways can affect
sensitive receptors and development. To minimize the truck noise, Condition of
Approval No. 60 has been included to limit the use of engine braking by material
hauling truck drivers.
The only regional offsite impact of the project identified in the FEIR involves the
contribution of project traffic to the generation of cumulative dust emissions along
the material haul routes. While the project would contribute to dust emissions, the
generation of dust due to truck traffic would still exist with or without the project
because of the ambient traffic volume. Refer to pages 4.2-17, 18, 29 and 30 of
the FEIR.
Furthermore, should the proposed project not be approved, the demand for
aggregate would most likely be satisfied by existing local quarries and surface
mines (i.e., Best Rock, Wayne J and CEMEX) using the same hauling routes or
from more remote quarries in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino and
Riverside Counties which would travel greater distances to serve the demand.
The traffic volume of material hauling trucks is a function of demand that will
always be satisfied. Thus, the new contribution to dust generation due to the
proposed project would occur in any case. Thus, implementation of the proposed
project is not expected to be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare.
38
117
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2!Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 39 of 45
Based on the above discussion, this permit approval finding can be made.
5. The proposed development, if allowed by a Conditional Use Permit, is
compatible with existing and potential land uses in the general area where
the development is to be located [§8111-1.2.1.1.e].
The Grimes Rock mining facility has been in operation since 1998 at a site that
was previously mined by another company in the 1960s. Thus, the site has been
disturbed by mining activities for at least the past 40 years. Implementation of the
proposed mine expansion will increase the visual impact of this facility but will not
substantially change the disturbed character of the site. This disturbed character
of the site is similar to that of the two other surface mining operations (i.e., Best
Rock and Wayne J Sand and Gravel) located directly east and west of the site.
Further to the east is a fourth mining facility operated by CEMEX. To the south
of the site is property upon which the Egg City facility formerly operated. The Egg
City property is now vacant and undeveloped. To the north of the site is
undeveloped agriculturally-zoned (AE-40) grazing land.
The mining facility is located in a remote mountainous area away from dense
residential uses. Upon the completion of mining excavation, the site would be
reclaimed to an open space use. Given these factors, the proposed expanded
mining operation is compatible with the surrounding existing land uses.
Two changes in land use are reasonably forseeable that involve properties in the
vicinity of the proposed project. Each of these changes are discussed below:
Proposed Expansion of the Wayne J Sand and Gravel Mining Operation: The
existing Wayne J Sand and Gravel mining facility is proposed to be expanded to
incorporate land that is located immediately east of the Grimes Rock site on the
other side of State Highway 23. The Wayne J facility would continue to use its
existing entrance on SR 23. The Grimes Rock and Wayne J operations are very
similar and would not be in conflict with one another. Thus, the Grimes Rock
project is compatible with a future expanded Wayne J facility.
Recordation and development of the TM 5277 subdivision (former Egg City
property): Tract Map No. 5277 was tentatively approved by the Ventura County
Board of Supervisors on January 25, 2005. This decision occurred after the 2003
release of the Notice of Preparation for the Grimes Rock project EIR. In addition,
TM 5277 has not yet been recorded. The 12 lots shown on the tentative map
would range from 10.42 to 27.93 acres in area. These 12 lots, and any
residences that may be developed on these lots, do not currently exist.
Residences on TM 5277 are not part of the existing environmental setting upon
which project-specific impacts are measured in either the RDEIR or FEIR for this
surface mining project. TM 5277 is, however, included in the related projects list
39
118
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 40 of 45
included in Table 3-1 of the FEIR and was considered in the analysis of projects
contribution to any significant cumulative impacts.
The TM No. 5277 subdivision is a reasonably foreseeable potential land use
located adjacent to the proposed Grimes Rock project. The excavation area for
the proposed expanded Grimes Rock mining facility will remain a substantial
distance (a minimum of 800 feet), and be topographically separated, from the
potential residences on the TM 5277 site. However, the material hauling trucks
will use an existing onsite paved road to access the proposed new southern
entrance of the mining facility. On this paved road, hauling trucks will travel along
the northern and eastern boundaries of the TM 5277 property. Although this
same road will serve as a secondary (emergency) access for the TM 5277
project, the potential subdivision's primary ingress and egress is provided
through another road. In any case, there is the potential that noise from the
material hauling trucks could adversely affect the future residences.
In order to assure that the proposed project would be compatible with the
potential future development of the TM 5277 subdivision, condition of approval
61 requires the analysis of noise effects on future residences on the TM 5277
site, and implementation of any necessary noise suppression measures, to
assure that noise levels experienced at primary residences do not exceed the
limits specified in County policy. As there are currently no residences developed
on the property and no recorded subdivided lots, any noise analysis conducted at
this time would be speculative and not provide definitive results. In any case, the
implementation of condition of approval 61 is adequate to assure compatibility of
the project with the potential land uses on TM 5277.
Based on the above discussion, this permit approval finding can be made.
6. The proposed development will occur on a legal lot (§8111-1.2.1.1f].
Each of the properties represented by the Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs)
listed in the following table are legal lots based on the County-approved actions
listed in the table. The Grimes Rock Project is encompassed by these legal lots.
APN County instrument establishing legal status
(LLD, LLS, LLA, or PMW)
500-0-050-13 Legal with APN 500-0-090-26 per LLD dated 1-4-94
500-0-090-05 LLA 050823-020.9443
500-0-090-26 Legal with APN 500-0-090-26 per LLD dated 1-4-94
500-0-090-27 LLA 000107796
500-0-090-29 LLA 000107796
500-0-090-32 LLA 050823-0209443
500-0-090-33 LLA 000189812
500-0-050-34 Legal lot with 500-0-050-11, -12, -41, and 500-0-100-01 by deed.
(LLD by Planning Division)
40
119
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 41 of 45
Based on the above discussion, this permit approval finding can be made.
7. The establishment or maintenance of this use will not significantly reduce,
restrict or adversely affect agricultural resources or the viability of
agricultural operations in the area [§8111-1.2.1.2.a].
The land involved in the Grimes Rock project was used for grazing in the past but
has not recently been used for agricultural purposes. The lands surrounding the
project site are used for open space, mining or cattle grazing. Thus,
implementation of the proposed project would not significantly reduce, restrict or
adversely affect agricultural resources or the viability of agricultural operations in
the area.
Based on the above discussion, this additional permit approval finding for the AE
zone can be made.
8. The structures will be sited to minimize conflicts with agriculture, and other
uses will not significantly reduce, restrict or adversely affect agricultural
activities on-site or in the area, where applicable [§8111-1.2.1.2.b].
There are no new structures included in the proposed project. Thus, this finding
can be made.
9. The use will be sited to remove as little land from agricultural production
(or potential agricultural production) as possible [§8111-1.2.1.2.c].
The lands proposed to be included in the expanded mining facility are not used
for agriculture. Thus, no land will be removed from agricultural production as a
result of this project.
Based on the above discussion, this finding can be made.
10.Discretionary permits shall not be granted within areas with a "MRP"
overlay zone designation if the use will significantly hamper or preclude
access to, or the extraction of, a mineral resource, except where one or
more of the following findings can be made:
a. Such use is primarily intended to protect life or property.
b. Such use provides a significant public benefit.
c. The resource is not present at the site.
d. Extraction of the resource is not technically or economically feasible.
e. Extraction of the resource is not feasible due to limitations imposed
by the County.
41
120
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 42 of 45
The proposed project is a proposed expansion of an existing mining facility.
Thus, access to and extraction of mineral resources in the MRP Overlay Zone
will be enhanced with the implementation of the proposed project.
F. RECLAMATION PLAN FINDINGS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
The Planning Commission must make certain findings in order to approve a Reclamation
Plan pursuant to NCZO Section 8107-9.6.9. The ability to make the required findings is
evaluated below.
1. The reclamation plan must be consistent with and approved in accordance
with:
• The Ventura County Zoning Ordinance
• The provisions of SMARA (Public Resources Code Section 2710 et
seq.).
• Public Resources Code Section 2207 (i.e. State Annual Reporting and
Fee requirements).
• State mining regulations (14 CCR Section 3500 et.seq.).
• The regulations, guidelines and other measures adopted by the State
Mining and Geology Board
• Ventura County Public Works Agency standards
• Any and all locally adopted resource management goals and policies.
The proposed Amended Reclamation Plan (RP12-0001) was prepared on the
County of Ventura Reclamation Plan application form. This form lists all
applicable reclamation regulations and requires the Reclamation Plan to include
documentation of conformance with each regulatory standard. Based on review
by County staff and staff of the State Office of Mine Reclamation, the proposed
Plan (Appendix G of FEIR Volume 2, Exhibit 4) includes the required
documentation of conformance with the above-listed statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Based on the above discussion, this finding can be made.
2. The reclamation plan must be compatible with the existing geological and
topographical features of the area.
The Amended Reclamation Plan includes an engineering excavation plan that
accounts for the geological and topographic features of the project area. Upon
the completion of mining activities, the mining site will be reclaimed to an open
space use with stable slopes having a maximum gradient of 2:1 (H:V). The site
will be re-vegetated and drainage control measures will be installed to minimize
erosion and sedimentation. The condition of the reclaimed slopes will be
42
121
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 43 of 45
compatible with the undisturbed slopes that will surround the former excavation
area.
Based on the above discussion, this finding can be made.
3. Additional considerations, such as the following, shall be addressed in the
reclamation plan and permit:
• The creation of stable slopes and the prevention of subsidence;
• Control of water run-off and erosion;
• Views of the site from surrounding areas;
• Availability of backfill materials;
• Proposed subsequent use of the land which will be consistent with the
General Plan and existing and proposed uses in the general area;
• Removal or reuse of all structures and equipment;
• The time frame for completing reclamation;
• The costs of reclamation if the County will need to contract to have it
performed;
• Revegetation of the site;
• Phased reclamation of the project area;
• Provisions of an appropriate financial assurance mechanism to ensure
complete implementation of the approved reclamation plan.
Section 2.11 of the Amended Reclamation Plan (Appendix G of Exhibit 4)
adequately addresses each of the issues specified above based on review by
County staff and the State Office of Mine Reclamation.
Based on the above discussion, this finding can be made.
G. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING NOTICE, PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND
JURISDICTIONAL COMMENTS
The Planning Division provided public notice regarding the Planning Commission
hearing on this matter in excess of the requirements of Government Code §65091, and
Ventura County NCZO §8111-3.1. The Planning Division mailed notice to owners of
property within 1,000 feet of the property on which the project site is located and placed
a legal ad in the Ventura County Star. In addition, the owners of all properties located
within 300 feet of the material hauling routes (SR 23 and Grimes Canyon Road)
between the City of Fillmore and the City of Moorpark were provided notice. Finally,
each city in Ventura County, the State Office of Mine Reclamation, State and Federal
wildlife agencies, the California Highway Patrol, Caftans, other organizations,
responsible and trustee agencies, and each person who commented on the Re-
circulated Draft EIR were noticed. As of the date of this document, no public comments
in response to the hearing notice were received regarding the proposed project.
43
122
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec.Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 44 of 45
H. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Based upon the preceding analysis and information provided here and in the referenced
exhibits, attachments and appendices, Planning Division Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. CERTIFY that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered this staff
report and all exhibits thereto, including the proposed FEIR (Exhibit 4), Mitigation
Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 5), CEQA
Findings (Exhibit 6) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 7), and
has considered all comments received during the public comment process;
2. CERTIFY based on the whole of the record before the Planning Commission,
including any comments received during the public hearing process, that the Final
EIR(Exhibit 4):
a. has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
b. was presented to the Planning Commission and that the Planning
Commission reviewed and considered the information contained therein
prior to approving the project; and,
c. reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis;
3. APPROVE and ADOPT by resolution the proposed CEQA Findings (Exhibit 6),
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in the conditions of approval
(Exhibit 5), and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 7) based upon
the substantial evidence provided in the administrative record of proceedings,
including the Planning Division Staff Report for this project and public testimony;
4. MAKE the required findings to grant a Major Modification of a CUP pursuant to
Section 8111-12.1.1 of the Ventura County NCZO, based on the substantial
evidence presented in Section E of this staff report and the entire administrative
record of proceedings on this matter;
5. GRANT a Modified Conditional Use Permit (Case Nos. CUP 4874-2; P112-0159),
subject to the conditions of approval (Exhibit 4);
6. FIND that the Amended Reclamation Plan [Appendix G of the FEIR(Exhibit 4)] has
been prepared in conformance with the requirements of Section 8107-9 of the
Ventura County NCZO, the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (Pub.
Res. Code § 2710 et seq.), and the State Mining and Geology Board regulations
(14 Cal. Code of Regs, § 3500 et seq.);
44
123
Planning Commission Staff Report for CUP 4874-2/Rec. Plan RP12-0001
Planning Commission Hearing on 6-27-13
Page 45 of 45
7. APPROVE the amended Reclamation Plan [Appendix G of the FEIR (Exhibit 4)];
and
8. SPECIFY that the Clerk of the Planning Commission is the custodian, and 800 S.
Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 is the location, of the documents and materials
that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based.
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the Board of
Supervisors within 10 calendar days after the conditional use permit and reclamation
plan have been approved, conditionally approved, or denied (or on the following
workday if the 10th day falls on a weekend or holiday). Any aggrieved person may file
an appeal of the decision with the Planning Division. The Planning Division shall then
set a hearing date before the Board of Supervisors to review the matter at the earliest
convenient date. (See NCZO Section 8111-7 et. seq.)
This staff report has been reviewed by the office of the County Counsel.
If you have any questions concerning the information presented above, please contact
either Kim Prillhart at (805) 654-2481 or Brian R. Baca at (805) 654-5192. You may
also reach Mr. Baca at brian.baca @ventura.org.
Pre ared by: Review by:
Brian R. Baca, Manager i L. Prillhart, Director
Commercial and Industrial Permits Section Ventura County Planning Division
Ventura County Planning Division
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2(a-c) Vicinity Map, General Plan and Zoning Designation Map
Exhibit 3 Aerial Photograph (CUP and Reclamation Plan boundaries)
Exhibit 4 Final EIR(3 volumes)
Exhibit 5 Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Exhibit 6 Resolution to Certify the EIR and Make the required CEQA Findings
Exhibit 7 Statement of Overriding Considerations
45
124
Fillmor-
.
Q •
I
-
i
i -.
L
st _ _
-i t-
-. - - , - - I
- / i,
r
i
Grimes Rock .l
Site ;F__ t
-.®
,._�,)
' r- Happy Canyon Reg Park
f r ■ f t
I
I
y
- _ .‘ - I 1 -
i
_i"
i 1 i
i , `
N
i
i J
W —— E
CD S
t 0 0.5 1
Miles
I
1_
y - Moorpark ,
( ." --- -
Exhibit 2a i - T
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion Project
Vicinity Map _--
3
46
125
I
\vis\r"
Open Space (10 Acre Minimum)
Fir=11101C•enlill=:Knigniral
La)
)
111
ra--111-mm-a.-mr-J
: III
li
..:44-1*--*3•1==w11
le
II
,
Proposed CUP Boundary
=
*I CM General Plan Boundary -- - -
..,,, - :Z.: • . --4'',} , _ Z , 2 . .:,I=
• * a a •
.: ..-...a,p;-, -22, Exhibit 2b
::',D■qa•-•3 .3. _ - Grimes Rock Mine Expansion Project
General Plan Designation Map
47
126
0S-160 ac
. .
OS•160 ac
a
AE-40 ac /
06-160 c
M*
Ill IL N.
0
II
13
0S-160 ac/M RP
AE-40 ac/MRP
•
•
0S-160 aciMRP 0S-130 aciPARP
;LIB Ilw ill_S_IN IN Er
......■..
OS--20 4c/MRP
11'411 II II/
. . - 05-130 LK
0S-160 ac
In
arys
OS.10 ac 111*
0S-20 ac
0S-160 ac
1(09P
0111111.11.111.11160 ac
AEdmilimilmmill'40 ac
ei . as
pr ii Proposed CUP Bounder/
. .
Ir Zoning
-,1J,-i 7 lit-=-- --7--• "1$ -- —-,1,-. . -- -, — . . ---—— --._ .-- 1,240...11
•—mb
4.ittUr3-1,31J...'
Exhibit 2c ,
. !,-..:
A
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion Project
Zoning Map 48
127
----''''.7-.* *-c-1/;-„, 7-_errf=----, - . ,=-".._,.. ...11/970/11..57 "w-- • •`■
' ' .v...':."1!—::.--' '• ''.;- **::,,k_n..a-,_-_t- _ - --
.; • •-•--';`;1- . .s,-.'':` -•r*:A55,-- _ ' p-...- Exhibit 3-Aerial Photograph: .
-r--' 4-- 14----h:firi;#10 - . - ..-.• Existing and proposed CUP and Reclamation Plan boundaries
Planning Commission Hearing
. . ..
O• -,.•.e. ,. June 13, 2013
..-.,
lo
-.r-t-- . -
.---t....,:.,. _ . • ef -
. •),:: it,. . --..... -.-.
-, -
tr..., ..,..,. _
' • '-r:',.N:_--...-1'• ' — - ,1 -...-A--z.....71%. .. .. . .a...,„
- - .;t• -.....147°
... .. , ,.
.. '... -.. x, ,
. '
! ,..":17' ''\ • u•-• - ...--/:- •-••••••• .- -.. ,11, -. ?__ - --... ,
. -, . .s• tkr, e ;„...-;_ ,'..,‘,-:# ..„,/ ,A.,.... ./ Ji , .
, \:. - • .1,..,-:-N- .-- .-- . t -- ft 1 .
...-.,. p „.,,, -,•:h
4.
6.14F
,, 7 . 4.._.-.--
•'- ,
. ,
,,
1. ;..-• :.,;-;7.. ..,--ir . ,,7 t: 1... 1 !
(
I!I i•V...1 i... •4* 'f-.3 1:01,/
/'' -• -f 7-.),0„ _ __-_ :- . . . ,
„f,. -4" •• ..,. '''. - _. _ _ _
. . ,
J - • ?"., , SF -W.',- ' .._•-"''''' ,:..,,,,*-: • . _
., • a yir5..001_ - - „?.. ,, .? . .
/
i.,,,f.- r ,.',. -• ' '' .
°
) - ...i.- — 1.fr, ,.... _ ,.4' • l' •• •• s
. 1, ...„.A. ... ,„,, 41.
., is 0- ‘
e V 1,,,f41_,j5., , - :"• 't?'' -`"' lieW, ,it•
I • .e...,,,,,,,2 , .1,.-,rs- ,
_, .,,,,,fr A ,,' --.......c. ittitgo'
IF-,, .',.0,1...' . , 4.4r, A,,.:.,--;:. .,. , •
s‘,Ipt.,to , ,,,,,, . 4, •:;•4•• . _.',r,-,...e''
IV # J'Ati/dee:AP""4-4,-••:4;e.1,,,edigl§F.';It 7.•4"r" ,...ifit ....-* . .
; i 't"4',.,:bt ,o,04,4-€.#'2%-, °?;.:;rf,0.0' '.--ii; • --IT.' 11 'it •
......., .:,...., . .11
t ....' I
. . -.
...loft, . - . .,
• •
\,
.4-..;-;.1E. i - i -..:.-i :- r
. 7 174
'7 4' • • II 'I
‘,,,.I .471":4 e,/41)-e"Al"*"1,t•.1V40.j.;1 ii" •••• ::." •-`,-I
-i- - • i •. .
...:-•••..
'•,. I . /4 ./-.1 , •
Ael7 - •
'• l'i'• ii ,...-
,,..1Z4 - .-..:-..i • . ;:..t4"'7''. -'
• '• •. ,it
•• .i ,N- doeTh.•',. 0::,. 1.
„;/: it); .1.... 4, .. -
, #20, /re s/ .•-•e. ' ''‘•-• , 43.. ,,i,..N.,,, ,. -4.: •,
/A" . „..;;•••••-.' . tf• ' • ..„,
. N.• . ..,2.-:---- i:i..1 '..! ......
• I i ,,••• • -. - ,
.i•
=.;.. a-, ' ••,..:..ti* 400:1Y A - „. -:, _ • --... --
, -..:.-
/ti/ -,.....-
•
. -, ••
::,..,A.fr•-, ,.. ,,,,,....at; .-.,,, ." f i,,-....i ,.. :_..,
'•r---•-- '11.1417.- . -', • -.TA. .— ,•-•,,,-- .--,.. ,,,,, • .. .,
I5 1 .-• ..:,•:-. • ' t---.--
..-,, --- . — :-. .1 r' • ::' , '4:-...,...- -.,i-77,-t-ill -
,• -•' .-
,... i ..4* ,- • "4...s.. ;
. r -,`' • 41 -'- 23:4
= .• - - .-f
.3....w. -, - • .•,'• 4--- • .
• t ', II%
I • . •.•
. „.".te=-:••-?:1..... ....-. .;A.-;:i
. '.* .
• ,
- ,
. „ .
, .
51.:-;.- ' ,,;--;--t,f -I -• :-)1 :.-•:•. 4 -rel s'jt-
/- - -"X"' '. . '1-'--,P•AT
: - : u-va-Y. ' ..! • -.'''.. . t. • VA ,
. , : :•
....
-4- ------ ---,- - , •t -, ::- -
4.
-•-.S. A-
..., ....
r • ..,.. , 'it. - '-nrIb''.i-'-.r.i.f"..'-'••= ' -2;4.1..,,_ ..,_,i.;:-.-'', -.' ":-/' -----''
■ ...... -_ . -'- -..44-'4C-- ' * -" 1 '- --4-7P---4:-
,„- . 1. ..._:. ,..:. ._•:.- -,-...,...:
-.-..---. - • ,.. .. —
----- -_—_, --- .1-- •,'
-z- '‘IiP I '-+: ' -'''''-- --• '--*.'' '''',ri,g.,-" '*
...
it-.4.,_:* ' _.._. 4 . ..,,,,w, ,.,, . jw, Existing CUP Boundary E.d
.j, ,1 . ,. . ... ,_ ..;i., , : Yr . ,,:'n;'::•-i: ....,..1 . dA Proposed dExCcUavPaBtioonunAdraerya
:` ....1' ---.2.1.r..---:=4:c.'i_IP.---s..-'-''‘:-' -if '''r. --1.-- ;". I ; ''. III"
-1 I A!, '.1-/ -le".. --*- : '-'4‘ - * .I Y.'' 't j!
..._.,..,
,•,.. .,. _ • -,4•__ _ _ .,.„_... . . , i ,
•,,,,..-,_ . -_,-,_ -... . ., „.•-e,-.). - 4 ' ' - ..:-. r,' s'' '.:*.li
40,11,
,...„...7„..,..., . . . . ..
. _,,--, 4!f"" _ -1,-, k„*.t.- .4 •i- --. --,-44 . r---,- •,..,.,
it
.,•-. •==_= - •.. ... c, 4..1,
I - , 4 . -• - '-*: --- ‘4•-- ' • .i" ' . Proposed Excavation Area t.
-4'i:*,--:' i.-- - ' iii-77--,m-.-----,.--_Apr. -....4awymirR._ ;42,:.- .. .
,..<4°'va.a., Ventura County e aro en
/ we het
I i
Resource Management Agency R gyi n Grimes Rock
g -r .A-1 Informal/on Systems Department Dada.,tha map was created by the*ntura Count/'awarde 414.•
•-• ' . “'
••••• • Map created on 05/05/2013 G Management Agency,Mammy Services GIS,erne*ts designed 11
4 '' 1174:1 Thi3 aenal imagery la under the CUP-4874-1 and operated solelf for the conventence of the County and related /
publn agencies.The Canty does not warrant the accuracy of thb
*0 copyogh of Pictomotry map and no dedson involvirq a risk of economic Noss or physical
Irtyary should be awls s.reliance therein
Source.PIcturnetry.January 2013
49
128
Exhibit 4
GRIMES ROCK, INC.
EXPANDED MINING FA CI L I T Y
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CUP MODIFICATION 4874-2 and
AMENDED RECLAMATION PLAN
Volume I of 3
Prepared by and for:
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Resource Management Agency
Planning Division
800 S. Victoria Avenue
Ventura, California 93009
Attn: Brian R. Baca
805-654-5192
SCH# 2003111064
June 2013
Available on the County Planning Division website at:
http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/ceqa/eir.html
50
129
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS: PAGE
A. DISCUSSION OF RECIRCULATION OF DRAFT EIR ii
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1
3.0 RELATED PROJECTS 3-1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
4.1 Traffic/Circulation 4.1-1
4.2 Air Quality 4.2-1
4.3 Noise 4.3-1
4.4 Community Character 4.4-1
4.5 Hydrology and Water Resources 4.5-1
4.6 Biological Resources 4.6-1
4.7 Paleontological Resources 4.7-1
4.8 Visual Resources 4.8-1
4.9 Climate Change 4.9-1
5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5-1
6.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 6-1
7.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 7-1
8.0 PREPARERS OF THE EIR, CONTACTS AND REFERENCES 8-1
VOLUME II -APPENDICES
Appendix A— NOP/Initial Study And Comments
Appendix B— Transportation/Circulation
Appendix C— Air Quality
Appendix D— Hydrological/Water Resources
Appendix E — Biological Resources
Appendix F— Paleontological Resources
Appendix G — Proposed amended Reclamation Plan
VOLUME III - PUBLIC COMMENTS AND.RESPONSES TO COMMENT
Section A— Letters of Public comment on RDEIR
Section B- Responses to public comment
Section C—Supplemental traffic information
Grimes Rock,Inc. Final EIR
CUP 4874-2;Amended Reclamation Plan Page i June 2013 September-2042
51
130
EXHIBIT 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
MODIFIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4874-2
GRIMES ROCK MINING FACILITY
APNs 500-0-050-13, 500-0-050-34, 500-0-090-26, 500-0-090-27,
500-0-090-29, 500-0-090-05, 500-0-090-32, 500-0-090-33
(File#PL12-0159; CA Mine ID#91-56-0032)
The following conditions of approval constitute the modified Conditional Use Permit 4874-2
for the Grimes Rock Surface Mining Facility. These conditions of approval supersede all
past permit approvals. This modified permit does not authorize any mining activities that
are inconsistent with the Approved Reclamation Plan for this facility approved pursuant to
the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). (Note: Amended
Reclamation Plan RP12-0001 is being considered by the County decision-makers
concurrently with the requested CUP modification.)
Consistent with SMARA, mining operations are prohibited unless the operator has been
granted a valid Conditional Use Permit(as effectuated through the issuance of a Zoning
Clearance), has obtained an approved Reclamation Plan, and has posted a Financial
Assurance deemed adequate by the State and the County.
1. Permitted Land Uses (Project Description)
The following project description includes the operational limitations and requirements
imposed by the terms of this conditional use permit and the reclamation requirements of
the associated Amended Reclamation Plan (RP12-0001). All of the requirements of
RP12-0001 are hereby incorporated into these conditions of approval. All surface
mining activities must be conducted in conformance with the Conditional Use Permit
and Approved Reclamation Plan that are currently in effect for the Grimes Rock facility.
Summary:
This modified Conditional Use Permit (CUP 4874-2) and the associated Amended
Reclamation Plan (RP12-0001) incorporated herein authorize the following changes to
the Grimes Rock surface mining facility:
• Changes to the permit boundary including the expansion of surface mining areas.
The permit boundary would be expanded from approximately 164 acres to
approximately 231 acres. Parcels to be added to the permit area (i.e. to be
inside the CUP boundary) include 500-0-050-34, 500-0-090-29, 500-0-090-05,
and 500-0-090-33. The excavation area would be expanded from approximately
45.8 acres (current condition) to approximately 135.3 acres. (Note: The current
permitted area of excavation encompasses 48.4 acres.)
52
131
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 2 of 51
• An extension of the effective term of the CUP from 2013 to an estimated end
date of surface mining operations in 2040.
• An increase in sand and gravel production (i.e. material export) from 952,500
tons per year to approximately 1.8 million tons per year.
• Material hauling to occur Monday through Saturday, 6:00 a.m. until dusk. (For
purposes of this limitation, the term "dusk"refers to 30 minutes after the time for
"sunset"as published in a local newspaper of general circulation.).
• Onsite mining operations to occur 24 hours per day on Monday through
Saturday.
• An annual average daily hauling truck traffic volume of 460 one-way trips.
• A maximum peak daily hauling truck volume of 600 one-way trips,
• An end use of Open Space.
Mineral extraction operations:
Under the proposed modified CUP 4874-2 and Amended Reclamation Plan, the mining
facility will continue sand and gravel excavation and processing operations similar to
those that are currently permitted under the existing permit with the changes as
described above. Proposed mining excavation and reclamation will occur over three
phases as shown on the Amended Reclamation Plan maps and cross sections.
Anticipated operations at the site will include phased recovery of sand and gravel
resources and materials processing. Mineral resource recovery operations (excavation)
will be accomplished through the use of conventional earthmoving equipment. The
extracted materials will be loaded into a crusher and conveyor system for movement to
the processing plant. In some areas, off-highway haul trucks may be used to move
extracted rock to the processing plant area. The products exported from the subject
facility would include washed concrete sand, washed gravel and fill sand. The total
anticipated production (2011-2040) of the extraction operation is estimated to be
approximately 50 million tons. This tonnage assumes a conversion factor of 1.6 tons per
cubic yard applied to the estimated 31 million cubic yards of material volume. The
tonnage figure has been adjusted to account for production that has occurred since the
topographic base map used to prepare the Reclamation Plan was created. Annual
production amounts are limited to a maximum of 1.8 million tons of aggregate and a
maximum of 460 average daily one-way truck trips. (These figures assume the following
calculation: 230 loads per day x 25 tons/load x 312 working days per year = 1,794,000
tons/year).
The operator will continue to utilize the existing processing plant and equipment to
operate and process materials.
The mining activities would involve the removal of hills located within the proposed
excavation area. The mining method will be to place a bulldozer on top of the
promontory and push material off the top and down the face of the slope, moving from
the peak of the hill towards the base of the hill. A front-end loader will place the
bulldozed material on the conveyor system for processing. All new slopes will be cut to
53
132
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 3of51
2:1 horizontal:vertical (h:v). The lower one-third of final slopes will be graded in a
concave configuration in order to blend with the floor of the mine.
The mineral resource extraction will occur in three phases. The timing for these phases
may change in the future depending upon market demand.
Phase 1 will consist of extracting aggregate resource from the existing disturbance
limits down to the current (2013) pad elevation near the wash plant (approximately
1,130 feet AMSL). Also during Phase 1, existing highwalls that are located along the
western property line will be removed. Excavation during Phase 1 will also progress
toward the eastern and southeastern areas of the site.
There is an existing paved access road to the southern part of the project site that
connects to Grimes Canyon Road (SR 23) approximately 700 feet north of Shekell
Road. This road will be used for onsite material hauling and to access SR 23. Material
hauling trucks arriving from the south or departing to the south on SR 23 will use this
existing paved road. The use of this existing paved road will eliminate project-related
hauling truck traffic on the steep and curving portion of SR 23 (i.e. Grimes Grade).
Phase 1 will result in the extraction of approximately one-third of the total aggregate
reserve included in the Reclamation Plan. Extractive operations in Phase 1 are
expected to continue for approximately 10 - 15 years depending on the demand for
aggregate resources. At the maximum production rate, Phase 1 will take 10 years to
complete. Topsoil will be salvaged from'new disturbance areas and stockpiled on-site
for use during reclamation. Final slopes will be graded to a maximum slope ratio of 2:1
(h:v) with undulating surfaces to blend in with the surrounding natural terrain. Upon
completion of extraction operations within Phase 1, Phase 2 will commence.
In Phase 2, excavation will continue to progress toward the eastern end of the site down
to a pad elevation of approximately 1,130 feet AMSL. A gradient of approximately 1%
will be maintained for the interim floor created by Phase 2 excavation. Extractive
operations in Phase 2 will result in an excavation footprint that encompasses
approximately 58 acres. The total quantity of material to be excavated in this phase is
estimated to be approximately one-third of the total aggregate reserve included in the
Reclamation Plan. It is anticipated that Phase 2 will continue for approximately 10 - 15
years depending on the demand for aggregate resources. At the maximum production
rate, Phase 2 will take 10 years to complete.
Final slopes of 2:1 (h:v), with undulating surfaces, will be established. Also during
Phase 2, topsoil will be salvaged from new disturbance areas and stockpiled onsite for
use during reclamation.
Phase 3 will involve continued extraction of aggregate resource until the final pad
elevation on approximately 1,000 feet AMSL is reached. A 1% gradient will be created
for the final floor configuration. Mineral extraction in Phase 3 is expected to remove the
remaining approximately one-third of the total aggregate reserve included in this
54
133
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 4 of 51
Reclamation Plan and will continue for approximately 10 - 15 years depending on the
demand for aggregate resources. Final slopes will be graded to a maximum 2:1 (h:v)
slope ratio with undulating surfaces. The lower one-third of final slopes will be graded in
a concave configuration in order to blend with the floor of the mine. Topsoil will be
salvaged from newly disturbed areas of the site and either placed directly on final slope
areas or stockpiled for later use.
Material hauling trucks will be filled from the stockpiles of processed materials by front-
end loaders and subsequently weighed at on-site scales. Prior to departing the site for
product delivery, truck exteriors will be swept to control sand, grit, or gravel that may fly
off and become airborne during transport.
Total future material production from the site is estimated to be 50 million tons
(31,250,000 cubic yards). Excavation would occur over a 135.3-acre area with a
maximum slope height of 365 feet. The total CUP/Amended Reclamation Plan area will
encompass 231 acres.
The estimated date for the termination of mining, based upon the proposed extraction
rate and total volume of material to be exported, is January 1, 2040.
Reclamation:
Map, cross sections and diagrams that illustrate all aspects of the required reclamation
of the site are included in the Amended Reclamation Plan (RP12-0001). All surface
mining activities and reclamation of the site shall be in conformance with the RP12-0001
Amended Reclamation Plan.
Reclamation activities will occur on an ongoing basis throughout the project life as
planned mining excavations are completed. The reclamation plan maps and cross
sections depict the volume of material to be excavated and the proposed finished slope
contours after each phase of the mining operations are completed. The site will be
reclaimed to a configuration that includes a nearly level floor surrounded by maximum
2:1 gradient slopes. Runoff from the slopes will drain across the floor to be discharged
at the low point (approximately 1,000-foot elevation) where an existing drainage course
intersects the floor. It is anticipated that the western slope will be reclaimed first,
followed by the southerly slope, and then by the easterly slope.
Reclamation phasing will generally follow the proposed extraction phasing. As
extraction progresses to lower elevations in each phase, upper slopes will be reclaimed.
Reclamation of final slopes will consist of establishing 2:1 (h:v) slope configurations and
revegetation. The processing plant area will be one of the last areas to be mined and
reclaimed.
The processing plant is currently (2013) located on the western portion of the site and
will remain in place until the remaining reserves are located beneath the plant site
(during Phase 3). It is anticipated that reclamation will be divided into a minimum of four
areas over the course of the project.
55
134
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 5 of 51
Reclamation will commence with the easterly-facing slope on the western portion of the
site, within the Phase 1 area. It is expected that this area will be reclaimed near the end
of Phase 1 mining operations. Next, the slopes within the southwestern and southern
portions of Phase 1 will be reclaimed. It is anticipated that this area will be reclaimed at
the beginning of Phase 2 mining operations. The third area to be reclaimed will be the
southeastern and eastern portions of the pit slopes. It is anticipated that these areas
will be reclaimed sometime during Phase 2 and Phase 3.
The fourth area to be reclaimed will be the lower slopes of all three phase areas (from
an elevation of 1,130 feet AMSL down to 1,000 feet AMSL). These slopes will be
reclaimed at the completion of mining operations and once the ultimate pit depth has
been reached during Phase 3. Final reclamation will include removal of the processing
plant and all mining equipment, followed by revegetation of any remaining disturbance
areas that are not necessary for post-extraction uses (e.g. access roads) All compacted
areas will be ripped to achieve a consistency and permeability similar to that of the
original soils.
When final slopes are established in individual areas, the land surface will be reclaimed.
This will include revegetation of the areas outlined in the revegetation plan. The lower
one-third of final slopes will be graded in a concave configuration in order to blend with
the floor of the mine. Any roads that are not necessary for the proposed open space
end use will be removed and revegetated in accordance with the revegetation plan.
Upon reaching the final contours of the finished mined slopes, the operator will
revegetate disturbed areas with native plant species consistent with the surroundings
and the vegetation that existed prior to disturbance from mining. Finished slopes will be
revegetated with a native revegetation seed mix approved by the County of Ventura and
the State Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR). The objective is to restore the mining site
with native vegetation that is similar in species composition and density to the pre-
mining vegetation. The revegetated surfaces will be compatible with native flora, self-
perpetuating, provide habitat value to wildlife, and stabilize the onsite soils. Using a
native seed mix (as specified in the proposed Amended Reclamation Plan), the finished
slopes will be revegetated in the fall of the year each mined area is completed. This
timing is intended to take advantage of seasonal rainfall to start plant growth. A Coastal
Sagebrush mix will be used to seed the side slopes, while a Grass Woodland mix will be
used for the flat areas. No irrigation will be used to germinate and establish plants as
the selected species are adapted to the climate and rainfall conditions at the project
site. The finished slopes will be overlain with topsoil that is salvaged from new
disturbance areas. However, no topsoil has been salvaged from the existing
disturbance areas. In any case, topsoil and suitable growth media, including fine
material that is used to augment the topsoil, will be redistributed over the disturbance
areas at a minimum thickness of 3 inches.
Upon completion of all surface mining activities and the commencement of final
reclamation, the operator will remove most of its plant facilities and all equipment from
56
135
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 6 of 51
the site in accordance with Section 8107-9.6.10 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal
Zoning Ordinance. Some infrastructure improvements (including the access road and
water supply pond) would remain on-site to support the future end use. All unused
foundations, pavement, and the plant will be removed. The shop and office buildings will
be converted to storage use and would remain to support maintenance of the property
and future by-right uses of the land. The compacted areas will be ripped and reworked
to a consistency and permeability similar to that of the original soils, and remaining
unvegetated areas will be re-graded to conform with the local topography and
revegetated.
The Grimes Rock site was abandoned in 1967 by a previous operator. Several
"highwalls," or near vertical banks, were left on the site at that time. The proposed
mining project would create flatter slopes throughout the proposed project area. The
"highwalls" would be eliminated with the proposed project. Any previously disturbed
areas that are disturbed again by the proposed project must be reclaimed pursuant to
SMARA and County requirements. Material obtained from reclamation of the
"highwalls" will be sold as product.
The site will be reclaimed to an end use of open space.
RMA PLANNING DIVISION
2. Compliance with Mining and Reclamation Standards
Purpose: In order to assure compliance with applicable mining and reclamation
standards.
Requirement: The Permittee shall operate and reclaim the Grimes Rock mining
facility in conformance with the mining and reclamation standards of Section
8107-9 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance (NCZO), the
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (Public Resources Code 2710 et.
seq.;SMARA), and the State Mining and Geology Board reclamation regulations
(Title 14 CCR Section 3500 et.seq.). These requirements include but are not
limited to the following:
a. Reclamation of the site shall be completed in accordance with the
approved Reclamation Plan.
b. All surface mining operations shall be conducted in conformance with
the phasing and other requirements of the approved Reclamation Plan.
c. Removal of equipment and facilities shall be accomplished in
accordance with the amended Reclamation Plan and Section 8107-9.6.10
of the NCZO.
d. The Permittee shall maintain liability insurance for the effective period of
this permit in conformance with the requirements of Section 8107-9.6.21
of the NCZO.
57
136
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 7 of 51
e. No excavation of the site shall occur below the final reclaimed surface
or outside of the mapped limits of excavation specified in the approved
Reclamation Plan for the Grimes Rock facility.
f. A Financial Assurance for reclamation shall be posted by the Permittee
(mine operator) with the County of Ventura and California Department of
Conservation in accordance with Section 8107-9.6.20 of the NCZO and
Section 2773.1 of SMARA.
g. The Permittee shall provide access to the site to County personnel
upon receiving reasonable notice of an upcoming inspection. The mining
facility shall be inspected at least once per year in order to monitor
compliance with the conditions of approval of this permit, the approved
Reclamation Plan, SMARA and the County Non-Coastal Zoning
Ordinance. The number of inspections conducted in addition to the
statutory minimum shall be determined by the Planning Director.
("Reasonable notice"shall mean notification at least 10 days in advance.)
Documentation: The Permittee shall annually provide evidence to the County
Planning Division for review and approval that liability insurance consistent with
ordinance standards has been obtained. The Permittee shall also annually
provide a Financial Assurance Cost Estimate (FACE) and post a Financial
Assurance Mechanism (FAM) that meets SMARA standards as determined by
the Planning Director. Surface mining inspection reports prepared by County staff
will document the physical condition of the mining site and its conformance with
the approved Reclamation Plan and the conditions of approval of this conditional
use permit. The Annual Status Report prepared by the Permittee under Condition
No. 3 will also document the condition of the site.
Timing: The Permittee shall submit and obtain approval of the evidence of
liability insurance no later than 60 days after the annual inspection of the site is
conducted by the County. The FACE and FAM shall be submitted 90 days after
the annual inspection of the site by the County.
Monitoring: The Planning Division will monitor compliance with this condition
through the annual site inspections required by SMARA, additional inspections
determined necessary by the Planning Director, and through enforcement actions
authorized by§8114-3 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance.
3. Annual Compliance Report
The Permittee shall submit an Annual Compliance Report (ACR) to the County
Planning Division that describes the current area and depth of mining excavation
and the extent of any reclamation activities that have occurred in the past
operational year. This information must be delineated on a copy of the map(s)
and cross sections included in the Approved Reclamation Plan. This report must
describe the conformance of the mining activities with the conditions of approval
of this conditional use permit and the approved Reclamation Plan. The volume of
58
137
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 8 of 51
any over-excavation must be estimated in this report. The ACR must be
consistent with the information provided in the Financial Assurance Cost
Estimate and the Financial Assurance Mechanism submitted for the facility. The
adequacy of the ACR to meet this condition will be determined by the Planning
Director. The report is to be submitted by July 1 of each year.
4. Days and Hours of Operation
Purpose: In order to assure consistency with the project description included in
Condition No. 1, it is necessary to limit the days and hours of operation of the
approved use.
Requirement: The operation of the expanded mining facility shall be limited as
follows:
a. Onsite mining operations shall be allowed to occur 24 hours per day from
Monday through Saturday.
b. Material hauling shall be allowed to occur from 6:00 am until dusk from
Monday through Saturday. (For purposes of this limitation, the term "dusk"
refers to 30 minutes after the time for 'sunset" as published in a local
newspaper of general circulation.).
c. The Permittee shall post the hours of operation in an obvious location that
can be seen by all customers, employees, vendors, and haul truck drivers.
The signage must be made of weatherproof and permanent material, and
conform with the standards set forth in Article 10 of the Ventura County
Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance.
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide the Planning Division with
photographic documentation that the hours of operation have been posted as
required pursuant to this condition.
Timing: The Permittee shall post the hours of operation prior to the issuance of
Zoning Clearance for use inauguration and the Permittee shall maintain the
posted hours of operation for the life of the permit.
Monitoring and Reporting: The Planning Division has the authority to conduct
periodic site inspections to ensure ongoing compliance by the Permittee with this
condition consistent with the requirements of §8114-3 of the Ventura County
Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance.
5. Site Maintenance
Purpose: To ensure that the CUP area is maintained in a neat and orderly
manner so as not to create any hazardous conditions or unsightly conditions
which are visible from outside the CUP area.
Requirement: The Permittee shall maintain the project site in compliance with
the described uses outlined in Condition No. 1 (Permitted Land Uses). Only
59
138
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 9 of 51
equipment and/or materials used in the operations described in Condition No. 1
or which the Planning Director determines to be otherwise substantially in
conformance with Condition No. 1 (Permitted Land Uses), or which are
authorized by any subsequent amendments to this CUP, shall be stored on the
property during the life of this CUP.
Documentation: The allowed uses shall be comprised of those items listed in
Condition No. 1 (Permitted Land Uses) of this CUP and any amendments
thereto.
Timing: The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner during the
effective period of this permit.
Monitoring and Reporting: The County Building Inspector, Public Works
Grading Inspector, Fire Marshall, and/or Planning Division staff has the authority
to conduct periodic site inspections to ensure the Permittee's ongoing
compliance with this condition consistent with the requirements of§8114-3 of the
Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance.
6. CUP Modification
Prior to undertaking any operational or construction-related activity which is not
expressly described in these conditions or Project Description, the Permittee
shall first contact the Planning Director to determine if the proposed activity
requires a modification of this CUP. The Planning Director may, at the Planning
Director's sole discretion, require the Permittee to file a written and/or mapped
description of the proposed activity in order to determine if a CUP modification is
required. If a CUP modification is required, the modification shall be subject to:
a. The modification approval standards of the Ventura County Ordinance
Code in effect at the time the modification application is acted on by the
Planning Director; and,
b. Environmental review, as required pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code, §21000-21178)
and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Chapter 3, §15000-15387), as amended from time to time.
7. Acceptance of Conditions and Schedule of Enforcement Responses
The Permittee's acceptance of this CUP and/or commencement of construction
and/or operations under this CUP shall constitute the Permittee's formal
agreement to comply with all conditions of this CUP. Failure to abide by and
comply with any condition for the granting of this CUP shall constitute grounds for
enforcement action provided in the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning
Ordinance (2010, Article 14) which shall include, but is not limited to, the
following:
60
139
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 10 of 51
a. Public reporting of violations to the Planning Commission and/or Board of
Supervisors;
b. Suspension of the permitted land uses(Condition No. 1);
c. Modification of the CUP conditions listed herein;
d. Recordation of a "Notice of Noncompliance" on title to the subject
property;
e. The imposition of civil administrative penalties; and/or
f. Revocation of this CUP.
The Permittee is responsible for being aware of, and complying with, the CUP
conditions and all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations.
8. Time Limits
a. Use inauguration:
1. The approval decision for this CUP becomes effective upon the
expiration of the 10-day appeal period following the approval
decision, or when any appeals of the decision are finally resolved.
Once the approval decision becomes effective, the Permittee must
obtain a Zoning Clearance for use inauguration in order to initiate
the land uses provided in Condition No. 1 (Project Description).
Prior to the initiation of mining excavation in each subsequent
project phase (i.e. Phases 2 and 3) as delineated in the
Reclamation Plan, the Permittee shall obtain a Zoning Clearance.
In order to obtain the Zoning Clearance, the Permittee must
demonstrate that the mining facility is in compliance with all
applicable permit and Reclamation Plan provisions, including the
initiation of reclamation of the area included in the previous mining
phase.
2. This CUP shall expire and become null. and void if the Permittee
fails to obtain a Zoning Clearance for use inauguration within one
year from the granting or approval of this CUP. The Planning
Director may grant a one year extension of time to the Permittee in
order to obtain the Zoning Clearance for use inauguration if the
Permittee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director that the Permittee has made a diligent effort to inaugurate
the permitted land use, and the Permittee has requested the time
extension in writing at least 30 days prior to the one year expiration
date.
3. Prior to the issuance of the Zoning Clearance for use inauguration,
all fees and charges billed to that date by any County agency, as
well as any fines, penalties, and sureties, must be paid in full. After
issuance of the Zoning Clearance for use inauguration, any final
billed processing fees must be paid within 30 days of the billing
date or the County may revoke this CUP.
b. Permit Life or Operations Period:
61
140
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 11 of 51
This CUP will expire on December 31, 2040. The lack of additional
notification of the expiration date provided by the County to the Permittee
shall not constitute grounds to continue the uses that are authorized by
this CUP after the CUP expiration date. The uses authorized by this CUP
may continue after the CUP expiration date if:
1. The Permittee has filed a permit modification application pursuant
to Section 8111-6 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning
Ordinance prior to [expiration date]; and
2. The County decision-maker grants the requested modification.
The uses authorized by this CUP may continue during processing of a
timely-filed modification application in accordance with Section 8111-2.10
of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance.
(Note: Reclamation activities in accordance with the Amended
Reclamation Plan would continue for up to 5 years after the cessation of
mineral extraction.)
9. Consolidation of All Approved Exhibits and Permits
Purpose: To ensure compliance with and notification of requirements of other
federal, state or local government regulatory agencies and the completion of the
Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program.
Requirement: Upon the request of the Planning Director, the Permittee shall
provide the Planning Division with documentation to verify that the Permittee has
obtained or satisfied all applicable federal, state and local entitlements and
conditions.
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide this documentation to the County
Planning Division in the form that is acceptable to the agency issuing the
entitlement or clearance for the project file.
Timing: The documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to
the issuance of the Zoning Clearance for use inauguration or as dictated by the
respective agency.
Monitoring and Reporting: The Planning Division maintains the documentation
provided by the Permittee in the respective project file. In the event that the
permit is modified or changes are made by any other respective agency, the
Permittee shall submit any revised documentation within 30 days of the
modification.
62
141
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 12 of 51
10. Notice of CUP Requirements and Retention of CUP Conditions On-Site
Purpose: To ensure full and proper notice of permit requirements and conditions
affecting the use of the subject property.
Requirement: Unless otherwise required by the Planning Director, the Permittee
shall notify, in writing, the Property Owner(s) of record, contractors, and all other
parties and vendors regularly dealing with the daily operation of the proposed
activities, of the pertinent conditions of this CUP.
Documentation: The Permittee shall maintain a current set of CUP conditions
and exhibits at the project site.
Timing: A copy of the CUP conditions of approval shall be available on the
project site prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for use inauguration and shall
be maintained on the site during the effective term of this permit.
Monitoring and Reporting: The Planning Division has the authority to conduct
periodic site inspections to ensure ongoing compliance with this condition
consistent with the requirements of §8114-3 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal
Zoning Ordinance.
11. Recorded Notice of Land Use Entitlement
Purpose: In order to comply with §8111-8.3 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal
Zoning Ordinance a notice shall be recorded on the deed of the subject property
that describes the responsibilities of the Property Owner and Permittee for
compliance with applicable permit conditions and regulations.
Requirement: The Permittee and Property Owner of record shall sign, have
notarized, and record with the Office of the County Recorder, a Notice of Land
Use Entitlement form furnished by the Planning Division, for the tax assessor's
parcels that are subject to this CUP. --
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide a copy for the recorded Notice of
Land Use Entitlement to the County Planning Division.
Timing: The recorded Notice of Land Use Entitlement shall be submitted to the
County Planning Division prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for use
inauguration.
Monitoring and Reporting: The County Planning Division shall receive the
recorded Notice and incorporate it into the CUP file for the project.
63
142
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 13 of 51
12. Condition Compliance, Enforcement, and Other Responsibilities
a. Cost Responsibilities: The Permittee shall bear the full costs of all staff
time, material costs, or consultant costs associated with the approval of
studies, generation of studies or reports, on-going permit compliance, and
monitoring programs as described below in Condition No. 10.b.
Specifically, the Permittee shall bear the full costs of the following:
1. condition compliance costs which include, but are not limited
to, staff time, material costs, or consultant costs associated
with the approval of studies, generation of studies or reports,
ongoing permit condition compliance review, and CEQA
Mitigation Monitoring/other monitoring programs; and,
2. monitoring and enforcement costs required by the Ventura
County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance 08114-3). The
Permittee, or the Permittee's successors-in-interest, shall
bear the full costs incurred by the County or its contractors
for inspection and monitoring, and for enforcement activities
related to the resolution of confirmed violations.
Enforcement activities shall be in response to confirmed
violations and may include such measures as inspections,
public reports, penalty hearings, forfeiture of securities, and
suspension of this CUP. Costs will be billed at the contract
rates in effect at the time enforcement actions are required.
The Permittee shall be billed for said costs and penalties
pursuant to the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning
Ordinance 08114-3.4).
b. Establishment of Revolving Compliance Accounts: Within 10 calendar
days of the effective date of the decision on this CUP, the Permittee, or
the Permittee's successors-in-interest, shall submit the following deposit
and reimbursement agreement to the Planning Director:
1. a payment of $500.00 for deposit into a revolving condition
compliance and enforcement account to be used by the
Planning Division to cover costs incurred for Condition
Compliance review (Condition No. 10.a, above), monitoring
and enforcement (Condition No. 10.c, below). The $500.00
deposit may be modified to a higher amount by mutual
agreement between the Permittee and the Planning Director;
and,
2. a signed and fully executed County RMA reimbursement
agreement, which is subject to the Permittee's right to
challenge any charges obligating the Permittee to pay all
Condition Compliance review, monitoring, and enforcement
costs.
c. Monitoring and Enforcement Costs: The $500.00 deposit and
reimbursement agreement (Condition No. 10.b, above) are required to
ensure that funds are available for legitimate and anticipated costs
64
143
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 14 of 51
incurred for Condition Compliance. All permits issued by the Planning
Division may be reviewed and the sites inspected no less than once every
three years, unless the terms of the permit require more frequent
inspections. These funds shall cover costs for any regular compliance
inspections or the resolution of confirmed violations of the conditions of
this CUP and/or the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance that
may occur.
d. Billing Process: The Permittee shall pay any written invoices from the
Planning Division within 30 days of receipt of the request. Failure to pay
the invoice shall be grounds for suspension, modification, or revocation of
this CUP. The Permittee shall have the right to challenge any charge prior
to payment.
13. Defense and Indemnity
As a condition of CUP issuance and use including adjustment, modification, or
renewal thereof, the Permittee agrees to:
a. Defend, at the Permittee's sole expense, any action brought against the
County by a third party challenging either the County's decision to issue
this CUP, or the manner in which the County is interpreting or enforcing
the conditions of this CUP; and
b. Indemnify the County against any settlements, awards, or judgments,
including attorney's fees, arising out of, or resulting from, any such legal
action. Upon written demand from the County, the Permittee shall
reimburse the County for any and all court costs and/or attorney's fees
which the County may be required by a court to pay as a result of any
such legal action the Permittee defended or controlled the defense thereof
pursuant to Condition No. 11(a) above. The County may, at its sole
discretion, participate in the defense of any such legal action, but such
participation shall not relieve the Permittee of the Permittee's obligations
under this condition.
Neither the issuance of this CUP, nor compliance with the conditions
thereof, shall relieve the Permittee from any responsibility otherwise
imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance
of this CUP serve to impose any liability upon the County of Ventura, its
officers, or employees for injury or damage to persons or property.
Except to the extent of the County's sole negligence or intentional
misconduct, the Permittee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the
County, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims,
demands, costs, and expenses, including attorney's fees, judgments, or
liabilities arising out of the construction, maintenance, or operations
65
144
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 15 of 51
described in Condition No. 1 (Permitted Land Uses), as it may be
subsequently modified pursuant to the conditions of this CUP.
14. Invalidation of Condition(s)
If any of the conditions or limitations of this CUP are held to be invalid, that
holding shall not invalidate any of the remaining CUP conditions or limitations. In
the event the Planning Director determines that any condition contained herein is
in conflict with any other condition contained herein, then where principles of law
do not provide to the contrary, the conditions most protective of public health and
safety and natural environmental resources shall prevail to the extent feasible.
In the event that any condition imposing a fee, exaction, dedication, or other
mitigation measure is challenged by the Permittee in an action filed in a court of
law, or threatened to be filed therein, which action is brought in the time period
provided for by the Code of CM/ Procedures (§1094.6), or other applicable law,
this CUP shall be allowed to continue in full force and effect until the expiration of
the limitation period applicable to such action, or until final resolution of such
action, provided the Permittee has, in the interim, fully complied with the fee,
exaction, dedication, or other mitigation measure being challenged_
If a court of law invalidates any condition, and the invalidation would change the
findings and/or the mitigation measures associated with the approval of this CUP,
at the discretion of the Planning Director, the Planning Commission may review
the project and impose substitute feasible conditions/mitigation measures to
adequately address the subject matter of the invalidated condition. The Planning
Commission shall make the determination of adequacy. If the Planning
Commission cannot identify substitute feasible conditions/mitigation measures to
replace the invalidated condition, and cannot identify overriding considerations
for the significant impacts that are not mitigated to a level of insignificance as a
result of the invalidation of the condition, then this CUP may be revoked.
15. Consultant Review of Information and Consultant Work
The County and all other County permitting agencies for this land use have the
option of referring any and all special studies that these conditions require to an
independent and qualified consultant for review and evaluation of issues beyond
the expertise or manpower of County staff.
Prior to the County engaging any independent consultants or contractors
pursuant to the conditions of this CUP, the County shall confer in writing with the
Permittee regarding the necessary work to be contracted, as well as the costs of
such work. Whenever feasible, the County will use the lowest bidder. Any
decisions made by County staff in reliance on consultant or contractor work may
be appealed pursuant to the appeal procedures contained in the Ventura County
Zoning Ordinance Code then in effect.
66
145
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 16 of 51
The Permittee may hire private consultants to conduct work required by the
County, but only if the consultant and the consultant's proposed scope-of-work
are first reviewed and approved by the County. The County retains the right to
hire its own consultants to evaluate any work that the Permittee or a contractor of
the Permittee undertakes. In accordance with Condition No. 10 above, if the
County hires a consultant to review any work undertaken by the Permittee, or
hires a consultant to review the work undertaken by a contractor of the Permittee,
the hiring of the consultant will be at the Permittee's expense.
16. Relationship of CUP Conditions, Laws and Other Permits
The Permittee shall design, maintain, and operate the CUP area and any
facilities thereon in compliance with all applicable requirements and enactments
of Federal, State, and County authorities. In the event of conflict between
various requirements, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. In the event
the Planning Director determines that any CUP condition contained herein is in
conflict with any other CUP condition contained herein, when principles of law do
not provide to the contrary, the CUP condition most protective of public health
and safety and environmental resources shall prevail to the extent feasible.
No condition of this CUP for uses allowed by the Ventura County Ordinance
Code shall be interpreted as permitting or requiring any violation of law, lawful
rules or regulations, or orders of an authorized governmental agency. Neither
the issuance of this CUP, nor compliance with the conditions of this CUP, shall
relieve the Permittee from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for
damage to persons or property.
A business tax certificate shall be obtained for operation of the proposed mining
facility.
17. Contact Person
Purpose: To designate a person responsible for responding to complaints.
Requirement: The Permittee shall designate a contact person(s) to respond to
complaints from citizens and the County which are related to the permitted uses
authorized by this CUP. The designated contact person shall be available by
telephone during the authorized hours of operation.
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide the Planning Director with the
contact information (e.g., name and/or position title, address, business and cell
phone numbers, and email addresses) of the Permittee's field agent who
receives all orders, notices, and communications regarding matters of condition
and code compliance at the CUP site.
67
146
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 17 of 51
Timing: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for use inauguration, the
Permittee shall provide the Planning Division the contact information of the
Permittee's field agent(s) for the project file. If the address or phone number of
the Permittee's field agent(s) should change, or the responsibility is assigned to
another person, the Permittee shall provide the Planning Division with the new
information in writing within five (5) business days of the change in the
Permittee's field agent.
Monitoring and Reporting: The Planning Division maintains the contact
information provided by the Permittee in the project file. The Planning Division
has the authority to periodically confirm the contact information consistent with
the requirements of §8114-3 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning
Ordinance.
18. Resolution of Complaints
The following process shall be used to resolve complaints related to the project:
a. The Permittee shall post the telephone number for the designated Contact
Person as identified pursuant to Condition No. 15 in a visible location on the
site. The Contact Person shall be available via telephone during all operating
hours of the facility. Persons with concerns about an activity as it is occurring
may directly contact the Contact Person;
b. If a written complaint about this project is received by the County, Planning
staff will contact the Permittee's Contact Person or the Permittee to request
information regarding the alleged violation; and,
c. If, following a complaint investigation by County staff, a violation of Ventura
County Code or a condition of this permit is confirmed, County enforcement
actions pursuant to §8114-3 of the Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance may be
initiated.
19. Reporting of Major Incidents
Purpose: To ensure that the Planning Director is notified of major incidents
within the CUP area.
Requirement: The Permittee shall immediately notify the Planning Director by
telephone, email, FAX, and/or voicemail upon obtaining knowledge of any
incidents related to the mining operation (e.g., fires, explosions, spills, landslides,
or slope failures) that could pose a hazard to life or property inside or outside the
CUP area.
Documentation: Upon request of any County agency, the Permittee shall
provide a written report of any incident that shall include, but is not limited to: a
description of the facts of the incident; the corrective measures used, if any; and,
the steps taken to prevent a recurrence of the incident.
68
147
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 18 of 51
Timing: The Permittee shall provide the written report to the requesting County
agency and Planning Division within seven days of the request.
Monitoring and Reporting: The Planning Division maintains any
documentation provided by the Permittee related to major incidents in the CUP
file.
20. Change of Owner and/or Permittee
Purpose: To ensure that the Planning Division is properly and promptly notified
of any change of ownership or change of Permittee affecting the CUP site.
Requirement: The Permittee 'shall file, as an initial notice with the Planning
Director, the new name(s), address(es), telephone/FAX number(s), and email
addresses of the new owner(s), lessee(s), operator(s) of the permitted uses, and
the company officer(s). The Permittee shall provide the Planning Director with a
final notice once the transfer of ownership and/or operational control has
occurred.
Documentation: The initial notice must be submitted with the new Property
Owner's and/or Permittee's contact information. The final notice of transfer must
include the effective date and time of the transfer and a letter signed by the new
Property Owner(s), lessee(s), and/or operator(s) of the permitted uses
acknowledging and agreeing to comply with all conditions of this CUP.
Timing: The Permittee shall provide written notice to the Planning Director 10
calendar days prior to the change of ownership or change of Permittee. The
Permittee shall provide the final notice to the Planning Director within 15 calendar
days of the effective date of the transfer.
Monitoring and Reporting: The Planning Division maintains notices submitted
by the Permittee in the project file and has the authority to periodically confirm
the information consistent with the requirements of §8114-3 of the Ventura
County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance.
21. Sign Plan
Purpose: To ensure signage on the property complies with Chapter 1, Article 10
of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Ordinance.
Requirement: The Permittee shall prepare a sign plan for the proposed
entrances to the facility that describes the proposed size, colors, materials, and
lighting details. Each sign must provide information on the hours of operation and
telephone numbers for the contact person(s) as described in Condition No. 15
above. The Permittee shall bear the total cost of such review and approval.
69
148
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 19 of 51
Documentation: The Permittee shall submit two copies of a sign plan for the
proposed facility entrances to the Planning Division for review and approval.
Timing: The Permittee shall obtain approval of the sign plan and install the
subject signs prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for use inauguration.
Monitoring and Reporting: The Planning Division maintains a stamped copy of
the approved sign plan in the project file. The Permittee shall be responsible for
obtaining a Zoning Clearance for any new or replacement sign to assure that the
signage for the project continues to conform with the approved sign plan and
Chapter 1, Article 10 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Ordinance. The
Planning Division has the authority to conduct periodic site inspections to ensure
ongoing compliance with this condition consistent with the requirements of
§8114-3 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance.
22. Limit on peak-hour truck trips (T 1-1)
Intent: In order to avoid increased peak-hour traffic congestion on State Route
23, heavy truck traffic shall be limited.
Requirement: The number of material hauling truck trips generated by the
mining facility shall be limited in accordance with Condition No. 1. Heavy truck
traffic associated with project operations shall be limited to 300 trips (PHTs),
including no more than 64 trips (PHTs) in the southbound direction, during the
morning peak traffic congestion period (6:00 to 8:00am) and the afternoon peak
traffic congestion period (3:00 to 6:00 pm). The Permittee shall maintain a record
of truck arrivals and departures.
The Permittee shall maintain a record of truck arrivals and departures.
Documentation: The Permittee shall make the record of truck arrivals and
departures available to the County of Ventura and other government agencies
upon request. The record shall be maintained in paper and electronic form.
Along with the record of truck trips, the trip generation shall be summarized
monthly in an Excel table format consisting of AM and PM Peak-Hour Trips and
Total Average Daily Trips.
Timing: The requirement to maintain a record of truck arrivals and departures is
an ongoing operational requirement of this CUP and is in effect upon issuance of
a Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration of the expanded mining operation.
Monitoring: County staff may periodically check of the truck arrival and
departure record to determine Permittee's compliance with traffic and congestion
limits.
70
149
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 20 of 51
23. Internal Access Road (T 1-1A)
Intent: In order to avoid congestion impacts on the Grimes Grade section of
SR 23, an existing paved road shall be used as an alternate access to the
mining site.
Requirement: No project-related heavy trucks shall use SR-23 between SR-23
Mile Post 18.50 and 21.00. Trucks shall avoid travelling between these Mile
Posts by using an existing paved road for internal hauling and access to SR 23.
The general alignment of this existing paved road is shown in Appendix B.
This internal access road shall have the following characteristics:
a. The southern intersection with SR-23 shall be improved by the
applicant to Caltrans standards as directed by the Ventura County
PWA. Ventura County PWA shall also approve the improvement
schedule.
b. All of the access road, as well as 10 feet on either side of the road
shall be included within the CUP boundaries and shall be subject to
all CUP conditions of approval.
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide engineered plans for the
connection with State Route 23 to CALTRANS for review and approval.
Timing: The required plans for the connection with State Route 23 shall be
approved CALTRANS, and the road constructed in accordance with such
approved plans, prior to the issuance of the Zoning Clearance for Use
Inauguration under the requested modified CUP and Amended Reclamation
Plan.
Monitoring: CALTRANS staff shall review the plans for the connection to SR
23. . In addition to the mandated annual inspection of the site udder the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act, the County retains the authority to conduct special
inspections to ensure that the internal access road is used and maintained.
24. Overnight parking of heavy trucks (T 1-1B)
Intent: In order to protect surface and groundwater quality, overnight onsite
parking of heavy trucks shall be limited.
Requirement: A maximum of 20 heavy trucks and trailers may be parked
overnight on the project site at any one time. This parking is allowed provided
that:
71
150
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 21 of 51
a. The trucks are parked for one night only and depart the site by 8:00 AM
the following workday morning. The personal vehicles of truck drivers
may be parked on the project site during the day.
b. It is limited to commercial aggregate hauling trucks.
c. No maintenance, repair, or fueling of the trucks or the personal vehicles of
the truck drivers occurs on the project site.
d. All operations and activities related to overnight parking conforms to the
"hours of operation" listed in Condition No. 1 (Project Description).
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide a Parking Plan to the County
Planning Division. This Plan shall describe the location and configuration,
surfacing, drainage facilities, and operational characteristics of the proposed
parking facilities.
Timing: Prior to the initiation of overnight parking on the project site under this
CUP, the Parking Plan shall be approved by the Planning Director in consultation
with the Watershed Protection District.
Monitoring: The Planning Director, in consultation with the Watershed
Protection District, shall review the submitted Parking Plan for adequacy to avoid
water quality impacts. If the Parking Plan is approved by the Planning Director,
the Permittee's implementation of the approved Plan shall be subject to periodic
site inspections conducted by County staff.
25. Limit on peak-hour truck trips at the SR118/SR34 intersection (T 1-4)
Intent: In order to avoid increased peak-hour traffic congestion at the
SRI 18/SR34 intersection, heavy truck traffic shall be limited.
Requirement: Heavy truck traffic associated with project operations shall be
limited to 64 PHTs during any single day within the morning peak traffic
congestion period (6:00 to 8:00am) and the afternoon peak traffic congestion
period (3:00 to 6:00 pm) at the SR118/SR34 intersection. The Permittee shall
maintain a record of truck arrivals and departures. The Permittee shall inform
truck drivers in writing that southbound deliveries should be transported to the
extent feasible on the SR23 freeway south of Moorpark.
Documentation: The Permittee shall make the record of truck arrivals and
departures available to the County of Ventura and other government agencies
upon request. The record shall be maintained in paper and electronic form.
Along with the record of truck trips, the trip generation shall be summarized
monthly in an Excel table format consisting of AM and PM Peak-Hour Trips and
Total Average Daily Trips. The Permittee shall provide a copy of the notification
letter to the County and maintain the letter posted in the facility office.
Timing: The requirement to maintain a record of truck arrivals and departures is
an ongoing operational requirement of this CUP and is in effect upon issuance of
72
151
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 22 of 51
a Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration. A copy of the notification letter shall
be provided to the County prior to the issuance of the Zoning Clearance for Use
Inauguration under the modified CUP and amended Reclamation Plan.
Monitoring: County staff shall review the notification letter for adequacy and
may periodically check the arrival and departure record for the Permittee's
compliance with these limits.
26. Facility entrance improvements (T 2-1)
Intent: In order to reduce safety hazards and traffic congestion, the entrances to
the mining facility shall be improved.
Requirement: The Permittee shall fund and construct the following
improvements at the entrances to the facility:
a. A dedicated left turn lane that includes a minimum of 150 feet of vehicle
storage.
b. A right turn deceleration lane that provides a minimum of 150 feet for
deceleration and a 90-foot transition.
c. A right-turn acceleration lane that provides a minimum of 150 feet for
acceleration and a 90-foot transition.
The final design of the improvements shall be in conformance with the standards
of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Documentation: The Permittee shall submit a complete permit application to
Caltrans for the construction of the required improvements.
Timing: The permit application shall be submitted to Caltrans prior to the
issuance of the Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration under this permit. The
improvements shall be constructed within one year of the grant of a permit by
Caltrans.
Monitoring: Caltrans staff, in coordination with Ventura County Public Works
Agency, shall review and approve the submitted permit application. County staff
shall conduct periodic site inspections to monitor the Permittee's implementation
of the required construction.
Note: The provisions of Requirement a. above shall not be in effect for the
northern entrance to the mining facility if (1) the development of the proposed
southern facility entrance is approved and accomplished in accordance with
Condition No. 21 or (2) it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County
Planning Director and CALTRANS that such improvement is not feasible or
needed.
73
152
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 23 of 51
27. Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees (T 3-1)
Intent: In order to offset the project's contribution to cumulative increases in
traffic volume, the Permittee shall pay traffic mitigation fees.
Requirement: The Permittee shall pay the following required Traffic Impact
Mitigation Fees (TIMF) pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Traffic Impact
Mitigation Fees for Maintenance and Improvement of Regional Road Network
and City Streets, County Ordinance No. 4071 (1994) for each average daily
vehicle trip (ADT) above the previously permitted level that is authorized by this
modified CUP:
Jurisdiction Current Fee(s) per New ADT
a. County of Ventura $11.23
b. City of Fillmore $63.83
c. City of Moorpark $15.49
These fees apply only to an approved increase in heavy truck ADTs above the
previously permitted volume and an increase in on-site employees over the
number of existing number of employees (22 employees). ADTs for employees
are calculated as 1.5 ADT per new employee. The actual fees to be paid shall be
based on the TIMF fees, service areas, and procedures for each jurisdiction in
effect at the time increased ADTs are authorized. The TIMF fee may be adjusted
for inflation at the time of deposit in accordance with the latest version of the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide the County Planning Division with
letters from the County Public Works Agency, the City of Fillmore and the City of
Moorpark that document that the required TIMF has been paid.
Timing: Prior to the issuance of the Zoning Clearance to allow increased
average daily trips by material hauling heavy trucks, the required fees shall be
paid.
Monitoring: County Planning Division staff shall review the documentation
submitted by the Permittee to determine if Permittee has made full payment of
the respective TIMFs.
28. Limitations on Haul Route
Intent: In order to minimize truck traffic on Walnut Canyon Road and SR 23
through the City of Moorpark, the use of Grimes Canyon Road for south-directed
trucks shall be encouraged.
Requirement: The mine operator shall inform the driver of each southbound
material hauling truck that Grimes Canyon Road South is the preferred route for
74
153
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 24 of 51
all trucks heading to State Highway 118. Walnut Canyon Road and SR 23
through the City of Moorpark should not be used unless making a delivery to a
local purchaser such as the permitted concrete and asphalt manufacturing
facilities located within the City of Moorpark. The mine operator shall provide to
each driver of a southbound truck a "Notice of Southern Haul Route" that
provides the above information.
Documentation: The mine operator shall submit a draft Notice of Southern Haul
Route to the County Planning Division for review and approval.
Timing: The operator shall obtain approval of the Notice prior to issuance of the
Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration.
Monitoring: County staff shall review and approve the submitted Notice. County
staff shall ensure implementation of this condition as part of the required periodic
inspections of the site.
29. Enhanced dust control plan (AQ 1-1)
Intent: In order to minimize dust generation from onsite excavation and material
transport activities, the Permittee shall implement additional dust control
measures.
Requirement: The Permittee shall prepare an Enhanced Dust Control Plan
(EDCP) for the project site. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, the
following measures:
a. Stabilization of previously disturbed areas that are currently inactive
or have reached the final reclaimed topography specified in the
approved Reclamation Plan through periodic application of
environmentally-safe dust control agents or hydroseeding. This
action is required until permanent vegetation is established in
accordance with the approved Reclamation Plan. Inactive areas
are those mined lands that have not been disturbed for more than
180 days.
b. Periodic application of water or environmentally-safe dust control
agents to 1) onsite unpaved roadways, staging areas, and vehicle
parking areas to minimize fugitive dust generated by vehicle travel,
and 2) material stockpiles to minimize wind-generated dust.
c. Enforcement of a 15 MPH vehicle speed limit on unpaved surfaces.
d. Application of water to areas under active excavation operations,
including the mine working face.
e. Use of misting equipment on conveyor belts.
Documentation: The Permittee shall submit the EDCP to the County Planning
Division for review and approval.
75
154
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 25 of 51
Timing: The EDCP shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of the
Zoning Clearance to authorize an increase in Average Daily Trips (ADTs) for
material hauling trucks.
Monitoring: County Planning Division staff, in consultation with the Ventura
County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), shall review, and if found
adequate, approve the submitted EDCP. Permittee's use of any chemical dust
stabilizer must have prior approval of the LA Regional Water Quality Control
Board and the VCAPCD. County staff and/or VCAPCD staff may periodically
review Permittee's implementation of the EDCP through site inspections to
assure compliance with the CUP and approved Reclamation Plan. The VCAPCD
has primary responsibility to investigate, respond, and resolve any citizen
complaints regarding dust from the project site.
30. Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations (AQ 1-2)
All facilities shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the VCAPCD. These rules include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• Rule 10 (Permits Required)
• Rule 50 (Opacity)
• Rule 51 (Nuisance)
• Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust) modified as follows: The project shall not allow
visible track-out (dirt, mud or product debris) to extend 25 feet or more in
length from the access road onto SR-23. If track-out occurs, it shall be
removed as soon as possible, but no later than one hour after it is
deposited.
• Rule 55.1 (Paved Roads and Public Unpaved Roads)
Where a VCAPCD rule conflicts with a CUP condition, the more restrictive
requirement shall apply.
31. Hauling of aggregate to minimize spillage (AQ 1-3)
Intent: In order to minimize the spillage or inadvertent escape of dust, debris,
and aggregate material from aggregate material hauling trucks, all loads must be
hauled in trucks which conform to applicable State law and regulation.
Requirement: All aggregate material hauling trucks loaded with aggregate
materials must comply with all applicable requirements of California Vehicle
Code Section 23114, especially regarding the transport of aggregate materials.
The Permittee shall prominently install signage on the subject property to inform
all aggregate material hauling truck drivers of the legal requirements set forth in
Vehicle Code section 23114 at the scales, entrance and exit of the facility.
76
155
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 26 of 51
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide to the County Planning Division
with photographs demonstrating that the required signs have been properly
installed.
Timing: The required signage shall be installed prior to the issuance of the
Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration.
Monitoring: County Planning Division staff shall review the submitted
photographs to assure proper installation of required signage. The maintenance
of the required signage shall be monitored by County staff during site inspections
and through response to complaints. (Note: The Permittee is not responsible for
violations of the Vehicle Code committed by independent aggregate material
hauling truck drivers.)
32. Ozone Precursor/Carbon Dioxide Reduction (AQ 2-1)
Intent: In order to offset the generation of ozone precursor air pollutants over
the extended life of the mining operation, the Permittee shall participate in an air
pollution reduction program.
Requirement: The Permittee, the Planning Division, and VCAPCD shall execute
a legally enforceable agreement, whereby the Permittee shall implement one of
the following two actions to reduce ozone precursor emissions related to the
subject project:
a. Make on-site or other expenditures as approved by the Planning Division
and the VCAPCD to reduce ozone precursor emissions from permitted
and proposed mining operations to below the applicable VCAPCD air
quality significance thresholds pursuant to CEQA. Expenditures made by
the Permittee subsequent to November 13, 2003 (i.e. the date of
publication of the Notice of Preparation for the project EIR) that are
determined by the VCAPCD to meet eligibility criteria under the Carl
Moyer program and all other applicable provisions of this condition shall
be counted toward compliance with this condition of approval.
b. Pay an in-lieu fee in an amount not to exceed $210,455 to the VCAPCD
for the purpose of funding air pollutant emission reduction programs in
Ventura County. Terms and conditions of such payment shall be
determined by the VCAPCD in consultation with the Permittee. This fee
shall be based the cost-effectiveness of projects funded by the VCAPCD's
Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Health &
Safety Code §44275 et seq.). The funds shall be used by the VCAPCD
to fund air pollutant emission reduction projects in Ventura County. Based
on VCAPCD formulas, the total cost to be paid by the Permittee to reduce
77
156
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 27 of 51
the project-related air quality impacts shall be $1,315 per average daily
trip (ADT) authorized under this permit or a total payment of$210,455.
Documentation: The Permittee, the County Planning Division, and the
VCAPCD shall sign and execute a legally binding agreement to implement the
above requirements, whichever of the two options is selected by Permittee.
The agreement shall, at a minimum, include the following features:
a. The payment of fees, calculated based on the amount of project
operational emissions from mobile sources in excess of standards (i.e.,
after mitigation the net project-related emissions are not to exceed 25
pounds per day for either NOx or ROC), into a fund administered by the
VCAPCD. Said fees must be determined based on the cost-effectiveness
of projects funded by the VCAPCD's Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality
Standards Attainment Program.
b. Payment of the assessed fees over a time period mutually agreeable to all
parties.
c. The Planning Division and VCAPCD shall be entitled to recover all costs
of developing the agreement and, in the case of VCAPCD, the cost of
administrating the expenditure of the funds so collected. This cost is in
addition to the off-set fees listed in Item b., above.
d. The VCAPCD shall use the fees to fund emission reduction projects in
Ventura County. The projects the VCAPCD could fund include, but are
not limited to, project types eligible for funding under the VCAPCD's
emission reduction incentive programs, such as the:
(1) Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program;
(2) Clean Air Fund; and,
(3) Lower Emissions School Bus Program.
Timing: Prior to the issuance of the Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration
under this CUP, the Permittee shall file a copy of the signed, executed
agreement with the Planning Division and VCAPCD. The Permittee shall make
payments of any in-lieu fees or air pollution reduction expenditures in accordance
with the payment schedule of the agreement. VCAPCD staff shall provide the
Planning Division with annual reports, as discussed in Monitoring, below.
Monitoring: Planning Division and VCAPCD staff shall review the agreement to
ensure that it complies with the requirements of this condition (above). The
VCAPCD shall ensure that the Permittee makes all payments in accordance with
the payment schedule of the agreement. The VCAPCD shall provide the
Planning Division with annual reports to inform the Planning Division of
78
157
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 28 of 51
compliance with the agreement. The Planning Division shall review the annual
reports consistent with the requirements of §8114-3 of the Ventura County Non-
Coastal Zoning Ordinance.
33. Groundwater Recharge (WR 1-1)
Any fine-grained material remaining on the site at the time of final reclamation
shall be used in revegetation activities or otherwise disposed of in a manner
determined to not substantially affect groundwater recharge as determined by the
Planning Director in consultation with the Watershed Protection District-
Groundwater Section.
34. Groundwater Supply(WR 2-1)
Irrigation of reclaimed areas shall be limited only to establishing vegetation
consistent with the approved reclamation plan and any biological resource
mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval. Irrigation shall cease
once the vegetation is established to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
35. Design of maintenance areas (WR 4-1)
Intent: In order to protect groundwater quality, all maintenance areas shall be
designed to avoid seepage of pollutants into the ground.
Requirement: All fuel storage, refueling, washout and equipment maintenance
areas shall be placed on bermed concrete surfaces, which are underlain by 80
mil high-density polyethylene (HDPE). The HDPE seams shall be sealed and the
edges turned up. If the bermed concrete surfaces drain to a sump, the sump
shall be cleaned and the waste fluids disposed of in compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations. If the bermed concrete surfaces do not drain to
a sump, routine cleaning shall be conducted to prevent the surface from
becoming slippery. The cleaning solutions and wash water shall be handled in
the same manner as the sump fluids. Areas designated for washing functions
shall be at least 100 feet from any riparian storm drain, water body or sensitive
biological resources.
Documentation: The Permittee shall submit a Maintenance Area Plan to the
County Planning Division that describes the location and design of all onsite
maintenance areas.
Timing: Prior to the issuance of the Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration
under this CUP.
Monitoring: Compliance with this condition of approval will be verified by
County staff as part of required periodic site inspections.
79
158
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 29 of 51
36. General industrial stormwater permit(WR 4-2)
Intent: In order to prevent water pollution, the Permittee shall comply with
stormwater regulations.
Requirement: The Permittee shall maintain the mining facility in compliance with
all water quality provisions set forth in NPDES General Permit No. CAS000001
and State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ,
Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff
Associated with Industrial Activities, including the preparation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
The SWPPP shall address all issues required by regulation including the
following:
• Storage and containment of fuels, solvents, and any other fluids that may
contaminate soils;
• Fueling operations and maintenance and repair of vehicles and
equipment;
• Procedures and employee training to respond to accidental spills
• Prevention of downstream sedimentation due to mining operations
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide to the Public Works Agency —
Watershed Protection District proof of coverage (compliance) in the form of a
current Notice of Intent (NOI) and a copy of the required annual report that
includes all water quality monitoring data.
Timing: The required documentation shall be provided by July 1st of each year.
Monitoring: Watershed Protection District staff shall review the submitted
reports to determine if the Permittee is in compliance with regulations. County
Planning Division staff may review required reports as part of ongoing checks of
compliance with this CUP.
37. Restrictions on future animal keeping (WR 4-3)
Intent: In order to minimize the potential for future degradation of groundwater
quality, the keeping of animals shall be restricted.
Requirement: All animals used for food, fiber or recreation shall be banned in
perpetuity on the disturbed or reclaimed surface outcrop of the Fox Canyon
aquifers as determined by Ventura County. Said ban shall also extend for 200
feet around such areas. This Mitigation Measure is designed: (1) to ensure that
recharge on the aquifer outcrop does not become mechanically reduced by
compaction from the weight of the animals or entrapment of feces; and, (2) to
remove nitrogen loading of water percolating into the aquifer from animal feces
80
159
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 30 of 51
and/or urine. A shorter setback distance or the removal of the animal prohibition
may be approved if demonstrated to the County's satisfaction by adequate
analysis and report that there is no potential for substantial water quality
degradation due to a proposed animal operation.
Documentation: The Permittee shall record a Restrictive Covenant using a
form prepared and provided by the County on the property to prohibit future
animal keeping on the aquifer outcrop.
Timing: Prior to the issuance of the Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration
under the modified CUP and amended Reclamation Plan, the Permittee shall
provide a copy of the recorded Restrictive Covenant to the County Planning
Division.
Monitoring: County Planning Division staff shall place the recorded Restrictive
Covenant in the project file. County Watershed Protection District staff shall
review any request for modified setbacks or animal operations.
38. Flood control facilities (WR 5-1)
Intent: In order to assure that onsite drainage is conveyed in a non-erosive
manner and does not contribute to offsite flooding, a detention basin shall be
constructed in accordance with established standards.
Requirement: The Permittee shall cause a drainage facility design report and
associated plans to be prepared by a Civil Engineer licensed to practice in the
State of California. The plans must clearly provide design details (length, width,
height, depth of water, outlet works, etc.) on a detention basin that are sufficient
for construction. The drainage report must conform to the District's hydrology
and hydraulics (design) manuals. At a minimum, the Permittee is required to
detain all peak flows over the pre-developed Q10 level.
The Permittee shall construct the improvements described in the design report
ultimately approved.
Documentation: The Permittee shall submit the required design report and
plans to the Watershed Protection District for review and approval. After
construction of the drainage improvements, the Permittee shall provide as-built
plans to the Watershed Protection District.
Timing: The design report and associated plans shall be submitted to, and
approved by, the Watershed Protection District prior to the issuance of the
Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration under the modified CUP and amended
Reclamation Plan. The required improvements shall be constructed within six
months of plan approval.
81
160
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 31 of 51
Monitoring: Staff of the Watershed Protection District shall review the submitted
documentation for compliance with regulatory requirements. County Planning
Division staff may review the required reports as part of ongoing checks of
compliance with this CUP.
39. Slope design requirements (WR 5-2)
1. Reclamation slopes shall be shown by the project geotechnical
engineer and geologist to be grossly stable under both static and
pseudo-static conditions. The slopes must also be shown to be
surficially stable using results obtained from low normal weight shear
tests.
2. For slopes that have a slope ratio equal to or greater than 3:1 (h:v) the
minimum setback shall be 20 feet regardless of the height. The lower
one-third of the slope shall be concave to blend with the floor of the
mine.
3. For slopes that have a slope ratio between 3:1 and 2:1 (h:v) the
minimum setback shall be 30 feet up to a height of 100 feet, and an
additional 30 feet for each 100 feet of height. The lower one-third of the
slope shall be concave to blend with the floor of the mine.
4. For slopes steeper than a 2:1 ratio, the minimum setback shall be 20
feet up to a height of 50 feet, 50 feet up to a height of 100 feet, and an
additional 50 feet for each 100 feet in height unless demonstrated that
the slope surface is not subject to erosion and the surface can be
successfully revegetated (SMARA Section 3704-d). In these cases, the
setback shall be provided by the project geotechnical engineer and
. geologist. The lower one-third of the slope shall be concave to blend
with the floor of the mine.
5. Drainage terraces or benches are not required for slope gradients that
mimic the adjacent natural slopes. For slopes that exceed the natural
slope gradients, drainage benches and terraces shall not be
perpendicular to the slope face and shall provide for drainage
diagonally across the slope face at gradients to minimize erosion and
shall be designed by the project civil engineer.
(Note: Implementation of the proposed Amended Reclamation Plan (RP12-
0001) satisfies this mitigation measure as the design measures listed above
have been incorporated therein.)
82
161
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 32 of 51
40. Mitigation of impacts on sensitive plant communities (BR 1-1)
Intent: in order to mitigate for the loss of sensitive plant communities and habitat
for special-status species due to mining activities, the Permittee shall
permanently protect existing unprotected habitats that would not be affected by
mining activities.
Requirement: The Permittee shall permanently protect currently unprotected
habitats through direct acquisition and dedication (i.e., donation or permanent
encumbrance with a conservation easement) of land to a conservation
organization or through adequate funding of such land acquisition by a
conservation organization to accomplish this objective. The dedication of land
shall include an endowment to fund maintenance of the dedicated land. The
maintenance endowment fund shall be sufficient to generate $6,000 annually,
based on a 3 percent interest rate. (A lesser annual maintenance fund amount
may be accepted if deemed adequate by the Planning Director and the
conservation organization that will receive the donation or hold the easement.)A
one-time start-up fee of $3,000 shall also be required. If non-contiguous
properties are donated, the endowment fund shall be increased to an amount
sufficient to generate:
•an additional $500 annually if the properties are less than ten road miles apart
•an additional $1,000 annually if they are between 10 to 20 road miles apart, and
•an additional $1,500 annually if they are over 20 road miles apart.
The acreage of various habitat types that must be protected to mitigate for
project impacts is indicated in the table below. The selected mitigation land must
have equivalent or greater overall habitat value than the land being affected by
surface mining activities. Priority shall be given to mitigation lands located on or
adjacent to the project site, including those located on Oak Ridge. The land
selected to meet this requirement must contain a population of wedge-leaf
horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula), in accordance with Mitigation Measure
BR 1-2 below.
so�rvt , .att�
r _ , hnpact A � t �
Reclamation = 1>( cfes o
Habitat Type r►.
Venturan 2:1 1:1 1:1 56.27 56.27
Coastal Sage
Scrub
Sparsely 0.5:1 None 0.5:1 9.13 4.57
Vegetated Steep
Slopes (i.e.,
sparse coastal
sage scrub) _
Grassland 1:1 1:1 0 N/A N/A
Oak Woodland 2:1 None 2:1 2.14 4.28
Walnut 2:1 None 2:1 4.78 9.56
83
162
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 33 of 51
Woodland
Southern 2:1 None 2:1 1.4 2.8
Riparian Scrub
Total= 73.72 77.48
An alternate method of meeting the above requirements may be proposed by the
Permittee. This alternate method of meeting the requirements of this condition
of approval, and its corresponding mitigation measure, must be equivalent to or
more effective than the measures outlined in this condition of approval in
meeting the goal of permanent protection of habitat in order for it to be accepted
by the County. "Equivalent to or more effective than" means that the alternate
method will avoid or reduce the significant environmental effect addressed by
this condition of approval to at least the same degree as, or to a greater degree
than, the requirements stated above and will create no more adverse effect of its
own than would the above permit condition requirements. The Planning Director,
in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall
determine if an alternate method is "equivalent to or more effective than" the
above permit condition requirements.
Documentation: The Permittee shall submit to the Planning Division a plan for
acquisition and protection of habitats. The plan shall include the following
elements:
• The location, acreage, and habitat types for all land proposed to be
permanently protected;
• Provisions for long-term maintenance of the protected land;
• The identity of the party responsible for acquisition, protection, and
long-term maintenance required by the approved plan;
• The proposed endowment fund amount consistent with the above
listed requirements; and
• A schedule for acquisition of the land.
The Permittee shall record a restrictive covenant in favor of the County of
Ventura committing the property to natural resource conservation use in
perpetuity. The restrictive covenant must:
1. include a map and legal description of the areas that are subject to the
restrictive covenant;
2. include a description of restricted uses within the restricted area,
equivalent to those listed in the standard Restrictive Covenant
template provided by the County Planning Division; and,
3. be recorded with the Ventura County Recorder so that it appears on
the subject property's title. The Permittee shall submit a copy of the
recorded restrictive covenant to the Planning Division.
Timing: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for use inauguration under
the modified CUP and amended Reclamation Plan, the Permittee shall:
84
163
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 34 of 51
• Provide the plan for acquisition and protection of habitats to the
Planning Division for review and approval.
• Acquire and donate/dedicate land as indicated in the Requirement
section above and the approved acquisition plan.
• Establish the required endowment fund.
• Record a restrictive covenant on the dedicated land.
• Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the restrictive covenant.
Monitoring: The Planning Director, in consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall review and, if found to be adequate in light
of applicable laws and regulations, approve the submitted plan for acquisition
and protection of habitats. The Planning Division shall continue to monitor
Permittee's compliance with this measure to determine if the land has been
acquired (or encumbered by conservation easement) by the conservation
organization as specified in the approved plan for acquisition and protection of
habitats, the endowment fund has been established, and that a restrictive
covenant has been recorded to permanently protect the land.
NOTE:
For the purposes of this mitigation measure, the "conservation organization"must meet all of the
following criteria:
(a) It must be a public conservation agency, or a private non-profit organization chartered under
the US Code, Title 26, Part 501(c)3, whose primary purpose is the preservation and protection of
land in its natural, scenic, historical, recreational and/or open space condition.
(b) If it is a private nonprofit organization, then it must be either a statewide, national or
international organization, or a local community-based organization with a membership of at least
500 individuals and/or businesses.
(c) It must have owned and/or managed natural resource/open space property, at least 50
acres in area, for at least one year. In lieu of meeting this requirement, a Conservation
Organization may provide a financial surety to ensure the stewardship of the Conservation Parcel
for a period of five years.
(d) It must have the institutional and economic ability to maintain the property.
(The above standards are established in Section 6202-3(f)(1)(8) of the Ventura County
Subdivision Ordinance.)
41. Protection of Wedge-Leaf Horkelia (BR 1-2)
Intent: In order to mitigate the loss of wedge-leaf horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp.
puberula), a rare native plant, either an existing population of wedge-leaf horkelia
shall be permanently protected or a population of wedge-leaf horkelia shall be
established off-site and permanently protected.
Requirement: The land selected for permanent protection as required by
Mitigation Measure BR 1-1 (mitigation land) shall contain a healthy population of
wedge-leaf horkelia by implementing one of the following options.
(1)A survey of the mitigation land shall be conducted by a County-approved
botanist to identify the presence of wedge-leaf horkelia and assess the
status and extent of any populations found. If wedge-leaf horkelia is
85
164
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 35 of 51
found on the mitigation land, the Permittee shall demonstrate that the
wedge-leaf horkelia population is healthy and self-sustaining by submitting
a report prepared by the County-approved botanist to the Planning
Division.
(2) If no populations of wedge-leaf horkelia are found on land that is available
for acquisition, a population of wedge-leaf horkelia shall be established on
the mitigation land. To establish a population, the Permittee shall contract
a County-approved horticulturalist with demonstrated experience in native
plant seed collection and propagation to prepare and implement a
Harvesting and Propagation Plan for the wedge-leaf horkelia. The
Harvesting and Propagation Plan must describe:
a. the location of the plants from which the seed will be harvested (e.g.,
plants within the construction footprint, or as a contingency, plants
from another population);
b. the time of year for harvesting;
c. the amount of seed to be collected to ensure persistence of existing
populations that will not be disturbed by the project;
d. methods of storage and propagation in a nursery;
e. location for rare plant replacement on the mitigation land;
f. methods of establishing plants on the mitigation land;
g. methods for maintenance of the site selected for planting to ensure
that the rare plant persists; and
h. the success criteria that will ensure a healthy, self-sustaining
population at the end of the monitoring period.
Documentation:
Option 1: The Permittee shall provide to the Planning Division for review and
approval a report (Survey Report) prepared by a County-approved botanist that
demonstrates that a healthy and self-sustaining population of wedge-leaf horkelia
exists on the mitigation land to be permanently protected shall be provided to the
Planning Division.
Option 2: The Permittee shall provide to the Planning Division for review and
approval a Harvesting and Propagation Plan prepared by a County-approved
horticulturalist that meets the requirements of this condition. A performance
security shall be submitted concurrently to ensure the implementation of the Plan
until the success criteria have been met. The Permittee shall provide annual
reports prepared by a County-approved qualified biologist on the progress of the
established wedge-leaf horkelia population for 5 years (or more if the success
criteria have not been met by Year 5). The annual report shall include the results
of qualitative monitoring (i.e. photographs taken at permanent photo-points and
observations of the health and condition of plantings) and quantitative monitoring
(i.e. total count of the plants on randomly placed transects to estimate density.
86
165
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 36 of 51
Timing:
Option 1: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for use inauguration under
the modified CUP and amended Reclamation Plan, the Survey Report shall be
submitted to the Planning Division.
Option 2: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for use inauguration under
the modified CUP and amended Reclamation Plan, the Harvesting and
Propagation Plan (HPP) and the associated performance security shall be
submitted to the Planning Division. Implementation of the HPP shall begin prior
to the excavation of the area where the existing population of horkelia has been
identified (Padre, 2002). The submittal of annual reports shall be initiated in the
year after the existing population of horkelia has been removed. The annual
reports shall be provided to the Planning Division by December 31 of each year
during the monitoring period.
Monitoring and Reporting:
Option 1: The Planning Division shall review the Survey Report for compliance
with the requirements of this condition.
Option 2: The Planning Division shall review the Harvesting and Propagation
Plan for compliance with the requirements of this condition. The Planning
Division shall review the annual reports for compliance with this condition and
satisfaction of the success criteria. The release of the performance security and
the termination of monitoring will occur when the success criteria have been met
after monitoring Year 5.
42. Permit Boundary and Area of Disturbance (BR 1-3)
Intent: In order to assure that project operations and ground disturbance
remains within approved limits, the permit boundary and areas approved for
ground disturbance shall be identified in the field.
Requirement:
(a) Boundary posts shall be installed at each CUP boundary corner and at no
less than 1,000-foot intervals between boundary corners. The posts shall be
constructed of four-inch square tubular steel, extend a minimum of four feet
above the ground surface, be set in concrete, be numbered, and labeled with
"CUP 4874 Boundary."
(b) Boundary stakes shall be installed at each "Disturbance Area" boundary
corner and at no less than 500-foot intervals between boundary corners. The
stakes shall be composed of metal, painted orange and extend a minimum of
four feet above the ground surface.
Alternate materials and boundary marker design may be utilized upon approval
by the Planning Director.
87
166
Grimes Rods,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 37 of 51
(Note: The term "boundary corner"shall refer to points of change in the trend of
the boundary line.)
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide to the County Planning Division a
copy of the project site plan that depicts the CUP and disturbance area boundary
lines, the property lines, topographic contours, and the surveyed location of each
boundary post or stake. In addition, the Permittee shall provide photographs that
demonstrate that the required boundary markers have been installed.
Timing: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration, the
required boundary markers shall be installed. The required boundary markers
shall be maintained for the effective term (i.e. initial term and any extension) of
this CUP.
Monitoring: Planning Division staff shall review the submitted documentation to
assure that the required markers are installed prior to operations under this
permit.
43. Limitation on disturbed area (BR 1-5)
Intent: In order to minimize impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat and to assure
phased reclamation of the mining site, the area of active operations shall be
limited.
Requirement: The area of land under active mining operations shall not exceed
60 acres at any one time. For purposes of this condition of approval, "land under
active mining operations" refers to land that is not in a pre-mining natural state,
not undergoing reclamation or not previously reclaimed in accordance with an
approved Reclamation Plan.
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide a written summary of acreage
disturbed, undergoing reclamation and reclaimed in conjunction with the annual
inspection required by SMARA. In addition, the Permittee shall provide an aerial
photograph of the mining facility to the County Planning Division upon request of
the Planning Director.
Timing: The Permittee shall provide the required information within 30 days of
the annual inspection of the site required by SMARA.
Monitoring: Planning Division staff shall verify and document compliance with
this condition as part of the annual inspection required by SMARA.
44. Obtain Permits from Federal and State Resource Agencies (BR 4-1)
Intent: To ensure compliance with all applicable regulations implemented by
State and Federal agencies.
88
167
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 38 of 51
Requirement: The Permittee shall notify the following agencies of the
impending initiation of surface mining activities pursuant to the modified CUP and
Amended Reclamation Plan.
- California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Section 1602 Agreement);
- US Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 Individual Permit);
- Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Section 401 Water
Quality Certification); and,
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (Section 7 Consultation, only if the
coastal California Gnatcatcher is determined to be present)
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide written proof or documentation to
the County that the Permittee has obtained from each agency either: (1) a letter
stating that a permit is not required or, (2) an official permit from an affected
governmental agency.
Timing: The Permittee shall provide the written documentation to the County
Planning Division prior to the initiation of vegetation clearing and excavation or fill
activities within the jurisdictional riparian habitats identified in Figure 4.6-2 of the
FEIR.
Monitoring: The Planning Division maintains a copy of the documentation
provided by the Permittee in the project file. Monitoring of any mitigation
measures required by another agency is the responsibility of that agency.
45. Protection of nesting birds (BR 7-1)
Intent: In order to prevent impacts on native bird species protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, land clearing activities shall be regulated.
Requirement: The Permittee shall conduct all demolition, tree
removal/trimming, vegetation clearing, and grading activities (collectively, "land
clearing activities") in such a way as to avoid nesting native birds. This can be
accomplished by implementing one of the following options:
a. Timing of construction: Prohibit land clearing activities during the breeding
and nesting season (February 1 —August 31), in which case the following
surveys are not required; or
b. Surveys and avoidance of occupied nests: Conduct site-specific surveys
prior to land clearing activities during the breeding and nesting season
(February 1 —August 31) and avoid occupied bird nests. Surveys shall be
conducted to identify any occupied (active) bird nests in the area proposed
for disturbance. Occupied nests shall be avoided until juvenile birds have
vacated the nest. All surveys shall be conducted by a County-approved
biologist.
An initial breeding and nesting bird survey shall be conducted 30 days
prior to the initiation of land clearing activities. The project site must
89
168
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 39 of 51
continue to be surveyed on a weekly basis with the last survey completed
no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of land clearing activities. The
nesting bird survey must cover the development footprint and 300 feet
from the development footprint. If occupied (active) nests are found, land
clearing activities within a setback area surrounding the nest shall be
postponed or halted. Land clearing activities may commence in the
setback area when the nest is vacated (juveniles have fledged) provided
that there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by
the County-approved biologist. Land clearing activities can also occur
outside of the setback areas. The required setback is 300 feet for most
birds and 500 feet for raptors, as recommended by CDFW. This setback
can be increased or decreased based on the recommendation of the
County-approved biologist and approval from the Planning Division.
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide to the Planning Division a Survey
Report from a County-approved biologist documenting the results of the initial
nesting bird survey and a plan for continued surveys and avoidance of nests in
accordance with the requirements above. Along with the Survey Report, the
Permittee shall provide a copy of a signed contract (financial information
redacted) with a County-approved biologist responsible for the surveys,
monitoring of any occupied nests discovered, and establishment of mandatory
setback areas. The Permittee shall submit to the Planning Division a Mitigation
Monitoring Report from a County-approved biologist following land clearing
activities documenting actions taken to avoid nesting birds and results.
Timing: If land clearing activities will occur between February 1 and August 31,
nesting bird surveys shall be conducted 30 days prior to initiation of land clearing
activities, and weekly thereafter, and the last survey for nesting birds shall be
conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of land clearing activities. The
Survey Report documenting the results of the first nesting bird survey and the
signed contract shall be provided to the Planning Division prior to the initiation of
land clearing activities. Land clearing activities shall not occur until the Survey
Report and contract are found adequate by the County Planning Division. The
Mitigation Monitoring Report shall be submitted within 14 days of completion of
the land clearing activities on the subject area of land.
Monitoring: The Planning Division shall review the Survey Report and signed
contract for adequacy in meeting the objectives of this mitigation measure. The
Planning Division shall maintain copies of the signed contract, Survey Report,
and Mitigation Monitoring Report in the project file.
46. Protection of special-status wildlife (BR 7-2A)
Intent: In order to prevent impacts on special status wildlife during construction,
land clearing activities shall be regulated.
90
169
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 40 of 51
Requirement: A County-approved biologist with a CDFW Scientific Collecting
Permit shall conduct surveys for special-status wildlife, including coast homed
lizard, coastal western whiptail, and silvery legless lizard. The first survey shall
be conducted 30 days prior to initiation of demolition, tree removal/trimming,
vegetation clearing, and grading activities (collectively, "land clearing activities"),
and surveys must continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being
conducted no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of land clearing activities.
Individuals of special-status wildlife species that are found shall be relocated to
suitable undisturbed habitat, at least 500 feet beyond the mining limits. If the
County-approved biologist determines that silt fencing is necessary to prevent
special-status wildlife from returning to the construction area, silt fencing shall be
installed at the edge of the grading footprint with the oversight of the County-
approved biologist.
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide to the Planning Division a Survey
Report from a County-approved biologist documenting the results of the initial
special-status wildlife survey and a plan for continued surveys and relocation of
special-status wildlife in accordance with the requirements above. Along with the
Survey Report, the Permittee shall provide a copy of a signed contract (financial
information redacted) with a County-approved biologist responsible for the
surveys and relocation of wildlife. The Permittee shall submit to the Planning
Division a Mitigation Monitoring Report from a County-approved biologist
following land clearing activities documenting actions taken to prevent loss of
special-status wildlife and results.
Timing: Special-status wildlife surveys shall be conducted 30 days prior to
initiation of land clearing activities, and weekly thereafter, and the last survey for
special-status wildlife shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of
land clearing activities. The Survey Report documenting the results of the first
special-status wildlife survey and the signed contract shall be provided to the
Planning Division prior to issuance of a zoning clearance for construction. The
Mitigation Monitoring Report shall be submitted within 14 days of completion of
the land clearing activities.
Monitoring: The Planning Division shall review the Survey Report and signed
contract for adequacy prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction.
The Planning Division maintains copies of the signed contract, Survey Report,
and Mitigation Monitoring Report in the project file.
47. Woodrat Nest Avoidance and Relocation (BR 7-2B)
Intent: In order to minimize impacts on woodrats, avoidance measures shall be
implemented.
Requirement: Prior to demolition, tree removal/trimming, vegetation clearing,
and grading activities (collectively, "land clearing activities"), a County-approved
91
170
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 41 of 51
biologist with a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Scientific
Collecting Permit shall survey suitable habitat for woodrats within the proposed
limits of disturbance and a 50-foot radius buffer area. If no nests are found, no
further action is required. If active woodrat nests are found during the peak
nesting season (February 1 through May 31), a 50-foot radius buffer area shall
be established around the nests in which land clearing activities will be
postponed until the end of peak nesting season to protect the nest.
Outside of the peak nesting season, nests can be relocated according to the
following instructions and with a County-approved biological monitor present:
a. Create new habitat on adjacent areas not impacted by the project by
providing a vertical structure using local native material such as tree and
shrub trimmings stacked horizontally in areas that are under shady canopies
and upslope of seasonal drainages. Piling rocks removed from the
construction area can also be used to help achieve structure. If multiple
nesting material structures are created they should be a minimum of 25 feet
apart. It is important that the new nesting material be placed under shady
areas or they will not be used. These areas should be in locations that do
not presently provide this habitat structure to create new nesting opportunity
and to reduce potential competition with existing woodrats.
b. After creating habitat outside of the construction footprint, begin vegetation
clearance around the nest structures to reduce woodrat dispersal back into
the project area.
c. Nudge the nest with a front end loader type tractor to flush the woodrats
from the nest. They will usually abandon the nest and run out into adjacent
off site cover.
d. Carefully and slowly pick up the nest material with a front end loader (to
allow any additional woodrats to escape) while maintaining a safe distance
from the nest to reduce health hazards to the workers (dust masks should
be used even when operating equipment).
e. Move the nest material to the creation area and place adjacent to the
created nesting structure.
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide to the Planning Division a Survey
Report from a County-approved biologist that provides the results of the woodrat
survey and a plan for avoidance or relocation of the nests in accordance with the
requirements above. Along with the Survey Report, the Permittee shall provide a
copy of a signed contract (financial information redacted) with the County-
approved biologist who will monitor avoidance and relocation efforts during land
clearing activities. The Permittee shall submit to the Planning Division a
Mitigation Monitoring Report from a County-approved biologist subsequent to the
completion of land clearing activities that documents the actions taken to avoid or
relocate woodrat nests.
Timing: The survey shall be conducted within 30 days of the land clearing
activities. The Survey Report and signed contract shall be provided to the
Planning Division prior to issuance of a zoning clearance for construction. The
92
171
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 42 of 51
Mitigation Monitoring Report shall be submitted within 14 days of completion of
the land clearing activities.
Monitoring: The Planning Division shall review the Survey Report and signed
contract for adequacy with the terms and conditions of this mitigation measure
prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction. The Planning Division
maintains copies of the signed contract, Survey Report, and Mitigation Monitoring
Report in the project file.
48. Avoidance of California Gnatcatcher (BR 10-1)
Intent: In order to prevent impacts on coastal California gnatcatcher if found
onsite, land clearing activities shall be regulated.
Requirement: A County-approved biologist with a section 10(ax1)(A) permit
under the Federal Endangered Species Act shall conduct surveys for coastal
California gnatcatcher in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines for the coastal California gnatcatcher. If
the surveys confirm absence of coastal California gnatcatcher, land clearing
activities can be initiated. If the surveys confirm presence of coastal California
gnatcatcher, the Permittee shall consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide to the Planning Division a Survey
Report from a County-approved biologist with a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit under
the Endangered Species Act documenting the results of the protocol surveys for
coastal California gnatcatcher. If coastal California gnatcatchers are found during
the protocol surveys, the Permittee shall submit to the Planning Division a copy
of the take permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
documentation that the mitigation required by the take permit is being
implemented.
Timing: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for land clearing within
areas not previously excavated, the Permittee shall provide to the County
Planning Division a copy of the Survey Report.
Monitoring: The Planning Division shall review for adequacy the Survey Report
prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for land clearing.
49. Protection of special-status wildlife from lighting Impacts (BR 11-1)
Intent: In order to minimize glare from project lighting and effects on adjacent
habitat areas, project lighting shall be minimized.
Requirement: Project lighting shall be shielded such that light filaments or bulbs
•
will not be visible to drivers on SR-23. In addition, the intensity of light spillover
into lands outside the limits of disturbance shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candles.
93
172
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 43 of 51
Documentation: The Permittee shall submit to the County Planning Division a
photometric analysis that demonstrates compliance with this condition of
approval.
Timing: Prior to the issuance of the Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration
under this CUP, the applicant shall submit the photometric study for review and
approval.
Monitoring: County Planning Division staff shall review and, if found to be
adequate in terms of the intent and objectives of this mitigation measure,
approve the submitted study to assure compliance with this condition. As part of
ongoing compliance monitoring pursuant to Condition No. 10 of this permit, the
County may require additional studies and modification of the installed lighting.
50. Recovery of paleontological resources (PR 1-1)
Intent: In order to partially offset the loss of paleontological resources found in
the formation subject to mineral extraction, the Permittee shall recover
representative samples.
Requirement: The Permittee shall retain a Paleontologist deemed qualified by
the Planning Director to survey areas proposed for future excavation and newly
excavated areas for the presence of fossil remains. The Paleontologist shall
collect representative samples of any fossil remains observed in accordance with
the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines. The samples shall be
prepared for identification and provided to a qualified facility for curation (e.g., the
Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History).
In addition to surveys, the Paleontologist shall be on call to the facility in the
event that substantial fossil remains (e.g. a mammoth) are uncovered during
mining. In this event, excavation activities within 25 feet of the remains shall be
halted until the remains are removed in a manner approved by the paleontologist.
The Paleontologist shall provide training to mining facility personnel on the
recognition of fossil remains.
Documentation: The Permittee shall submit to the County Planning Division a
paleontology mitigation plan for review and approval. This plan shall describe the
proposed survey and sampling methods, and the training to be provided to onsite
personnel.
A survey report that describes the fossils observed and recovered shall be
provided to the County Planning Division.
94
173
Grimes Rock,CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 44 of 51
Timing: The paleontology mitigation plan shall be reviewed and, if adequate,
approved prior to the issuance of the Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration
under this CUP. Survey reports shall be provided annually.
The requirement to conduct paleontological surveys and recover remains shall
be in effect for a minimum of three years after the issuance of the Zoning
Clearance. At the end of the initial three-year period, the Planning Director shall
determine whether to continue, modify or end the program based on the volume
and significance of the fossil remains recovered.
Monitoring: County Planning Division staff shall review the paleontology
mitigation plan and survey reports to assure that this condition is satisfied.
51. Compliance with Approved Amended Reclamation Plan
All surface mining operations shall be conducted in accordance with Amended
Reclamation Plan RP12-0001, as approved or amended by the County of
Ventura. All mining excavation shall take place above the final reclaimed floor
and shall occur within the aerial limits of excavation depicted on Amended
Reclamation Plan maps and cross sections. All mining excavation shall occur in
conformance with the phasing specified in the Amended Reclamation Plan.
52. Compliance with SMARA and SMGB Regulations
All surface mining activities shall occur in conformance with the California
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the reclamation regulations
adopted by the State Mining and Geology Board.
53. Compliance with the Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance
All surface mining activities shall occur in conformance with Section 8107-9 of
the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance.
54. Financial Assurance
Prior to the issuance of any Zoning Clearance for use inauguration under this
permit, or the conduct of any mining operations authorized by this permit, the
Permittee (mine operator) shall post a Financial Assurance based on the
approved Amended Reclamation Plan that is consistent with the requirements of
SMARA Section 2773.1 and deemed adequate by the County of Ventura and the
California Department of Conservation.
55. Exceptions to Permit Conditions
Pursuant to Section 8107-9.6.12 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning
Ordinance, the Planning Director may grant temporary exceptions to the noise
95
174
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 45 of 51
standards, hours of operation, and the conditions of approval provided that the
Planning Director finds that it is necessary because of a declared public
emergency or the off-hours scheduling of a public works project where a formal
contract to conduct the work in question has been issued.
56. Interim Management Plans
As required by Section 2770(h) of SMARA, the operator shall submit an Interim
Management Plan to the County of Ventura within 90 days of the mine becoming
idle. The term "idle" is defined in Section 2727.1 of SMARA. The time period in
which a mine is subject to an Interim Management Plan or considered idle does
not alter the expiration date of this permit or the requirements of the applicable
Approved Reclamation Plan.
57. Copy of Approved Reclamation Plan
A copy of the Approved Reclamation Plan shall be maintained on the mining site
at all times. This copy shall be available for review by Federal, State and County
inspectors, other agency staff, and the general public.
58. Proprietary Information
Information considered by the Permittee to be proprietary in nature that is
required to be submitted to the County shall be so identified by the Permittee and
submitted in separate form. To the extent allowed by law, this information shall
be maintained in a confidential file and not released for public review.
59. Truck staging
No heavy trucks shall arrive or depart the site between: (1) 6:00 pm or sunset as
defined in the local paper, whichever is later; and, (2) 6:00 am. In addition, at no
time shall trucks "stage" (i.e. park and wait for the site to open) in unincorporated
areas within a seven mile radius of the project.
60. Restricted Use of Engine Braking
Intent: In order to minimize noise generated by material hauling trucks, the use
of engine braking shall be restricted to the extent feasible and within
transportation safety rules.
Requirement: The Permittee shall inform all drivers of project-related heavy
trucks to avoid use of engine braking on any road between SR-126 and SR-118
with the following exceptions:
a. On SR-23 between the access roads to the Grimes Rock (CUP 4874)
and Wayne J (CUP 4571) mining facilities.
96
175
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 46 of 51
b. If the Planning Director approves such braking for specific makes and
years of trucks if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director that such braking does not result in significant noise.
c. During emergency situations.
The Permittee shall install signage at the project site that informs truck drivers of
this requirement.
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide to the County Planning Division
photographs that demonstrate that the required signage has been installed.
Timing: Prior to the issuance of the Zoning Clearance for Use Inauguration
under this permit, the signage shall be installed.
Monitoring: County Planning Division compliance staff shall review the
submitted documentation regarding signage for compliance with the terms of this
mitigation measure, may review compliance during any site inspection, and shall
investigate and respond to citizen complaints about the use of engine braking on
heavy trucks traveling from the subject mine.
61. Onsite noise suppression for possible future adjacent residential uses
Intent: Tentative Tract Map No. 5277 was approved by the County of Ventura
on January 25, 2005, and is set to expire on January 24, 2015. This map
subdivides land adjacent to the existing paved road that will be used for material
hauling to the new southern entrance to the mining facility. The map includes
twelve (12) large lots ranging in area from 10 to 28 acres. The location of future
primary dwellings that may be developed on these tentative lots is unknown at
this time. The Tentatively approved TM 5277 subdivision would be accessed by
an entrance on Shekell Road approximately 2,000 feet south of the proposed
CUP boundary of the mining facility. To date, the final map has not been
recorded and no residential development has commenced on the TM 5277 site.
Absent an understanding of the location and design of any potential residential
construction, it is not possible to determine whether the use of the existing paved
road by material hauling trucks could generate noise at a primary residence(s)
that would exceed County standards. However, in order to assure compatibility of
the project with potential future residential uses that may be developed near the
existing paved road to be used by material hauling trucks, noise analysis and
suppression measures may be required in the future.
Requirement: In the event that Tentative Tract Map No. 5277 records and
single family dwellings (primary residences) are constructed within 730 feet of the
existing paved road that connects to the southern mining facility entrance, the
Permittee shall have a study prepared that evaluates the noise level at each such
97
176
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 47 of 51
primary residence that is due to the operation of material hauling trucks. The
Permittee shall implement noise suppression measures identified in the study to
reduce the truck noise experienced at the primary residences developed on the
lots of TM No. 5277 to below the levels listed in County General Plan Policy
2.16.2(4), or substitute regulations as may be adopted by the County.
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide to the County Planning Division for
review and approval a noise study(s) prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer
that describes the level of noise experienced at the primary residence(s)
developed on TM No. 5277 that results from the onsite trucking operations that
involve the southern entrance to the Grimes Rock facility. The noise study shall
include recommended noise suppression measures that would reduce noise
levels at the TM 5277 primary residences to below the thresholds level specified
in County General Plan Policy 2.16.2(4). The initial noise study prepared shall
delineate the area on the TM 5277 property for which noise from the operation of
hauling trucks could possibly exceed County noise policy limits. If the potentially
affected area delineated in the initial noise study falls less than 730 feet from the
existing paved road, the newly delineated area will establish a new distance
threshold for when further noise studies are required. Primary residences
constructed more that 730 feet from the existing paved road or outside of the
limits established in the initial noise study will not require a new noise study or
noise suppression measures.
Timing: The Permittee shall submit the required noise study(s) within 60 days of
the completion of construction (as evidenced by the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy)of a permitted primary residence on TM 5277 located within 730 feet
(or some lesser distance established by a previous noise study deemed
adequate by the County Planning Division). Any required noise suppression
facilities shall be installed.within 90 days of the approval by the County Planning
Division of the required noise study. This time frame may be extended for good
cause at the sole discretion of the Planning Director.
Monitoring: As part of the regular required inspections of the Grimes Rock
mining facility, County staff will determine whether the operator is in compliance
with this condition. Staff will review the submitted reports for adequacy and
maintain noise studies in the project file.
[Note: The 730 foot distance from the existing paved road is based on Figure
2.16.7 of the County General Plan Hazards Appendix. The 730 feet is the
distance from the centerline of SR 23 to the 50 CNEL noise contour created by
the entire current traffic load on the highway. Given the minor proportion (less
than 8 percent) of the SR 23 traffic due to the Grimes Rock facility, this distance
encompasses more area than could possibly experience noise levels due to
hauling trucks that would be inconsistent with County Noise Policy 2.16.2(4).]
98
177
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 48 of 51
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
62. Handling of hazardous material (EH 1)
The storage, handling, and disposal of any potentially hazardous material shall
be in compliance with applicable state regulations.
63. Prevention of mosquito breeding (EH 2)
All water impoundments and storm water collection systems shall be constructed
and maintained in a manner which will prevent the breeding of mosquitoes.
64. Septic sewage disposal systems (EH 3, 4, 5)
Intent: In order to assure that the onsite septic effluent disposal system does not
cause an adverse effect on public health, the Permittee shall comply with
applicable orders issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
Requirement: The Permittee shall comply with Order No. 01-031 adopted by
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) adopted Order
No. 01-031. This Order requires general waste discharge requirements to be
obtained for septic systems utilized by commercial uses. The permittee shall
obtain from the LARWQCB a Waste Discharge Report/determination of
exemption for the onsite septic sewage disposal system from the LARWQCB or
written authorization that allows the Ventura County Environmental Health
Division(VCEHD) to review the subject system and issue necessary permits.
(Note: Only "domestic waste", as defined in the Ventura County Building Code
Ordinance, shall be discharged into septic systems.)
Documentation: The Permittee shall provide to the County Environmental
Health Division a copy of a written determination of exemption or a copy of a
letter of authorization issued by the LARWQCB. Should the VCEHD be
authorized to review and permit any septic systems, the Permittee shall file the
established application and fees in accordance with current ordinance.
Timing: The Permittee shall submit the required documentation, and obtain any
required permits, prior to the issuance of the Zoning Clearance for Use
Inauguration under this CUP.
Monitoring: VCEHD staff shall review all submitted documentation and issue
necessary permits upon the determination that the subject septic systems will
meet established design standards.
99
178
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 49 of 51
65. Portable toilets (EH 7)
If portable toilets are used at the project site, the Permittee shall provide an
adequate quantity of such toilets, and associated hand washing facilities, for use
by on-site personnel. All toilets shall be maintained in a sanitary condition at all
times.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
66. Brush clearance (F 1)
All work areas and parking areas shall be maintained free of flammable
vegetation and debris at all times. Brush shall be cleared within 100 feet of any
permanent structure. No open fires shall be allowed on the project site.
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
67. Grading permits (PW 1)
Intent: In order to assure that all onsite grading meets established standards,
the Permittee shall obtain necessary grading permits.
Requirement: The Permittee shall prepare a site plan that generally depicts the
proposed topographic contours of any area proposed to be graded that is located
outside of the approved mineral extraction sites. If requested by the Public Works
Agency, the Permittee shall have grading plans prepared by a licensed Civil
Engineer and obtain a Grading Permit.
Documentation: The Permittee shall submit to the Public Works Agency (PWA),
for initial review, a site plan that depicts the existing and proposed topographic
contours of an area proposed to be graded. If the PWA determines that a grading
permit is necessary, a set of grading plans prepared by a Civil Engineer shall be
submitted by the Permittee to the PWA as part of a Grading Permit application.
This application shall include some or all of the following informational items, if
requested by the PWA:
• Geology Report prepared by a California Professional Geologist
• Geotechnical/Soils Engineering Report prepared by a licensed Civil
Engineer
• Drainage Analysis report prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer
The design recommendations made in any required report shall be incorporated
into the submitted grading plans.
Timing: Prior to the creation of a cut or fill located outside of the mineral
extraction area, the Permittee shall submit the required documentation. If a
100
179
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 50 of 51
Grading Permit is required, it shall be obtained by the Permittee prior to the onset
of the proposed grading.
Monitoring: County PWA staff shall review the submitted materials and
determine whether a Grading Permit is required. PWA staff shall review any
grading permit application submitted and issue a permit if the proposed grading
meets established ordinance standards.
APPLICANT PROPOSED CONDITION
68. Fair share contribution to proposed cost of constructing proposed SR-23
bypass
Intent: The City of Moorpark has indicated that it believes the Permittee should
pay a "fair share" contribution towards the cost of constructing a proposed
bypass road intended to alleviate traffic on Walnut Canyon Road/Moorpark
Avenue in the downtown section of the City. The final EIR finds that such a fair
share contribution requirement does not constitute feasible mitigation under
CEQA, as it relies on a future funding mechanism that has not been formulated,
funded, or adopted. The conceptual SR-23 bypass road set forth in the City of
Moorpark's General Plan Circulation Element is in the preliminary planning and
design phase, and the timing of construction remains uncertain. A final road
design and engineer's cost estimate have not been prepared or adopted by the
City of Moorpark or by CalTrans, and there is not an adopted funding mechanism
in place to finance the project. Moreover, all rights-of-way required for the
construction of the proposed bypass road have not been obtained. Accordingly,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126.4, 15364 and 15370, the County has
found that the proposed SR-23 bypass road does not constitute a required or
feasible mitigation measure. [for which potentially significant impact? Cite
number in RDEIR].
Notwithstanding the County's conclusion based on the foregoing, Permittee has
voluntarily agreed as a condition of approval of the proposed project to pay its
fair share contribution towards the costs of constructing such a SR-23 bypass
road if and when the fair share funding mechanism meeting the legal
requirements outlined above is finally adopted.
Requirements: If the City of Moorpark completes a final bypass road design,
secures a licensed engineer's cost estimate for the construction of the bypass
road, secures all real property rights and project approvals necessary to
construct the proposed SR-23 bypass, and adopts a fair share contribution
funding mechanism that, together with other documented and secured sources of
financing, is sufficient to fully fund construction of the bypass, then the Permittee,
together with future projects contributing to SR-23 traffic impacts, shall pay a fee
proportional to such project's fair share of such SR-23 traffic impacts. The
Permittee's fair share contribution shall be determined based upon the 48 ADT
101
180
Grimes Rock, CUP 4874-2
Conditions of Approval
Page 51 of 51
increase above the baseline traffic condition, as analyzed in the final EIR, in
relation to the overall capacity of the proposed SR-23 improvements. It is
recognized that some or all of the proposed SR-23 improvements may not be
feasible due to expense, issues with right-of-way acquisition, technical issues, or
lack of approval from other agencies (including the City of Moorpark and
CalTrans).
Documentation: If the City of Moorpark provides the County with written notice
of its satisfaction of the requirements set forth above, the Permittee shall provide
the County Planning Division with a letter from the City of Moorpark that
documents that the Permittee's required fair share contribution has been paid.
Timing: If the City of Moorpark provides the County with written notice of its
satisfaction of the requirements set forth above, and all time periods for
challenge of the City of Moorpark's funding mechanism have expired, then
Permittee shall pay its required fair share contribution within thirty (30) days of
written notice from the City of Moorpark.
Monitoring: County Planning Division staff shall review the documentation
submitted by the Permittee to determine if Permittee has made full payment of its
fair share contribution in accordance with this condition.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
69. Abandoned Oil wells
The abandoned oil and gas wells located on the mining site shall be re-
abandoned in accordance with Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal
Resources (DOGGR) standards if affected by mining excavation. The Permittee
shall inform the County Planning Division and DOGGR immediately if any of the
wells on the property are encountered during surface mining operations.
102
181
Exhibit 6
RESOLUTION OF THE VENTURA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO MAKE THE REQUIRED
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
AND TO
CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE GRIMES ROCK MINING EXPANSION PROJECT
[MAJOR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.4874-1 (CASE No.CUP 4874-2);
AND AMENDED RECLAMATION PLAN(Case No. RP12-0001)File:PL12-0159]
WHEREAS, the Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project, including an Amended
Reclamation Plan [Case Nos. CUP 4874-2 and RP12-0001], constitute a "project" under
the California Environmental Quality Act ["CEQA"; Public Resources Code (PRC),
§21000 et seq.] and CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code Regulations, §15000 et
seq.); and
WHEREAS, the County of Ventura ("County"), as the CEQA Lead Agency for the
Project, prepared an initial study pursuant to CEQA to determine if the Project might
have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the County, on the basis of the initial study, determined that the
Project has the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment and that an
environmental impact report("EIR") is required for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the County, as the CEQA Lead Agency for the Project, prepared a
Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for an EIR for the Project on November 12, 2003 and
distributed the NOP to the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research,
responsible agencies, and other interested parties, in compliance with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of the NOP on November 12, 2003, the State
Clearinghouse issued SCH Number 2003111064 for the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the NOP was circulated for a public review period that began
November 13, 2003 and ended January 5, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the County provided public notice and conducted a scoping meeting
on December 10, 2003, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15082(c), and public testimony
was taken concerning the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in
order to help determine the scope and content of the EIR; and
103
182
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 2 of 22
WHEREAS, the County, as the CEQA Lead Agency, reviewed and considered
the written and oral comments received in response to the NOP and during the public
scoping meeting, and subsequently published a Notice of Availability ("NOA") for a Draft
EIR ("DEIR")for the Project on June 5, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the County made the DEIR available for public review and comment
from June 5, 2006 through August 7, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the County prepared a Final EIR (the "2009 FEIR") for the Project
and made the 2009 FEIR available for public review [on the County Websitej on July 4,
2009, which includes responses to all comments received during the review period for
the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, the County's former Environmental Report Review Committee
("ERRC") held public hearings on July 15, 2009; August 12, 2009; and March 3, 2010
on the 2009 FEIR, and received public comment and testimony on the 2009 FEIR; and
WHEREAS, ERRC voted to find the 2009 FEIR "technically adequate" on March
3, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the 2009 FEIR was not forwarded to the Planning Commission for
its consideration because a 2010 appellate court decision (Nelson v. County of Kern)
found that a SMARA-compliant Reclamation Plan is required to be concurrently
reviewed with a surface mining CUP modification request; and
WHEREAS, an amended Reclamation Plan with a revised project description
was prepared by the project applicant for the proposed mine expansion project pursuant
to the decision in Nelson v. County of Kern; and
WHEREAS, at about the same time, the County of Ventura independently
prepared and adopted revised Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (ISAGs) in June
2010; and
WHEREAS, the County determined that the project applicant's revised project
description as reflected in the proposed amended Reclamation Plan constitutes
"significant new information" pursuant to PRC § 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines
§15088.5 so as to trigger a recirculation of the 2009 FEIR in order to provide the public
with a meaningful opportunity to comment on such changes; and
WHEREAS, the County published a new NOA for a Recirculated Draft EIR
("RDEIR") for the Project on September 10, 2012, and made the RDEIR available for
public review and comment from September 10, 2012 through October 26, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the County prepared a revised Final EIR (the "FEIR") for the Project
that includes responses to all comments received during the review period for the
104
183
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No.CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 3 of 22
RDEIR and made the FEIR available for public review on the County Website' on May
29, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the County published a notice in the Ventura County Star
newspaper on June 13, 2013, advising the general public of the Planning Commission's
consideration of the Project and certification of the FEIR for the Project, which included
an analysis of environmental effects of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2013, the County mailed a Notice of Public Hearing
regarding the Planning Commission hearing to owners of property within 1,000 feet of
the property on which the project site is located and placed a legal ad in the Ventura
County Star. In addition, the owners of all properties located within 300 feet of the
material hauling routes (SR 23, Broadway, and Grimes Canyon Road) between the City
of Fillmore and the City of Moorpark were provided notice. Finally, each city in Ventura
County, the State Office of Mine Reclamation, State and Federal wildlife agencies, the
California Highway Patrol, Caltrans, other organizations, responsible and trustee
agencies, and each person who commented on the Re-circulated Draft EIR were
noticed. Thus, all affected parties were notified of a June 27, 2013, pubic meeting of the
Planning Commission, at which time evidence, both oral and written, including the FEIR,
and the staff report, was presented and received and testimony was heard from all
interested parties appearing on the matter; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on the Project at the Ventura County Government Center, Hall of
Administration, Board Hearing Room, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California;
and
WHEREAS, copies of the notices and affidavits of mailing, posting and
publishing are on file in the office of the Ventura County Resource Management
Agency, Planning Division; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2013, County staff recommended to the Planning
Commission that the FEIR was adequate under CEQA and further recommended
approval of the proposed Project as discussed in the Planning Division staff report for
the Planning Commission and in these CEQA findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR and
supporting documents, including all maps, exhibits, testimony and written documents
contained in the administrative record for the Project, including its environmental
1 The County Website at which the FEIR was posted is:
http://www.ventura.orgirmaiplanning/ceqa/eir.html.
105
184
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 4 of 22
analysis for the Project on record in Ventura County, and the oral presentations given at
the public hearing, and hereby finds that:
1. The FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines.
2. The FEIR was presented to the Planning Commission and was
independently reviewed and considered prior to approving the Project.
3. The FEIR reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and
analysis and is adequate under CEQA.
4. The documents comprising the FEIR, as well as all other documents
contained within the administrative record of proceedings, shall be held
with the Director of the Ventura County Resource Management Agency,
Planning Division, as the official custodian of the record, 800 S. Victoria
Street, L-1740, Ventura, California 93009.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves
and certifies the FEIR as adequate and adopts the following findings pursuant to PRC §
21081 and the CEQA Guidelines (§§ 15043, 15090, 15091, 15092, and 15093) with
respect to the environmental impacts of the Project as identified in the FEIR:
SECTION 1: GENERAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
A. FEIR Organization: The FEIR is one document in three volumes comprising the
FEIR text (Volume 1), Appendices to the FEIR (Volume 2), and letters of public
comment and responses to that comment (Volume 3). The FEIR text (Volume 1)
includes a description of the Project, environmental effects caused by the
Project, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the Project. The Appendices to
the FEIR (Volume 2) include the NOP, Initial Study, NOP comment letters
received during the public review period, technical reports on which the analysis
in the FEIR is based, and the proposed amended Reclamation Plan. Volume 3
includes written comments received during the public review period for the
Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR), and responses to those comments. These
documents are included in the administrative record for this project as Exhibit 4.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project is incorporated
into the conditions of approval for the modified conditional use permit, and are
adequate for adoption by the Planning Commission pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15097.
B. Reliance on the Administrative Record: Each and all of the findings and
determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial
evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire administrative record
before the Planning Commission relating to the FEIR and the Project. The
106
185
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 5 of 22
findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and
determinations of the Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and
completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
C. Nature of the Findings: All of the language included in this document
constitutes findings by the Planning Commission, whether or not any particular
sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. The Planning
Commission considers these findings as an integrated whole and, whether or not
any of these findings fail to cross reference or incorporate by reference any other
part of these findings, any finding required or committed to be made by the
Planning Commission with respect to any particular subject matter of the FEIR,
shall be deemed to be made, if it appears in any portion of these findings.
For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR prepared for a
proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one
or more of three permissible conclusions. The three possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects as identified in the FEIR. (CEQA Guidelines
§ 15091(aX1))
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency. (CEQA
Guidelines § 15091(aX2))
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the FEIR. (CEQA Guidelines §
15091(a)(3))
CEQA Guidelines §15364 defines `feasible" to mean "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking
into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors."
[See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta ii) (1990) 52
Cal.3d 553, 565.]
The concept of "feasibility' also encompasses the question of whether a
particular project alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals
and objectives of a project [City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133
Cal.App.3d 410, 417 (City of Del Mar)]. "[F]easibility" under CEQA encompasses
'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of
107
186
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 6 of 22
the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." [Ibid.;
see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23
Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (Sequoyah Hills); and California Native Plant Society v.
City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 (after weighing "'economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors' ... 'an agency may conclude
that a mitigation measure or alternative is impracticable or undesirable from a
policy standpoint and reject it as infeasible on that ground").]
For a project with significant impacts which are not avoided or substantially
lessened, a public agency, after adopting required findings, may still approve the
project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting
forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits"
rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects" [PRC
§21081(b); and CEQA Guidelines §15093 and §15043(b)]. "The wisdom of
approving ...any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing
of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and
their constituents who are responsible for such decisions." (Goleta II, supra, 52
Cal.3d at p. 576.).
Because the EIR identified significant effects which may occur as a result of the
Project, and in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines
and CEQA case law presented above, the Planning Commission hereby adopts
these findings as part of the Planning Commission's approval of the Project.
In approving the proposed project and making these findings, the Planning
Commission has considered all of the information in the administrative record of
proceedings, including but not limited to the County staff report, all public
comments received both written and verbal, and the FEIR. On the basis of all of
the foregoing information, the Planning Commission finds:
1. Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1), that changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as
identified in the FEIR; and
2. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as
identified in the FEIR; and
3. The FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines and is adequate under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines for
approval of the actions necessary to implement the proposed project; and
108
187
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 7 of 22
4. Project alternatives that substantially reduce or avoid the proposed project's
significant environmental impacts are rejected as infeasible, for the reasons
set forth below.
5. The technical studies and reports upon which the FEIR is based continue to
accurately describe the baseline conditions against which project impacts
are measured, as well as the impacts of the proposed project, and are
sufficiently credible to be considered as part of the total evidence that
supports the Planning Commission's decision.
6. The analysis of traffic impacts set forth in the FEIR is adequate under
CEQA for approval of the actions necessary to implement the proposed
project. Regardless of the fact that the project's CUP expiration date has
been extended from 2025 to 2040, the peak hour trip (PHT) limitations
identified as adequate and feasible mitigation in the FEIR remain adequate
and feasible to address project traffic congestion impacts for the extended
CUP life. Moreover, in light of the fact that the other Grimes Canyon
surface mining expansion projects have not progressed to the point of
governmental approval, the cumulative traffic impacts described in the FEIR
reflect a scenario that is worse than current actual traffic conditions and
overstate the potential traffic impacts of the Project.
D. Limitations: The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the Project
is based on the best information currently available and reasonably feasible. In
evaluating any project, absolute and exhaustive knowledge of all possible
environmental impacts of the project does not always exist. CEQA does not
require lead agencies to engage in speculation. This practical limitation is
acknowledged in the CEQA Guidelines §15151, which state that "the sufficiency
of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible."
E. Summaries of Impacts, Facts, Mitigation Measures, and Protect
Alternatives: All summaries of information in the findings to follow are based on
the FEIR, the Project (and every component thereof) or other evidence in the
administrative record before the Board. The absence of any particular fact from
any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in
part on that fact or substantial evidence in the record.
F. Independent Judgment: The FEIR reflects the County/lead agency's
independent judgment and analysis.
This document includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for
the findings set forth. References to the FEIR and other evidence have been made to
identify the location of more precise information upon which any summary is based.
109
188
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 8 of 22
SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND TO HAVE NO IMPACTS OR TO
BE LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT
During the preparation of the initial Study for the Project and scoping meeting for the
DEIR, and pursuant to the comments received in response to the NOP for the Project,
various potential environmental effects of the Project were identified as being potentially
significant. These effects were analyzed during preparation of the Initial Study, DEIR,
RDEIR, and/or FEIR and found not to involve either project-specific or cumulatively
significant impacts. The substantial evidence that supports the following conclusions is
provided in the FEIR and the administrative record before the Planning Commission.
Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that based upon the information presented in
the FEIR that the environmental issues identified in Table 1 (below) either involve no
impact or impacts that are less than significant and, therefore, neither mitigation
measure(s) nor additional mitigation beyond those features included in the Project are
needed:
110
189
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No.CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 9 of 22
Table 1 — No or Less-than-Significant Project-Specific and Cumulative Impacts
Without Mitigation Beyond the Project Description
No Impact or Less- No Impact or Less-
Resource, Facility,or Environmental Issue Than - lcant Than-Significant
Project-SpeSpecific Cumulative Impact?
Impact?*
Mineral Resources _ Yes Yes
Agricultural Resources(soils and water) Yes Yes
Cultural Resources Yes Yes
Energy Resources Yes Yes
Coastal Beaches and Sand Dunes Yes Yes
Seismic Hazards Yes Yes
Geologic Hazards Yes Yes
Fire Hazards Yes Yes
Noise and Vibration' Yes Yes
Daytime gGlare Yes Yes
Public health Yes Yes
Climate change (generation of greenhouse Yes Yes
gases)
Community character Yes Yes
Land use-Housing Yes Yes
Land use—Growth inducement Yes Yes
Water supply Yes Yes
Waste treatment and disposal Yes Yes
Utilities Yes Yes
Flood control/drainage Yes Yes
Law enforcement/emerg_ency services Yes Yes
Fire protection services _ Yes Yes
Education(Schools and libraries) Yes Yes
Recreation facilities Yes. Yes
SECTION 3: FINDINGS OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AFTER MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED [CEQA
GUIDELINES §15091(a)(1)]
Of the potentially significant impact categories discussed in the FEIR, mitigation
measures have been required which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
adverse environmental effects as identified in the FEIR in the issue areas of traffic and
circulation, air quality, hydrology and water resources, biological resources, and visual
2 Noise and Vibration for this Project was shown as a Potentially Significant Impact in the Initial
Study. However, in accordance with the County's 2010 adopted Initial Study Assessment Guidelines and County
General Plan Policy 2.16.2(4), project-related truck traffic along approved haul routes is not considered a noise
impact. The County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines(ISAGs)were re-adopted in 2010 and specifically exclude
increased traffic noise on State highways, Federal highways, and roads Included in the Regional Road network as
subject to the Noise Thresholds. All of the local haul routes identified for the Grimes Rock facility fall into one of
these roadway categories. Thus,the Proposed Final EIR has been revised to eliminate the identification of on-road
noise due to Project-related truck traffic as an environmental impact of the Project
111
190
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 10 of 22
resources. These mitigation measures are within the County's authority to implement
and they reduce these impacts to less than significant levels, as set forth below:
A. Project-Specific and Cumulative Impacts on Traffic and Circulation
Project-Specific Impacts T-1 and T-2 and Cumulative Impacts T-3, T-4 and
T-5 (FEIR-Section 4.1): The impacts of the Project on traffic patterns are
discussed in the FEIR on pages 4.1-1 through 4.1-82 of FEIR Volume 1 and in
the comments and responses to comments included in FEIR Volume 3. Without
mitigation, the Project could have the following potentially significant impacts on
traffic and circulation:
• Project-specific additional peak hour traffic that would degrade the level of
service on area roadways.
• Project-specific increase in traffic safety hazards at facility entrances.
• Contribute to cumulative traffic congestion.
• Contribute to congestion and safety hazards at the facility entrances.
• Contribute to cumulative safety hazards on State Route 23.
In summary, the Project would result in potentially significant project-specific and
cumulative impacts on traffic and circulation.
Mitigation Measures: The FEIR concluded that the project-specific and
cumulative impacts could be feasibly mitigated by implementation of Mitigation
Measures T1-1, T1-1A, T1-1B, T1-4, T2-1, and T3-1, which are as follows:
• Mitigation Measure T1-1 requires the Permittee to limit southbound truck
trips in the peak-hour to the existing level (64 trips) authorized under the
current permit (CUP 4874-1).
• Mitigation Measure T1-1A requires the Permittee to utilize a new southern
access road to avoid congestion and safety impacts of trucks travelling on
the Grimes Grade section of State Route 23.
• Mitigation Measure T1-1B requires the Permittee to maintain any allowed
onsite truck parking area in accordance with Watershed Protection District
requirements for groundwater protection.
• Mitigation Measure T2-1 requires the Permittee to install safety
improvements at the facility entrances.
• Mitigation Measure T3-1 requires payment of traffic impact mitigation fees
to the County of Ventura, City of Moorpark and City of Fillmore.
112
191
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 11 of 22
Finding: The Planning Commission finds that the implementation of Mitigation
Measures T1-1, T1-1A, T1-1B, T2-1 and T3-1 will avoid or substantially lessen
the significant project-specc impacts, as well as the Project's contribution to
cumulative impacts on traffic and circulation as identified in the FEIR. Residual
impacts are less than significant.
B. Project-Specific and Cumulative Impacts on Air Quality
Project-Specific impacts AQ-1 and AQ-2, and Cumulative Impacts AQ-5 and
AQ-7 (FEIR Section 4.2):The impacts of the Project on air quality are discussed
in the FEIR on pages 4.2-1 through 4.2-38 of FEIR Volume 1 and in the
comments and responses to comments included in FEIR Volume 3. Without
mitigation, the Project could have the following potentially significant impacts on
air quality:
• Project-specific generation of fugitive dust and PKo emissions from onsite
operations.
• Project-specific emissions of ozone precursors.
• Cumulative generation of fugitive dust and PKo emissions from onsite
operations.
• Cumulative emissions of ozone precursors.
In summary, the Project would result in potentially significant project-specific and
cumulative impacts on air quality.
Mitigation Measures: The FEIR concluded that these impacts could be feasibly
mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ1-1, AQ1-2, AQ1-3, and
AQ2-1, which are as follows:
• Mitigation Measure AQ1-1 requires the Permittee to prepare and implement
an enhanced dust control plan.
• Mitigation Measure AQ1-2 requires the Permittee to remain in compliance
with all VCAPCD rules and regulations.
• Mitigation Measure AQ1-3 requires the Permittee to assure that all material
loads are covered.
• Mitigation Measure AQ2-1 requires the Permittee to pay an in-lieu fee to
contribute to an ozone precursor/carbon dioxide emission reduction program.
Finding: The Planning Commission finds that implementation of Mitigation
Measures AQ1-1, AQ1-2, AQ1-3 and AQ2-1 will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental air quality impacts as identified in the FEIR. Residual
impacts are less than significant.
113
192
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 12 of 22
C. Project-Specific and Cumulative Impacts on Hydrology and Water
Resources
Project-Specific Impacts WR4 and WR5 (FEIR Section 4.5): The impacts of
the Project on Hydrology and Water Resources are discussed in the FEIR on
pages 4.5-1 through 4.5-27 of FEIR Volume 1 and in the comments and
responses to comments included in FEIR Volume 3. Without mitigation, the
Project could have the following potentially significant impacts on Hydrology and
Water Resources:
• Degradation of surface water and groundwater quality.
• Alteration of drainage patterns resulting in increased erosion or flooding.
In summary, the Project would result in potentially significant project-specific
impacts on hydrology and water resources.
Mitigation Measures: The FEIR concluded that these impacts could be feasibly
mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measures WR4-1, WR4-2, WR4-3,
WR5-1, and WR5-2, which are as follows:
• Mitigation Measure WR4-1 requires the Permittee to design maintenance
areas such that contamination of groundwater quality is avoided.
• Mitigation Measure WR4-2 requires the Permittee to obtain and implement
the requirements of a General Industrial Stormwater Permit.
• Mitigation Measure WR4-3 requires the Permittee to limit the future use of the
site for animal keeping.
• Mitigation Measure WR5-1 requires the Permittee to design flood control
facilities that will control site runoff in accordance with Watershed Protection
District standards.
• Mitigation Measure WR5-2 requires the Permittee to construct final reclaimed
slopes in accordance with specific design and setback standards.
Finding: The Planning Commission finds that implementation of Mitigation
Measures WR4-1, WR4-2, WR4-3, WR5-1 and WR5-2 will avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental impacts on hydrology and water resources
as identified in the FEIR. Residual impacts are less than significant.
114
193
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 13 of 22
D. Project-Specific Impacts on Biological Resources
Project-Specific Impacts BR-1, BR-2, BR-3, BR-4, and BR-5 (FEIR Section
4,61: The impacts of the Project on Biological Resources are discussed on pages
4.6-1 through 4.5-56 of FEIR Volume 1 and in the comments and responses to
comments included in FEIR Volume 3. Without mitigation, the Project could have
the following potentially significant impacts on Biological Resources:
• Project-specific loss of special-status plants.
• Project-specific loss of special-status wildlife.
• Project-specific indirect adverse effects on special status species.
• Project-specific degradation of sensitive plant communities.
• Project-specific degradation of waters and wetlands.
In summary, the Project would result in potentially significant project-specific
impacts on biological resources.
Mitigation Measures: The FEIR concluded that these impacts could be feasibly
mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measures BR1-1, BR1-3, BR1-5, BR4-
1, BR7-1, BR7-2A, BR7-2B, BR10-1, BR11-1, AQ1-1, AQ1-2, and AQ1-3 which
are as follows:
• Mitigation measure BR1-1 requires the Permittee to protect offsite
habitat areas in perpetuity.
• Mitigation measure BR1-3 requires the Permittee to stake on the mining
site the permit boundary and allowed disturbance area.
• . Mitigation measure BR1-5 requires the Permittee to limit the area of
ground disturbed at any one time.
• Mitigation measure BR4-1 requires the Permittee to obtain any
necessary Federal and State permits necessary to address adverse
effects on the California gnatcatcher.
• Mitigation measure BR7-1 requires the Permittee to protect nestimng
birds.
• Mitigation measure BR7-2A requires the Permittee to protect special
status wildlife.
• Mitigation measure BR7-2B requires the Permittee to avoid or relocate
Woodrat nests.
• Mitigation measure BR10-1 requires the Permittee to avoid impacts on
California gnatcatcher.
• Mitigation measure BR11-1 requires the Permittee to limit night lighting.
• Mitigation measure AQ1-1 requires the Permittee to implement an
enhanced dust control plan.
115
194
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 14 of 22
• Mitigation measure AQ1-2 requires the Permittee to comply with APCD
rules and regulations.
• Mitigation measure AQ1-3 requires the Permittee to assure that all
material loads in hauling trucks are covered.
Finding: The Planning Commission finds that implementation of Mitigation
Measures BR1-1, BR1-3, BR1-5, BR4-1, BR7-1, BR7-2A, BR7-2B, BR10-1,
BR11-1, AQ1-1, AQ1-2, and AQ1-3 will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant project-specific environmental impacts on biological resources as
identified in the FEIR. Residual impacts are less than significant.
E. Project-Specific and Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources
Project-Specific Impact VR-2, and Cumulative Impact VR-4 (FEIR Section
4.8): The impacts of the Project on paleontological resources are discussed on
pages 4.8-1 through 4.8-19 of FEIR Volume 1 and in the comments and
responses to comments included in FEIR Volume 3. Without mitigation, the
Project could have the following potentially significant impacts on paleontological
resources:
• Project-specific generation of light and nighttime glare.
• Cumulative generation of nighttime light and glare.
Mitigation Measures: The FEIR concluded that these impacts could be feasibly
mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure BR11-1 that requires the
Permittee to limit night lighting.
Finding: The Planning Commission finds that implementation of Mitigation
•
Measure BR11-1 will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
impacts related to night lighting as identified in the FEIR. Residual impacts are
less than significant.
SECTION 4: SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN EIR, INCLUDING AFTER
ADOPTION OF ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES [CEQA
GUIDELINES, §15091(a)(3)]
A. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
Cumulative Impact AQ-6 (FEIR Section 4.2): As discussed on pages 4.2-17
and 4.2-18 of the FEIR, the Project will contribute to the cumulative generation of
fugitive dust along material hauling routes. At issue is the lifting of dust present
on the roadways due to the passage of material hauling trucks.
116
195
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 15 of 22
Mitigation measures: There is no feasible way to accurately quantify the
increased level of dust generation due to the additional 160 material hauling truck
trips included in the Project. This volume of new truck traffic would represent a 9
percent increase over the current permitted levels at the four existing Grimes
Canyon mining facilities (i.e., Best Rock, Wayne J, CEMEX, and Grimes Rock).
No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that address this adverse
environmental effect. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on roadway
dust generation is cumulatively considerable pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15130.
Findings: The Planning Commission finds that no feasible mitigation measures
are available to avoid or lessen the above cumulative impacts to a less than
significant level. The Planning Commission further finds that none of the project
alternatives, except for the No Project alternative, would avoid or lessen this
cumulative impact to an insignificant level. The Planning Commission finds that
the significant cumulative impact on air quality is made acceptable and is
outweighed by the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or
other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits,
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 7).
B. Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources
Cumulative Impact BR-7 (FEIR Section 4.6): As discussed on pages 4.6-43
and 4.6-44 of the FEIR, the Project would contribute 87 acres to the total
disturbance of approximately 271 acres of existing habitat that would fesult from
implementation of the three Grimes Canyon Area mining expansion projects
under review by the County (i.e., Best Rock, Wayne J and Grimes Rock). This
magnitude of vegetation and wildlife habitat removal would have regional
cumulative impacts on sensitive plant communities, wildlife habitat, and special-
status plant and animal species.
Mitigation measures: The FEIR concludes that this impact can be partially
mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measures BR1-1, BR1-5, BR7-1,
BR7-2A, BR7-2B, BR10-1, and BR11-1. These measures are listed under
Section 3.D above of this document and serve to mitigate various project-specific
impacts on Biological Resources.
Findings: The Planning Commission finds that no feasible mitigation measures
are available to avoid or lessen the above cumulative impact to a less than
significant level. The Planning Commission further finds that none of the project
alternatives, except for the No Project alternative, would avoid or lessen this
cumulative impact to an insignificant level. The Planning Commission finds that
the significant cumulative impact on biological resources is made acceptable and
is outweighed by the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or
117
196
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 16 of 22
other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits,
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations(Exhibit 7).
C. Project-Specific and Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources
Project-Specific Impact PR-1 and Cumulative Impact PR-2 (FOR Section
171: The impacts of the Project on paleontological resources are discussed on
pages 4.7-1 through 4.7-5 of FEIR Volume 1 and in the comments and
responses to comments included in FEIR Volume 3. The Project could have the
following potentially significant impacts on paleontological resources:
• Project-specific loss of paleontological resources.
• Cumulative loss of paleontological resources.
In summary, the Project would result in potentially significant project-specific and
cumulative impacts on paleontological resources.
Mitigation Measures: The FEIR concluded that these impacts could be partially
mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure PR1-1 that requires the
Permittee to recover paleontological resources uncovered during excavation. It is
recognized, however, that the recovery of all paleontological resources is not
feasible in the case of a mining operation. Residual impacts would be significant
and unavoidable.
Findings: The Planning Commission finds that the implementation of Mitigation
Measure PR1-1 would lessen impacts to the extent feasible, but not reduce the
project-specific and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. The
Planning Commission further finds that none of the project alternatives, except
for the No Project alternative, would lessen these impacts to insignificant levels.
The Planning Commission finds that the significant impact on paleontological
resources is made acceptable and is outweighed by the specific overriding
economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits, including region-wide or
statewide environmental benefits, discussed in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Exhibit 7).
D. Proiect-Specific and Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources
Project-Specific Impact VR-1 and Cumulative Impact VR-3 ,(FEIR Section
4.81: The impacts of the Project on visual resources are discussed on pages 4.8-
1 through 4.8-19 of FEIR Volume 1 and in the comments and responses to
comments provided in FEIR Volume 3. The Project would have project-specific
and cumulative impacts on public views from State Highway 23.
Mitigation Measures: The FEIR concluded that these impacts could be partially
mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure VR1-1 that requires the
118
197
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 17 of 22
Permittee to limit the area disturbed by mining excavation at any one time. It is
recognized, however, that the recommended limit on disturbed area would not
reduce visual impacts to a less than significant level. Residual project-specific
and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Findings: The Planning Commission finds that the implementation of Mitigation
Measure VR1-1 would lessen impacts to the extent feasible, but not reduce the
project-specific and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. The
Planning Commission further finds that none of the project alternatives, except
for the No Project alternative, would lessen these impacts to insignificant levels.
The Planning Commission finds that the significant impact on paleontological
resources is made acceptable and is outweighed by the specific overriding
economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits, including region-wide or
statewide environmental benefits, discussed in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations(Exhibit 7).
E. Significant Irreversible Project-Specific and Cumulative Impacts (FEIR
Section 6.0)
As discussed in the FEIR on page 6-1, the proposed expanded mining facility
would involve permanent physical changes to the ground surface over the 135-
acre area subject to additional mining excavation. The native vegetation would
be removed and artificial slopes would be created over this area. The site would
never be restored to a completely natural state. Permanent effects on biological,
paleontological and visual resources would occur with project implementation.
In addition to the above-described onsite effects, implementation of the Project
• would involve,ancillary irreversible effects such as the consumption of fossil fuel
(motor vehicle fuels), other energy use, and the consumption of groundwater.
The above effects would be anticipated for any new or expanded mining facility.
Should the project not be approved, the demand for aggregate satisfied by
Grimes Rock would be met by another mining facility in the area or region. In this
case, the listed effects would likely occur at another site.
SECTION 5: SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES [CEQA GUIDEUNES
§15091(a)(3)]
Although an EIR must evaluate a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives,
an agency decision-making body may ultimately conclude that a potentially feasible
alternative is actually infeasible (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz
(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 999). Grounds for such a conclusion may be the failure of
a project alternative to satisfy a basic fundamental project objective or objectives
deemed important by the lead agency decision-makers, or the fact that an alternative
project fails to promote important policy objectives of such decision-makers (Id. at pp.
119
198
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4.874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 18 of 22
992, 1000-1003). Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen
any of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as mitigated, the
decision-makers may reject the project alternative for such reasons, including
"desirability."(See Section 1.C. Nature of Findings at page 5 above)
Under CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, the project alternatives to be discussed in detail in
an EIR should be able to "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project[.]"
For this reason, the Project Objectives identified in the FEIR provided the framework for
defining possible alternatives.
As stated in the FEIR (page 5-2), the purpose of the Project (i.e. the "Project
Objectives") is to:
• expand the area subject to surface mining excavation from 48 acres to
135 acres;
• increase annual sand and gravel production from 952,520 to 1,800,000
tons per year;
• meet future market demand for aggregate; and
• increase the total permitted reserve of aggregate and its availability in
Ventura County.
The alternatives evaluated in the FEIR do not include alternate locations for the
proposed project. As acknowledged in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)(B),
there may be no feasible alternative locations for this project. In that CEQA Guidelines
section, mining projects are specifically cited as an example where there are no feasible
alternative locations because of the need to be in close proximity to natural resources at
a given location.
' In the current case, the proposed project involves the expansion and continued
operation of an existing mining facility. Thus, the project site has an existing
environmental setting that includes mining operations and the associated noise, truck
traffic, air quality and other effects. Continuing the mineral extraction use of the current
site would have less impact than the installation of a new mining facility elsewhere.
Thus, the alternatives evaluated in the RDEIR focus on operational intensity and extent
of new ground disturbance as they would affect the significant and unavoidable (Class I)
impacts identified in the FEIR.
The following alternatives were selected for analysis in this RDEIR:
Alternative 1: No project alternative.
Alternative 2: Existing annual production level continued until the
excavation limits specified in the existing Approved
Reclamation Plan are reached.
Alternative 3: Existing annual production level continued until the
120
199
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2;RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 19 of 22
excavation limits specified in the proposed amended
Reclamation Plan are reached.
Alternative 4: Lower level of annual production than requested with
operations continued until the excavation limits specified
in the proposed amended Reclamation Plan are reached.
Alternative 5: Lower level of annual production than requested with
reduced excavation limits.
Each of these alternatives is described in more detail below.
Alternative 1: No Project
The existing permit (CUP 4874) that authorizes the operation of the Grimes Rock
mining facility has an expiration date of May 21, 2013. Although this date has passed,
the permit remains in effect while the Permittee diligently seeks approval of a modified
CUP and an amended Reclamation Plan. Under the No Project Alternative, the
requested expansion of the mining area and production volume and the extension of the
effective term of the CUP to 2040 would not occur.
Alternative 2: Continuation of existing operations under current approved Reclamation
Plan
Under this alternative, the requested expansion of the mining area and production
volume and the extension of the effective term of the CUP to 2040 would not occur. The
mining facility would continue to operate under the terms of the current permit until the
excavation reached the final reclaimed surface specified in the Approved Reclamation
Plan. The effective term of the CUP would not end in 2013 but be extended to the time
when the material available for excavation would be exhausted. Depended on material
demand, it is estimated that the Grimes Rock facility could operate for as much as 3
more years beyond 2013.
Alternative 3: Continuation of existing operations under the proposed amended
Reclamation Plan
Under this alternative, the mining facility would continue to operate within the existing
permitted production levels but would be allowed to expand to the limits delineated in
the proposed amended Reclamation Plan. Thus, the area of disturbance due to mining
excavation would increase from 48 to 135 acres. At the current permitted rate of
production, the volume of material above the final reclaimed floor in the proposed
amended Reclamation Plan would last approximately 54 years beyond the current 2013
permit expiration date to the year 2067.
121
200
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 20 of 22
Alternative 4: Increase in production level less than requested
Under this alternative, the annual material production at the Grimes Rock facility would
be increased by 50 percent of the requested amount with operations continuing under
the proposed amended Reclamation Plan. All other requested permit modifications
would occur. The area of disturbance would increase from 48 acres to 135 acres as
currently proposed. At the lower level of annual production (1,376,000 tons rather than
1,800,000 tons), the average daily truck trips would be decreased from 460 average •
daily one-way trips to 380 average daily trips. At the lower level of annual production,
the volume of material above the final reclaimed floor in the proposed amended
Reclamation Plan would last approximately 40 years beyond the current 2013 permit
expiration date to the year 2053.
Alternative 5: Increase in production level and expansion of excavation area less than
requested
Under this alternative, the annual material production at the Grimes Rock facility would
be increased by 50 percent of the requested amount with operations continuing under a
reduced version of the proposed amended Reclamation Plan. All other requested permit
modifications would occur. The area of disturbance is assumed to increase from 48
acres to 100 acres (rather than the 135 acres currently proposed), and the volume of
material to be excavated would be adjusted, in order for mining to cease at
approximately 2040. A revised Reclamation Plan that addresses a smaller excavation
footprint would be required.
The effect of the alternatives on the identified significant impacts is illustrated in the
following table.
Comparison of Alternatives 1-5
Issue Significant imp act to remain (yes/no)
Area 1 2 3 4 5
Air Quality No No No Yes Yes
(Cumulative)
Biology(Cumulative) No No Yes Yes Yes
Paleontology No No Yes Yes Yes
(Project-Specific)
Paleontology No No Yes Yes Yes
(Cumulative)
Visual No No Yes Yes Yes
(Project-Specific) _
Visual No No Yes Yes Yes
(Cumulative)
Attain project No No No No No
objectives? (Yes/No)
122
201
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No.CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 21 of 22
As apparent from the above table, the environmentally superior alternative is either the
No Project Alternative or Alternative 2 because each would avoid significant impacts
related to air quality, biology, paleontological resources and visual resources associated
with the proposed expansion of the mining facility and the increase in annual aggregate
production.
However, none of the alternatives would attain the project objectives. This is because
the area of excavation and the annual production rate are fundamental aspects of a
mining facility. The area of excavation is defined by the location of the mineral materials
proposed to be produced and sold. The annual production rate relates to the
anticipated market demand for the mineral materials.
In this case, the only significant offsite environmental impact would be the contribution
of the Project to dust generation along haul routes. If Alternative 4 were selected, it
could be argued that dust generation would be proportionally reduced by a reduction in
truck trips. However, this potential marginal benefit would not likely be realized because
any demand for aggregate not served by Grimes Rock would be satisfied by another
local mining facility. If all local mining facilities had reached maximum permitted
production levels, any remaining outstanding demand would be served by more remote
facilities. Given the basic fact that aggregate demand is virtually always satisfied, a
reduced production alternative would provide little or no air quality benefit.
The remaining significant impacts of the Project involve effects on the Grimes Rock
project site or on the other two mining sites under review. These effects are localized at
the site of excavation and would remain with any expansion of the excavation area.
In conclusion, Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would not substantially lessen environmental
impacts and would not allow for the Project Objectives to be attained. The proposed
project would have the positive benefit of providing a local source of aggregate to meet
demand within Ventura County. This would minimize the transport of aggregate from
remote mining facilities. Given this benefit, the proposed project would be the
environmentally superior alternative.
Summary of Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Based on the information provided above and in Chapter 5 of the FEIR, the Planning
Commission finds that the No Project Alternative would have fewer environmental
impacts than, and would be environmentally superior to, the Project. The Planning
Commission also finds that Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would not substantially reduce the
environmental impacts of, and would not be environmentally superior to, the Project.
Although the No Project Alternative or Alternative 2 would not result in any of the
environmental impacts of the proposed Project, they are inferior to the proposed Project
in regards to the following Project Objectives:.
123
202
Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project
Case No. CUP 4874-2; RP12-0001
Planning Commission CEQA Findings
Page 22 of 22
• Expanding the area of mining excavation to establish additional permitted
reserves of aggregate to meet future demand in Ventura County, and,
• Providing greater availability of local aggregate resources by increasing the
allowed annual production from the Grimes Rock facility.
Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that:
• The proposed Project'is environmentally superior to all of the Project Alternatives
evaluated and achieves the Project Objectives of providing additional permitted
reserves of aggregate and increasing aggregate availability in Ventura County
consistent with the Mineral Resources Goals and Policies of the Ventura County
General Plan.
• The No Project Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project and all other
project alternatives evaluated in the FEIR. However, the No Project Alternative
does not meet the Project objectives of providing greater availability of local
aggregate resources and establishing additional permitted aggregate reserves.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the above
CEQA Findings in support of its action to grant a modified conditional use permit,
approve an amended Reclamation Plan, and certify the FEIR.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner
, and duly carried, the Planning Commission hereby adopts this
resolution on day of , 2013.
Michael Wesner, Chair, Planning Commission
County of Ventura
ATTEST:
Kimberly Prillhart,
Planning Commission Secretary
County of Ventura, State of California.
124
203
Exhibit 7
VENTURA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE APPROVAL OF A
MODIFIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Case No. 4874-2) AND
AMENDED RECLAMATION PLAN (Case No. RP12-0001)
FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE GRIMES ROCK MINING FACILITY
(File: PL12-0159)
WHEREAS, California Public Resources Code sections 21002, 21002.1(c), and
21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15093 and 15096 provide a means for the final
decision-making body of the lead agency to approve a project that is found to have
significant, unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies significant unavoidable impacts that would
result from implementation of the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section
15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that when a decision of a public agency
allows the occurrence of significant impacts that are identified in the Final EIR, but are
not at least substantially mitigated to an insignificant level or eliminated, the lead agency
must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or
other information in the record; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopts this Statement of Overriding
Considerations with respect to the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final
EIR for the proposed project, which are as follows:
1. Project-specific potential loss of paleontological resources(Impact PR-1);
2. Project-specific alteration of public views from State Route 23(Impact VR-1);
3. Cumulative offsite dust generation along trucking routes (Impact AQ-6)
4. Cumulative impacts on biological resources(Impact BR-7);
5. Cumulative loss of paleontological resources(Impact PR-2);
6. Cumulative alteration of public views from State Route 23(Impact VR-3); and
WHEREAS, this Statement of Overriding Considerations is based on the
Planning Commission's review of the Final EIR and all other relevant information and
substantial evidence contained within the administrative record for this matter; and
WHEREAS, the County's CEQA Findings of Fact set forth in a separate
resolution (Exhibit 6) identified all of the potentially significant adverse environmental
impacts that could result from the Project, and all feasible mitigation measures required
in the Final EIR that will avoid or substantially reduce the identified potentially significant
125
204
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion
CUP 4874-2;Reclamation Plan RP12-0001
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 2 of 4
impacts to less-than-significant levels, or to the lowest feasible levels where significant
impacts remain after mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes that significant unavoidable
impacts would result from implementation of the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that all feasible mitigation
measures have been adopted to substantially reduce or avoid the potentially significant
impacts identified in the Final EIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation measures
are available to further reduce significant impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has rejected as infeasible alternatives to
the proposed project;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the following
overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits (including region-wide
or statewide environmental benefits) of the proposed project, individually and
collectively, outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts listed above and
described fully in the Final EIR:
1. Development of mineral resources of Statewide significance: The project site
has been designated as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) by the State
Mining and Geology Board. This designation is placed on lands underlain by
known mineral resources that are present in sufficient quantities to be of
economic significance to the region or State. Pursuant to Section 2762 of
SMARA, lands designated as MRZ-2 must be incorporated into the land use
General Plan of the Lead Agency to "emphasize the conservation and
development of identified mineral deposits." The proposed mining site is
identified in the County General Plan as a Mineral Resource Area and in the
County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance with a Mineral Resource Protection
Zone Overlay. Thus, continued production of aggregate from the project site
is consistent with State policy, County policy and the County Non-Coastal
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Need for additional permitted aggregate reserves: According to the California
Department of Conservation (DOC), Ventura County had permitted 106
million tons of aggregate reserves for extraction in 2006. This amount
constitutes only 34 percent of the DOC-estimated 309 million tons of
aggregate needed to satisfy the 50-year (2006-2055) aggregate demand in
the County, taking into account estimated population growth and associated
increases in demand for construction materials. Approval of the proposed
Grimes Rock mine expansion project would add approximately 50 million tons
to the permitted aggregate reserves of Ventura County. The resulting 156
million tons (based on 2006 data) would represent 50 percent of the
estimated 50-year demand for such resources in the County. A local
aggregate supply is preferred over a supply from a more remote mining
facility. The availability of a local source reduces the adverse economic and
126
205
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion
CUP 4874-2; Reclamation Plan RP12-0001
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 3 of 4
environmental effects of the long-distance transport of aggregate materials. A
50-year supply of permitted aggregate reserves for each production-
consumption area of the State is a goal set by the State Mining and Geology
Board.
3. Provision of a local aggregate source: Authorization of continued mining at
the Grimes Rock site would provide for a long-term local source of aggregate
mineral resources. Aggregates are a high volume, low value mineral material.
The unit price of this material largely depends on the transport cost from the
mining site to the point of delivery. With a local source centrally located in
Ventura County, the cost of importing this material from more distant mining
facilities, including those located outside of Ventura County can be avoided.
Public projects, such as road maintenance, and private construction projects
would benefit from reduced material cost. The availability of a local aggregate
source would provide this general economic benefit.
4. Reduction in criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions: Although
the FEIR estimates the emissions from the proposed project and identifies
required mitigation as required under CEQA, the denial of the proposed
permit could have a substantial adverse effect on regional air quality.
Because aggregate is an essential component for the manufacture of
concrete and paving products, the demand for this material will always be
met. The only question is: "Where will this commodity come from?" Absent
adequate local sources of aggregate, this material would be imported to
County job sites and end users from more remote surface mining facilities,
including those located at substantially greater distance in adjoining
jurisdictions. The additional vehicle miles travelled (VMTs) would increase the
emissions of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases per ton of
aggregate delivered. Such a result would conflict with current California
efforts under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health &
Safety Code section 38500 et seq.) and the Sustainable Communities and
Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) to reduce VMTs and, thus, improve
air quality and climate sustainability. Authorization of the proposed project
would minimize the VMTs and have a corresponding air pollution reduction
and represent a region-wide and statewide environmental benefit.
5. Project does not involve the development of a new mining site: The Grimes
Canyon area is the major source of aggregate in the County of Ventura.
Mining has occurred in this area for more than 40 years with four mining
facilities, including Grimes Rock, currently in operation. Grimes Rock has
been in operation for the last 15 years since its current permit was granted in
1998. As with the other three mines, the existing setting for the Grimes Rock
facility includes an existing processing plant, a large area of disturbance and
ongoing material excavation and trucking operations. The permitting and
development of a new mining operation at an alternative location to meet
current and future County demand would involve substantially more impacts
127
206
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion
CUP 4874-2; Reclamation Plan RP12-0001
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 4 of 4
on the environment (such as increased disturbance of biological habitat) than
the continued utilization and expansion of the existing facility.
6. Improvement in traffic safety and flow on Grimes Grade: The proposed
development of a southern entrance to the Grimes Rock mining site will
eliminate the travel of Grimes Rock-related material hauling trucks on the
steep and winding Grimes Grade section of State Highway 23. The removal
of these truck trips from this section of the highway would improve traffic flow
and reduce safety hazards.
WHEREAS, for the reasons cited above, and based upon substantial evidence in
the record before it, the Planning Commission finds that the Project's benefits outweigh
the significant adverse and unavoidable project and cumulative environmental impacts
related to paleontological resources, visual resources, air quality and biological
resources, and therefore, the unavoidable environmental impacts are acceptable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission has
balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those impacts.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , and duly carried, the Planning
Commission hereby adopts this resolution on day of
, 2013.
Michael Wesner, Chair, Planning Commission
County of Ventura
ATTEST:
Kimberly Pril!hart
Secretary of the Planning Commission
County of Ventura, State of California
128
207
MARGARET MOORS SOHAGI THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP
NICOLE HOEKSMA GORDON
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION SACRAMENTO OFFICE
11999 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD, SUITE 150 1104 CORPORATE WAY
R. TYSON SOHAGI SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95531
CHRISTOPHER S. BURT Los ANGELES, C 'LIFORNIA 90049-5136 TELEPHONE(916)395-4491
TELEPHON>} (310) 475-5700 FACSIMILE (916) 395-4492
ALBERT I. HERSON FACSIMILg (310) 475'5707
THOMAS JACOBSON www.sohagi.com
ALISON L. KRUMBEIN 447
ANNE C.H. LYNCH
HELENE V. SMOOKLER
PHILIP A. SEYMOUR
OF COUNSEL
June 26, 2013
Ventura County Planning Commission
Resource Management Agency/Planning Division
800 South Victoria Avenue,Hall of Administration
Ventura, CA 93009
Re: Final Environmental Impact Report; SCH 2003111064
Conditional Use Permit Modification 4874-2 and Amended Reclamation Plan
Grimes Rock, Inc. Mining Facility Expansion
Dear Chair Wesner and Honorable Commissioners:
We have been retained by the City of Moorpark("Moorpark"or"City") in this
matter. The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Final Environmental
Impact Report("FEIR") for the expansion of the Grimes Rock Mining Facility pursuant
to Conditional Use Permit Modification 4874-2 ("CUP") and a Modified Reclamation
Plan (the"Project"). The City has reviewed the Project from the outset, and has
submitted comments on the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report released in
2012 ("RDEIR"), as well as on the previous environmental documents prepared for the
Project.' With each letter, and at meetings with County staff, Moorpark has expressed its
concerns with the proposed Project and environmental analysis. The City has undertaken 22
a comprehensive review of the FEIR,2 and finds it to be legally inadequate under the
I See Comment Letter re 2003 Project NOP from Barry K. Hogan, City of Moorpark, to
Christopher Stevens, County of Ventura, December 17, 2003; Comment Letter re 2006
DEIR from Barry K.Hogan, City of Moorpark, to Scott Ellison, County of Ventura,
August 4, 2006; Comment Letter re 2009 FEIR from David A. Bobardt, City of
Moorpark,to Scott Ellison, County of Ventura;Letter re Recommended Conditions of
Approval from David A. Bobardt, City of Moorpark,to Scott Ellison, County of Ventura,
March 24, 2010, Comment Letter re 2012 RDEIR from David A. Bobardt, City of
Moorpark, to Brian Baca, County of Ventura, October 26, 2012, all attached to this letter
as Exhibit A.
2 The City has also reviewed all of the comments provided to the County on the RDEIR
and adopts the information, analysis and conclusions contained in the following comment
CC ATTACHMENT 3 208
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 2
California Environmental Quality Act(Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq. "CEQA") and the
CEQA Guidelines, (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) as well as the California
Water Code §§ 10910-10915.
The massive amount of truck traffic associated with this Project would negatively
impact City residents on a daily basis. At least 600 Moorpark residents live immediately
adjacent to the proposed truck route, and already regularly experience the deleterious
effects of this traffic including noise and air quality impacts. Thousands of other
Moorpark residents are faced with the negative impacts of Project trucks as they move
through their daily lives;when they attempt to cross the street, travel to work and school,
and engage in myriad other life activities. Moorpark opposes any action on the
expansion until all of the Project's impacts on the City are truly mitigated, and requests
that the Commission delay further consideration of this Project until a legally adequate
EIR is prepared that fully complies with CEQA and the Project conforms to current
requirements. The FEIR suffers from numerous inadequacies including the following
fatal flaws:
• The FEIR incorrectly dismisses construction of the SR 23 bypass as infeasible;
leaving City residents subject to noise, air quality and health impacts that
severely affect quality of life along the haul routes.
• The FEIR's traffic analysis fails to include a Saturday analysis, even though
the amended CUP allows up to 600 truck trips on Saturdays.
• The FEIR completely fails to analyze the significant and unavoidable noise
impacts of project-related truck traffic.
• The County failed to perform a SB 610 water supply assessment in violation of
CEQA and the Water Code.
• The studies relied upon for the FEIR's analysis of impacts are extremely
outdated (many are over 10 years old)and do not adequately represent
conditions on the Project site.
• The FEIR is legally inadequate for its failure to provide analysis of criteria
pollutant PM2.5-
letters and incorporates them in their entirety by reference into this letter: (1) Comment
B from the City of Fillmore, (2) Comments D and G from Nancy K. Schreiner of
Nordman Cormany Hair and Compton LLP, (3) Comment Q from Leslie S.MacNair of
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife("CDFW"), and (4) Comment S from
Rick Viergutz of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Groundwater
Section, all attached to this letter as Exhibit B.
209
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 3
• The cumulative impact analyses for numerous resource areas consider only the
impacts of mining projects, instead of the impacts of all past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future projects as required by CEQA.
• The FEIR's project objectives are impermissibly narrow and constrain the
selection of project alternatives in violation of CEQA.
• The FEIR's alternatives analysis fails to present alternatives designed to avoid
or substantially reduce all the significant impacts of the Project as required by
CEQA.
I. THE FEIR'S ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION IMPACTS IS
LEGALLY INADEQUATE
The FEIR's traffic impact analysis is legally inadequate. To the extent that the
FEIR's air quality, noise, and climate change impact analyses rely on the inadequate
traffic analyses,they too, are inadequate. The City's traffic-related comments are based
on a peer review of the FEIR's traffic analysis conducted by traffic experts Clare Look-
Jaeger and Alfred Ying of Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers(LLG). (See LLG
traffic memo, attached as Exhibit C, and LLG resumes, attached as Exhibit D.)
A. The FEIR Fails to Analyze the Impacts of 600 Saturday Truck Trips
The FEIR fails to perform an impact analysis for Saturday operations, even though
the amended CUP would allow up to 600 truck trips on Saturdays. (LLG at 3.) In LLG's
professional judgment, "this is a glaring omission in the CEQA-required environmental
documentation." (LLG at 3 [emphasis added].) The FEIR also fails to analyze traffic
impacts at mid-day, other than at the project driveway. (Id.) The failure to perform these
analyses means that FEIR may have failed to disclose several significant traffic impacts
caused by the Project for consideration by decision-makers and the public, a blatant
violation of CEQA.
B. The FEIR Fails to Include the SR 23 Bypass as an Alternative or
Mitigation Measure in Violation of CEQA •
The City has repeatedly requested that the SR 23 Bypass be analyzed as a Project
alternative or mitigation measure. (See, e.g., FEIR Comment Letter A.) The County's
failure to do so violates CEQA and results in a legally inadequate FEIR.3
3 The City entered into a Reciprocal Traffic Mitigation Agreement ("Agreement")with
the County in 2006, attached as Exhibit E. The Agreement requires both parties to
analyze the regional environmental impacts of development it approves, and to identify
210
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 4
Under CEQA, an alternative or mitigation measure is "feasible" if it is capable of
being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking
into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. (CEQA
Guidelines § 15364.) The SR 23 Bypass is feasible. It is recognized both in the City's
Circulation Element and Ventura County Congestion Management program and the
Ventura County Transportation Commission ("VCTC") lists the SR 23 Bypass in their
2009 Ventura County Congestion Management Program as an Adopted STIP Priority
Project. (LLG at 3.) The City has completed feasibility studies and conceptual alignment
studies for the Bypass,4 described in the City Council staff reports attached to this letter
as Exhibit F. The City owns much of the right-of-way required for the Bypass, and has
required applicants owning reserved property in the Bypass right of way to grade that
property. Furthermore, it is feasible to calculate the Project's fair share percentage
contribution to the construction of SR 23, and to enter into an agreement between the
City and other relevant entities committing to construct the Bypass. Most importantly,
the SR 23 bypass would substantially reduce the proposed Project's noise, air quality and
health impacts, in addition to traffic impacts. For this reason, it must be considered in the
FEIR.
The County's conclusion that the SR 23 bypass is not feasible is not supported by
substantial evidence. (See, e.g., Response to Comment No. A-3a). Final designs,
engineering details, right-of-way acquisition, and cost estimates are not necessary to
conclude that an alternative or mitigation measure is effective and feasible. (See, e.g.,
Riverwatch v. County of San Diego(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1448.) The FEIR
refuses to consider the SR 23 bypass because it claims that other measures are available
to mitigate the impacts of the Project. Even if this were true, if several measures are
available to mitigate an impact, the FEIR is required to discuss each measure and identify
the basis for selecting particular measures. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1).) The
FEIR's failure to do so violates CEQA.
C. The Significance Thresholds Utilized in the Analysis of City Traffic
Impacts Are Inconsistent with CEOA's Requirements
The significance thresholds used to analyze the Project traffic impacts within the
City of Moorpark do not adequately characterize the Project's impacts. Under the City's
threshold of significance, any increase in traffic for roadways already operating below
level of service(LOS) C is considered to be significant. (LLG at 4.) The threshold used
in the FEIR is less stringent,providing that a project must increase the volume capacity
and implement feasible mitigation measures. The County's failure to consider the SR 23
Bypass in the FEIR appears to be a breach of the Agreement.
4 Due to the size of the studies, they will be provided to the County at the Planning
Commission hearing on CD under separate cover.
211
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 5
(V/C)by at least 0.02 for roadways already at unacceptable LOS in order to have a
significant impact. (FEIR at 4.1-37.) The FEIR's use of this threshold is inconsistent
with City policy and also with CEQA case law prohibiting the use of a"ratio theory"to
determine impact significance. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990)
221 Cal.App.4th 692, 718 (an ELR may not conclude that a cumulative impact is
insignificant merely because the project's contribution to an unacceptable existing
environmental condition is relatively small).) If the FEIR had used the appropriate City
threshold, it is likely that it would have disclosed additional significant traffic impacts.
(LLG at 5.)
D. The County's Failure to Enforce the Southern Haul Route Restrictions
Leads to an Significant Understatement of Traffic Impacts
The City has repeatedly requested that the CUP retain existing restrictions on the
Southern Haul Route, and that the County enforce these restrictions. (LLG at 2, 7-8.)
Similar comments on the RDEIR were made by Nancy K. Schreiner, attorney for the
property owners. (See Comments No. D-24,D-28, D-31, and D-72). As confirmed by
LLG's independent observations on June 21,2013, the route restrictions are regularly
violated by trucks traveling through the area. (LLG at 8.) The County has responded that
the existing Southern Haul Route restrictions have not"proved feasible to enforce." (See
Response to Comment No. D-24.) The FEIR provides no explanation as to why the
Southern Haul Route restrictions are infeasible to enforce, or why better enforcement
cannot be achieved through additional conditions in the amended CUP. In fact, the FEIR
recommends feasible monitoring and enforcement actions the County could take. (FEIR
Appendix B at 19-20.)
The County's proposed abandonment of the Southern Haul Route restrictions
leads to a significant understatement in the FEIR of the Project's impacts on Walnut
Canyon Road and other roadways affected by Project trucks using the Southern Haul
Route. (Comments D-24, D-27, D-28,D-31, and D-72.) While the FEW recognizes that
the existing CUP establishes restrictions on the volume and timing of trucks going south
(FEIR at 2-2), and that the CUP amendment would eliminate these restrictions (FEIR at
2-5), it fails to analyze the impacts of additional existing truck trip volumes on Walnut
Canyon Road caused by removing the existing Southern Haul Route restrictions. Instead,
the FEIR's impact analysis for trucks going south is limited to the impacts of only those
incremental truck trips associated with expanded production. (See,e.g., FEIR Table 4.1-
11.)
E. The FEIR's Traffic Baseline is Inaccurate
An accurate environmental setting is critical to the assessment of a project's
impacts. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(c).) The FEIR violates CEQA's requirements by
212
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26,2013
Page 6
failing to present accurate baseline data for the Grimes Canyon Road/River Street
intersection and the Walnut Canyon Road/Broadway Road intersection. (LLG at 3-4.)
The baseline data presented is outdated and does not reflect recent physical changes to
the intersections. If the FEIR had reanalyzed the Walnut Canyon Road/Broadway Road
intersection with accurate data(new intersection configuration and updated traffic
counts), the reported delay for the westbound Broadway Road approach could be greater
than that reported in the FEIR, resulting in a potentially significant impact. (LLG at 5-6.)
F. The FEIR's Analysis of Cumulative Traffic Impacts is Legally
Inadequate
Although the modified CUP would allow mining operations to continue until
2040, the FEIR fails to evaluate year cumulative 2040 impacts, which would likely be
greater than year 2025 impacts. (LLG at 6-7.) Instead, FEIR unreasonably assumes that
year 2040 impacts would be the same as year 2025 impacts. (See also Comment No. B-
22 and Response to Comment No. B-22). This unreasonable assumption fails to
recognize that background traffic would likely continue to increase between 2025 and
2040, causing without-project 2040 traffic conditions to be worse than 2025 conditions,
and potentially causing additional cumulatively considerable traffic impacts. (Kings
County Farm Bureau at 718.) FEIR Response to Comment B-22 turns Kings County
Farm Bureau on its head, in direct violation of CEQA, by arguing that the Project's
incremental impact by 2040 would be less because it would represent a smaller
proportion of overall area traffic volumes.
The background traffic growth rates that the FEIR uses between the years 2007
and 2025 are unjustified. The FEIR does not present the projected annual growth rates
used for the future 2025 baseline, nor are the rates presented by the FOR supported by
substantial evidence. The FEIR presents no evidence that the annual growth rates it
employs are based on recent growth projections nor whether the growth rates are high
enough to include traffic from buildout of all the related projects. If the annual growth
rates are not sufficiently high, then the proposed Project's cumulative traffic impacts are
understated in the FEIR, in violation of CEQA.
G. The FEIR's Traffic Mitigation Measures Are Inadequate
As pointed out by the City of Fillmore's comment letter(Comments No. 8 and 9),
the FEIR improperly rejects a number of feasible traffic mitigation measures (as well as
feasible noise mitigation measures) included in the 2006 and 2009 EIRs. The City agrees
with the City of Fillmore that the FEW should include these feasible mitigation measures.
The FEIR's response to Fillmore's comments is inadequate. Contrary to the County's
assertion, fair share contributions are an acceptable method for mitigating a cumulative
impact that is not the sole responsibility of the applicant(CEQA Guidelines §
213
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26,2013
Page 7
15130(aX3)), and the EIR was required to discuss Fillmore's recommended feasible
mitigation measures even if other measures could also mitigate traffic impacts. (CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1).)
H. The FEIR Does Not Remedy the Deficiencies of the RDEIR's Traffic
Analysis or Adequately Respond to Traffic-Related Comments
As discussed above, several of the FEIR's responses to traffic comments did not
represent good faith, reasoned responses. These include responses on: 1) year 2040
impacts (Responses to Comment No. B-22),2) continued restrictions on use of the
Southern Haul Route(Responses to Comments No. D- 24, D-28, D-31, and D-72), 3)
feasibility of the SR 23 bypass as an alternative or mitigation measure (Response to
Comment No. A-3a), and 4) traffic mitigation measures found to be infeasible(Response
to Comments No. B-8 and B-9).
II. THE FEIR'S HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES ANALYSES
ARE LEGALLY INADEQUATE AND FAIL TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA
A. The FEIR Fails to Include a SB 610 Water Supply Assessment in
Violation of the Water Code and CEQA
Senate Bill ("SB") 610 requires that a water supply assessment("WSA") be
prepared and included in an EIR before certain large development projects to be served
by a public water system may be approved. (Water Code §§ 10910-10915; CEQA
Guidelines § 15155 .) SB 610 is triggered at the beginning of the CEQA process, and
applies when a"project" subject to CEQA meets certain criteria, which include a
proposed industrial processing plant occupying more than 40 acres of land. (Water Code
§ 10912(a)(5)(A).)
Under CEQA, an"industrial processing plant" includes the outdoor acreage used
by an industrial facility, and if the plant occupies more than 40 acres, a WSA must be
prepared regardless of the plant's actual water demand. (Center for Biological Diversity
v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1360-1361.) Since the
proposed Project expands the permit boundary area by 67 acres and the excavation area
by 89 acres, a WSA should have been prepared by the County(since there is no public
water system serving the project) and included in the FE1R (CEQA Guidelines §
15155(e); Water Code § 10911(b).) Failure to comply with this mandatory requirement
is a fatal flaw,renders the FEIR legally inadequate under both CEQA and the Water
Code, and violates the Water Code.
214
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 8
B. The FEIR Lacks an Adequate and Informative Description of the
Environmental Setting for Analysis of Impacts to Hydrology and
Water Resources
An EIR's description of the environmental setting should be sufficiently clear to
allow informed comparison of pre-project and post-project conditions. (County of
Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 955.) The
FEIR's environmental setting discussion is inadequate for two primary reasons. First, the
FEIR does not present existing surface water quality data for Grimes Canyon Wash,
which receives all surface water runoff from the project site, claiming that such data were
"not available." (FEIR at 4.5-4.) Without such data, an informed comparison of pre-
project and post-project water quality in this Wash, as required by CEQA, is not possible.
Second, the environmental setting presents only two samples of water quality data for
surface runoff from the site taken in 2002. (FEIR Table 4.5-2.) Clearly, a sample of this
size taken more than 10 years ago does not represent substantial evidence of current
surface runoff water quality. A larger number of samples in the year 2012 should have
been taken to assure accuracy. The County's failure to do so renders the setting
discussion legally inadequate.
C. The Analysis of Impacts to Hydrology and Water Resources Is
Inadequate
The FEIR's analysis of impacts to hydrology and water quality is inadequate. The
FEIR presents no thresholds of significance for analysis of impacts to water quality, a
blatant violation of CEQA. The water quality impact analyses(Impact WR-4 and WR-5)
fail to use articulated thresholds to reach significance conclusions. Without thresholds, it
is impossible to determine how FEIR's analytical path moves from the evidence
presented on water quality impacts, to the ultimate significance conclusions concerning
these impacts.
The FEIR's conclusion that groundwater recharge impacts will be less than
significant is not supported by substantial evidence. The FOR states that residual fine-
grained sediment (fines)placement could have a significant impact on groundwater
recharge if fines were placed over at least nine acres. (FEIR at 4.5-19.) It then concludes,
without any evidentiary support, that this level of fines placement is not reasonably
foreseeable.
D. The Hydrology and Water Resources Mitigation Measures are
Inadequate
Mitigation Measure WR 5-1, calling for design and construction of a detention
basin, is impermissibly deferred until after project approval. (CEQA Guidelines §
215
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 9
15126.4(a)(1XB).) The FEIR presents no information as to why the location(or at least
alternative locations), size and preliminary design of a detention basin could not be
included in the FEIR. Without this information, it is not possible to determine whether
the project's drainage impacts on erosion and offsite flooding would be reduced to less
than significant levels, or what the adverse environmental side-effects of detention basin
construction could be.
E. The FEIR Does Not Remedy the Deficiencies of the RDEIR or
Adequately Respond to Comments Regarding Hydrology and Water
Resources
The Ventura County Watershed Protection Division Groundwater Section
submitted comments requesting that project infiltration performance be quantified, and
that an infiltration performance standard be established and included in the FEIR to
ensure that the project would not adversely affect groundwater recharge. (Comments S-
1, S-13, and S-14.) These comments, which constitute expert opinions from the agency
with jurisdiction by law over the affected groundwater basins, did not result in FEIR
revisions. Instead, Response to Comment S-1 dismissed the expert opinions as not
supported by substantial evidence without summarizing the major points of disagreement
in violation of CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines § 15151.) The County's response
demonstrated a lack of good faith by selectively and misleadingly quoting from the
Watershed Protection Division's comment letter. The Response to Comment S-1 cites
the following excerpt in its comment letter:
The Watershed Protection Division did an independent analysis of the
groundwater recharge at reclamation and conditionally indicates
groundwater recharge at reclamation will be at least equal to recharge prior
to mining.
However, without the infiltration study and performance standard, which was
rejected by the County, groundwater recharge may be adversely affected, rendering the
above-quoted statement meaningless. The FEIR does not adequately analyze impacts to
groundwater recharge.
III. THE FEIR'S ANALYSIS OF NOISE IMPACTS IS LEGALLY
INADEQUATE
A. The FEIR Fails to Disclose and Analyze the Significant and
Unavoidable Noise Impacts of Project-Related Truck Traffic
The FEIR fails to analyze noise impacts from project-related truck traffic, despite
the 600 maximum one way truck trips (double what's currently permitted)that would be
permitted under the expansion. The noise chapter makes no attempt to hide this
216
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26,2013
Page 10
omission, including the following statement at the outset of the section and again in the
impact analysis:
The County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines(ISAGs)were re-adopted in
2010 and specifically exclude increased traffic noise on State highways,
Federal highways and roads included in the Regional Road network as
subject to the Noise Thresholds. All of the local haul routes identified for the
Grimes Rock facility fall in one of these roadway categories. Thus, no impact
is identified in this FEIR for any noise generated by project related increases
in traffic.
(FEIR at 4.3-1 and 4.3-9.)
Based on this dubious assertion, the County has eliminated all analysis of on-road
truck noise from the FEIR, even though the RDEIR concluded, and discussed at some
length, that substantial evidence supported a finding that the Project would create a
significant unavoidable Class I noise impact. (FEIR at 4.3-19 and 4.3-20 [strikethrough
text].) In light of CEQA's clear mandate that agencies inform themselves and the public
about the environmental effects of their proposed actions,carefully consider all relevant
information before they act, give the public an opportunity to comment on the
environmental issues, and avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts when it is
feasible to do so, it is frankly shocking that an agency would reach an initial conclusion
in a draft EIR that a project impact was significant and unavoidable, and later delete that
analysis from the FEIR,with no accompanying change in the evidence. Even more
surprising is the fact that the County's re-adoption of the ISAGs in 2010, cited as the
reason for deletion of the noise analysis, occurred two years before the release of the
RDEIR in September 2012, calling into question whether elimination of the threshold
was the precipitating reason for eliminating the analysis. Regardless of the underlying
motivation,the County's actions constitute a blatant violation of CEQA, and the FEIR's
failure to disclose and analyze the project's significant environmental impacts from on-
road truck traffic renders it legally inadequate
CEQA requires an EIR to identify and analyze the "significant environmental
effects"of a proposed project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(1); CEQA Guidelines §§
15126(a), 15126.2(a), 15143.) A significant environmental effect is defined as a
substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment. (Pub. Res. Code
§§ 21068, 21100(d); CEQA Guidelines § 15382.) While the CEQA Guidelines give an
agency discretion to formulate standards of significance for use in an EIR's analysis
(CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b)); an agency may not avoid analysis of a significant effect
by simply neglecting to adopt a particular significance threshold. (Protect the Historic
Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109.)
217
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 11
CEQA's requirement that an EIR focus on the significant environmental effects of a
proposed project is not discretionary, it is mandatory.
B. The FEIR's Analysis of Operational Noise Impacts is Inadequate
The FEIR states that operational noise impacts are evaluated based on the
proposed Project's proximity to existing noise-sensitive uses. (FEIR at 4.3-1.) However,
the FEW openly admits its failure to analyze impacts to existing uses constructed after
the release of the 2003 NOP, even though the RDEIR was released almost 10 years later.
(See FEIR at 4.3-1 and 4.3-4.) Moreover, even sensitive receptors constructed prior to
2003 are not adequately represented in the analysis. The only sensitive receptor
explicitly identified is a home approximately 2,400 feet southeast from the excavation
boundary. (FEIR at 4.3-9.) The FEIR claims that impacts to this residence will be less
than significant, but provides no analysis or evidence in support of this assertion.
Otherwise, the FEIR makes only vague references to area sensitive receptors, with no
accompanying analysis. (FEIR at 4.3-3.)
The FEIR does not include a noise study, and the noise chapter contains no
ambient noise data collected at or around the Project site. The only baseline noise data
collected for the Project was for 2004 haul routes,but as discussed above, that data has
been deleted from the FEW. (See FEIR Table 4.3-1 [strikethrough text].) The FEIR's
disclosure of the Project's operational noise impacts is limited to a statement that
"equipment noise ranges up to a maximum or about 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source."
(FEIR at 4.3-12.) With this single piece of data, and no accompanying analysis or
disclosure of baseline conditions or sensitive receptor locations, the FEIR concludes that
the Project's operational noise impacts are less than significant. (FEIR at 4.3-13.) It is
difficult to imagine an environmental document with a noise analysis more deficient than
that of this FEW.
C. The Cumulative Noise Analysis Is Deficient
The FEIR's analysis of cumulative noise impacts is equally deficient, as it
includes no discussion of the project's on-road truck noise impacts in combination with
other projects causing related impacts. (CEQA Guidelines § 15130.) Much like the
flawed analysis of project-specific noise impacts, the defective cumulative analysis relies
on the County's lack of an adopted threshold as a reason to exclude any consideration of
cumulative impacts associated with on-road truck noise. Astoundingly, the FEIR retains
the conclusion from the former RDEIR, in strikethrough text for all to see,that the
project would make a significant contribution to a significant cumulative impact, all
while maintaining the argument that no noise impact is identified in the FEW. (FEIR at
4.3-17.)
218
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26,2013
Page 12
An analysis of the cumulative impacts of operational noise is nominally included,
but fares little better. Much like the analysis of project specific noise impacts, the
cumulative analysis contains no data or evidence in support of its assertions. (FEIR at
4.3-18-19.)
The FEIR's failure to evaluate the Project's significant noise impacts, both project
specific and cumulative, renders it legally inadequate under CEQA.
D. The FEIR Does Not Remedy the Deficiencies of the RDEIR's Noise
Analysis or Adequately Respond to Noise-Related Comments
The FEIR makes no attempt to remedy the legal inadequacy of the RDEIR by
providing an analysis of Project noise impacts as required by CEQA. Instead, in response
to comments, including those of Moorpark, the County reiterates its specious argument
that no analysis of noise impacts from Project truck traffic is required, because no County
threshold exists with which to analyze it. Adding insult to injury, the FEIR states that
Moorpark's concerns about noise are unfounded, because the City has approved projects
in the past which require the use of trucks. (FEIR Response to Comment A.4.) Not only
is this argument irrelevant to whether this FEIR meets the requirements of CEQA, which
it clearly does not, the County's cavalier treatment of the City's comments and legitimate
concerns about impacts on its residents and community is unwarranted.
The FEIR similarly fails to remedy the blatant deficiency of its operational noise
impact analysis;the RDEIR was not revised in response to numerous comments
regarding the inadequacy. Furthermore, Topical Response No. 3 (Noise Impacts) is not
responsive to comments from the City of Fillmore(Comment B-40) or other commenters
that the noise data used in the FEIR is dated and deficient and in some cases, nonexistent.
In response to comments that the FEIR's analysis of impacts to sensitive receptors was
inadequate(Comment D-44), the FEIR's response is limited to a discussion of Tract Map
No. 5277, despite the commenter's identification of a number of other potential sensitive
receptors not identified or addressed in the FEW.
IV. THE FEIR'S AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FAILS TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA
A. The FEW is Legally Inadequate for its Failure to Provide Analysis of
Criteria Pollutant PM2.5 Impacts
Diesel trucks are a primary source of the PM2.5 pollutant, which as FEIR Table
4.2-2 notes "increases respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer and premature death and
reduces visibility and results in surface soiling." Inexplicably, the FEW Air Quality
Chapter contains no analysis of diesel truck PM2,5 emissions. CEQA requires that an
"EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed
219
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26,2013
Page 13
project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a).) Since diesel trucks are a significant l
element
of the project, PM2.5 emissions should be analyzed. The FEIR's failure to analyze PM2,5
emissions creates a serious deficiency in the document.
B. The Air Quality Analysis Utilizes Outdated Air Quality Models and
Year 1991 Meteorological Data
CEQA requires environmental documents to use the most up-to-date data and
models for analysis of impacts to air quality. (Berkeley Keep Jets over the Bay Comm. v.
Board of Port Commissioners(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344.) Utilizing up-to-date models
is critical because they contain the most current information on population, activity,
motor vehicle emissions inventory(including heavy duty trucks), fleet mix, and adopted
regulations, (including Pavley Clean Car Standard, low carbon fuel standard, truck and
bus rules and other truck fleet rules). Utilizing this current information, new models can
more accurately predict emissions in the future. The FEIR's analysis of air quality
impacts relies on outdated models and data, resulting in a legally deficient document.
The Off-Site Truck Exhaust Emissions analysis utilized URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.2,
which uses emissions data from EMFAC 2007. (FEIR at 4.2-15.) This is an outdated
model. In addition to newer versions of URBEMIS being available, URBEMIS is no
longer the recommended application to estimate emissions. Even the Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District(APCD),which the document states it relies upon for
methodology, does not recommend URBEMIS. "District staff recommends use of the
latest version of Ca1EEMod for estimating emissions from proposed land use
development projects." (Ventura County APCD, Air Quality Assessment Guidelines,
available at: http://www.vcapcd.org/environmental_review.htm)
Other air quality analyses in the FEIR appear to rely on even older models. FEIR
Appendix C, Air Quality, shows that Emission Factors for On-Road Trucks utilized
EMFAC2002 Computer Model. However,this statement conflicts with the statement
that the "EMFAC2007 mobile source computer model was used to determine the
appropriate DPM exhaust emission factor for running and idling emissions." (FEIR at
4.2-28.) Ultimately, it does not matter whether EMFAC2002 or EMFAC2007 was used.
They are both outdated. EMFAC2011, introduced in September 2011, is the industry
accepted standard.
The most outdated data in the chapter, and perhaps in the entire FEIR, is the 1991
meteorological data for Simi Valley. Data from the year 1991 does not represent existing
conditions. If out-of-date meteorological data is used, it should be accompanied by an
approval memo from the VCAPCD. (See additional discussion below on health
analysis.)
220
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 14
C. The FEIR's Health Analysis is Incomplete and Does Not Include All
Receptors
The FEIR's analysis of health impacts is legally deficient. While the document
states that exposure for residents was reviewed(FEIR at 4.2-16), there is no discussion or
analysis of the health impacts for workers. (See California EPA, Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk
Assessment Guidelines (OEHHA Guidelines), available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf.)
The FEIR provides no substantial evidence to support many of its conclusions.
(Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2; CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (f)(5).) For example,the FEIR
states that a"more detailed dispersion modeling study was undertaken for all three
proposed expansion projects. The more refined dispersion study showed that cancer risks
from diesel particulate matter(DMP)associated with increased site operations were
individually and cumulatively less than significant." (FEIR at 4.2-16.) The dispersion
modeling study itself and any isopleths created are not provided. Therefore, these
conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, cannot be verified and therefore
render the analysis inadequate under CEQA.
The FEIR states that health risk was calculated for"diesel particulate matter."
(FEIR at 4.2-16.) A detailed methodology is not included, making it impossible to
ascertain exactly how the health risk analysis was completed. For example,the section
on On-Site Diesel Emissions cites the diesel emission factor for PM10, based on
EMFAC2002. (FEIR at 4.2-24.) Health risk assessments should be based on total diesel
particulate matter. The FEIR does not provide enough information to determine how the
health risk analysis was completed and whether it is legally adequate.
The computer model for health risk "was combined with Simi Valley surface
meteorological data." (FEIR at 4.2-25.) As noted above, FEIR Appendix C includes
year 1991 metrological data for Simi Valley. These data are obviously outdated and do
not represent existing conditions. Per the OEHHA Guidelines, which provide the
"industry standard" methodology for health risk analysis, if the data do not represent
existing conditions, the document should include verification from the VCAPCD that the
data are certified for use. The FEIR is deficient because it does not contain any memos
or other information regarding VCAPCD's approval of year 1991 meteorological data.
D. The FEIR's Statements that Emission Reduction Will Occur Based on
Future Cleaner Diesel-Powered Equipment are Speculative
The air quality chapter makes numerous assertions that although there are air
quality impacts associated with the Project, emissions "will decrease in the future due to
221
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 15
cleaner equipment." (See, e.g., FEIR at 4.2-14,4.2-19 and 4.2-20.) These statements are
speculative. If the air quality emission analyses had utilized EMFAC2011, which
includes latest population, activity, emission data, and California Air Resources Board's
adopted rules and regulations for cleaner trucks, more accurate emissions estimates for
the future years, up to 2040 would have been included in the analysis.
E. The FEIR's Baseline Discussion and Impact Analysis are
Contradictory
The stated baseline utilized for air quality and the actual baseline used in the
analysis are not one and the same. The baseline section states that"baseline levels of
project air pollution are measured by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
("APCD") at the Simi Valley air quality monitoring station at 5400 Cochran. (FEIR at
4.2-9.) The reported baseline data,however, are not from the monitoring station. The
reported air quality analysis is based on net increase, subtracting proposed project
emissions from the permitted emissions. (Table 4.2-4.) One of the basic purposes of
CEQA is to"inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential,
significant environmental effects of proposed activities." (CEQA Guidelines §
15002(axl).) By providing conflicting and confusing information in the FEIR regarding
the baseline utilized for analysis, this basic purpose of CEQA is substantially diminished.
F. The FEIR Does Not Remedy the Deficiencies of the RDEIR or
Adequately Respond to Comments Regarding Air Quality
The City of Fillmore's comment letter(Comment B-39)informed Ventura County
that the EIR was inadequate because the air quality analysis utilized old models and data.
The response to the comment was legally deficient, stating only that the VCAPCD staff
reviewed the RDEIR air quality section in November 2009 and updated the air pollution
estimates for both on-site equipment and haul trucks. The problem is that these estimates
are based on the outdated EMFAC2007 model. In addition, the evidence provided does
not match the response to the comment or the data in the FOR. The model runs provided
in FEIR Appendix C indicate they were run on 2/7/06. This is prior to the EMFAC2007
release date, which was November 2007.
V. THE FEIR ANALYSIS OF GREENHOUSE GASES IS LEGALLY
INADEQUATE
A. The FEIR's Climate Change Analysis Utilizes Outdated Air Quality
Models and 1991 Meteorological Data
As noted in our comments on air quality, CEQA requires the use of the most up-to-date
data and models. (See Berkeley Keep Jets over the Bay,supra.) Up-to-date models
contain current information and more accurately predict emissions in the future. The
222
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26,2013
Page 16
FEIR analyses of greenhouse gas CO2 impacts rely on outdated models and data
resulting in a legally deficient document. The Climate Change project analysis utilized
URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.2, which uses emissions data from EMFAC 2007. This is
an outdated model. Newer versions of URBEMIS are available. Moreover, URBEMIS
is no longer the recommended application to estimate emissions. Even the Ventura
County Air Pollution Control District(VCAPCD), which the document states it relies
upon for methodology, does not recommend URBEMIS for greenhouse gas analysis.
"District staff recommends use of the latest version of CaIEEMod for estimating
emissions from proposed land use development projects." (VCAPCD, Air Quality
Assessment Guidelines, available at: http://www.vcapcd.org/environmental_review.htm)
The use of an outdated model and year 1991 meteorological data renders the analysis
inadequate.
B. The FEIR Contains No Substantial Evidence in Support of its Climate
Change Conclusions
The FEIR provides no substantial evidence to support its analysis of climate
change and greenhouse gases. The FEIR contains CO2 emissions for year 2025. (FEIR
at 4.9-12.) It does not, however, provide any information on how these numbers were
calculated. The FEIR includes no baseline data and no indication of what methodology
was used to calculate emissions. In short,the FEIR provides no data or information that
would allow the public or decision makers to verify the calculations. The Appendices
include no greenhouse gas data or model runs.
VI. THE FEIR'S ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CEQA
A. The FEIR Relies on Outdated Studies Which Do Not Accurately
Characterize the Project's Impacts on Biological Resources
The FEIR's analysis of impacts to biological resources relies upon outdated
studies, which do not reflect the existing environmental setting or provide a basis for an
accurate evaluation of project impacts as required by CEQA. Instead of performing new
surveys to replace the 10-year-old data presented in the 2006 EIR, the FEIR
impermissibly defers the analysis of biological resources impacts by requiring site
surveys to be performed as part of project mitigation. By deferring the required impacts
analysis to sometime after project approval, the FEIR violates the primary purpose of
CEQA: that decision-makers and the public be informed of the environmental impacts of
their proposed actions prior to approving a project.
Site-specific surveys for plants and animals listed in the FEIR include a focused
springtime floristic survey, an oak tree inventory and a protocol survey for the coastal
223
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 17
California gnatcatcher. All of these studies were conducted between 2001 and 2003.
(FEIR at 4.6-1.) The survey data have not been updated and the surveys are not included
in the FEIR or its appendices. The FEIR states that"field inspections" of the Project site
were conducted in 2012 which confirm the biological resource conditions reported in the
2006 Draft EIR. (FEIR at 4.6-1.) The FEIR provides absolutely no information about
the content of these inspections, and there is no indication that they complied with survey
protocols and guidelines set forth by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
("USFWS")and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife("CDFW"), which
represent the best available methodology for determining presence of threatened and
special status species. (See
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/survey_monitor.html.) The FEIR presents not a
shred of evidence in support of its conclusion that the inspection confirms the findings of
the 2006 EIR, and no written documentation of the inspection's findings is included in
the FEIR or its appendices. Instead, analysis of the project's impacts is completely
deferred to the mitigation measures. For example, Mitigation Measure BR 7-2A
(Protection of special-status wildlife), requires that surveys for special-status wildlife be
performed prior to land clearing activities. (FEIR at 4.6-52.) Mitigation Measure BR 10-
1 (Avoidance of California Gnatcatcher), requires protocol surveys to be conducted
within one year prior to the start of land clearing activities. (FEIR at 4.6-54.)
B. The FEIR Does Not Remedy the Deficiencies of the RDEIR's Analysis
of Biological Resources or Adequately Respond to Biological
Resources-Related Comments
Several commenters, including CDFW, expressed concern about the FEIR's
inadequate analysis of impacts to biological resources. CDFW in particular took issue
with the RDEIR's representation that the 2012 site inspections, which included CDFW
staff, confirmed the biological resource conditions contained in the 2006 EIR. Its letter
stated that the "site visit was not intended to supplement survey data from the RDEIR,
thus the RDEIR should not imply the RDEIR contains up-to-date biological survey data."
(CDFW Comment Q-1.) The FEIR's conclusions directly contradict CDFW's statement.
CDFW also comments that because the 2001-2004 botanical assessments relied upon in
the FEIR are not included in the RDEIR, it cannot determine whether the studies were
conducted in accordance with CDFW protocols. It further notes that surveys conducted
in June and July of 2003, with a subsequent one day visit in May of 2004 (after a 2003
wildfire and drought year), may have missed or underrepresented plant species.
CEQA requires that an EIR provide a reasoned response to comments requesting
that further studies be undertaken when those comments contain evidence indicating that
a further study is necessary to evaluate a significant impact. If the EIR does not respond
by undertaking the requested study, it must explain why the EIR's analysis is sufficient
without the additional study, provide a further analysis, or explain why the study
224
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 18
requested is infeasible. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay,supra.) Furthermore, if
comments on the draft EIR from experts or other agencies (such as CDFW) indicate that
the EIR's analysis of an impact has relied on incorrect data or a flawed methodology, the
EIR must provide a good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements
unsupported by references to supporting evidence are not sufficient. (CEQA Guidelines
§ 15088(c).)
The FEIR's responses to comments do not provide a reasoned response or a good
faith analysis. Topical Response 1 (Technical Studies) states that data from field
inspections has been "incorporated into the RDEIR." However, the FEIR contains
absolutely no evidence from the 2012 inspections, save a conclusory statement that they
occurred, and that they confirmed the findings presented in the 2006 FEIR. As noted
above,no written report was prepared to memorialize the findings of the 2012
inspections, so it is not possible to evaluate their sufficiency. A conclusory statement
does not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA, and therefore may not be relied
upon to reach a conclusion that impacts to biological resources are less than significant.
(Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2(c); CEQA Guidelines § 15064(0(5))
In response to comments regarding the age of existing studies and the need for
updated information, including those of CDFW, the FEIR simply reiterates the
conclusory statements initially made in the RDEIR. It admits that no records of the 2012
inspections are included in the FEIR because no technical reports were prepared based on
these inspections. (Response to Comment B.44.) It claims that information in the
RDEIR was supplemented with the 2012 field inspections, but as stated above, there is no
indication in the RDEIR itself that the information has been updated. In response to
CDFW's concern that plant species may be missing or underrepresented due to the age
and timing of the botanical assessments, the FEIR presents the same list of surveys set
forth in the RDEIR with no additional explanation. (Response to Comments Q.2.) It
goes on to state, again without explanation, that the surveys performed between 2000 and
2004 "provide an adequate picture of the flora on the project site." (Response to
Comments D.1.) This conclusory statement, in response to concerns raised by CDFW
about the quality and reliability of the data presented in the FEIR as well the
methodology used to obtain it, fails to comply with CEQA's requirements for a good
faith and reasoned analysis in response to comments.
VII. THE FEIR'S ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FAILS TO MEET
THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA.
A. The FEIR's Cumulative Impact Analyses Uses Flawed Methodology
The CEQA Guidelines set forth two methods for analyzing cumulative impacts:
the"list of projects" approach and the"summary of projections" approach. (CEQA
225
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 19
Guidelines § 15130(b)(1).) An EIR using the list-of-projects approach must include a list
of past,present, and probable future projects producing cumulative impacts, based on the
affected resource, the project location, and the project type. EIRs using the summary of
projections approach must use "a summary of projections contained in an adopted local,
regional, or statewide plan,or related planning document." The FEIR uses both
approaches, and neither meets the requirements of CEQA.
FEIR Chapter 3 presents a long list of related residential, commercial and
industrial projects, including other mining projects. It states that this list approach, and/or
"projected annual growth rates,"was used for the EIR cumulative impact analyses, as
applicable. (FEIR at 3-1.) The FEIR's list approach is legally inadequate because it only
considers the effects of probable future projects,excluding past and present projects as
required by CEQA. Operation of the Grimes Rock facility at the existing levels of
operation is a closely related present project, but impacts of present operations were not
added to impacts of the proposed expansion to determine whether cumulative impacts
would be significant. This error is particularly egregious because the County,through its
CUP amendment process, has the ability to mitigate the impacts of present as well as
expanded operations at Grimes Rock.
The FEIR's projections approach is also legally inadequate. For traffic and traffic-
related cumulative impacts a"2025 future baseline" was used. The 2025 future baseline
was based on"projected annual growth rates." These projected growth rates were not
explicitly based on a summary of projections in an adopted plan or planning document,
and were not quantified in the traffic impact analysis. The FEW fails to present
substantial evidence supporting the choice of the projected growth rates. The FEIR
claims that the annual growth rates are based on the Ventura County General Plan and
County traffic model (FEIR at 4.1-1 and 4.1-23), but presents no substantial evidence in
support of this assertion.
An EIR's cumulative impact analysis should also"define the geographic scope of
the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the
geographic limitation used. (CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1)(B)." Because cumulative
impacts often extend over a wider geographic area than the proposed projects' impacts,
the geographic scope of cumulative impact analysis is often larger. The FEIR fails to
provide an explanation supported by substantial evidence as to why the geographic scope
for each cumulative impact analysis was limited to be the same as for project-level
impact analysis.
226
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 20
B. The Cumulative Impact Analysis for Individual Resource Areas is
Legally Inadequate
1. The Air Quality Cumulative Analysis is Inadequate
The air quality cumulative analysis includes only "the proposed Grimes Rock
project in combination with proposed expansion projects at two other local mines (Best
Rock and Wayne J)." (FEIR at 4.2-17.) This limited analysis conflicts with the
discussion of cumulative impacts in Topical Response No. 2, which states that the
RDEIR specifically considered impacts from development projects in the cities of
Moorpark and Fillmore. Note that the Related Projects List(FEIR Table 3-1)contains
more than the two other mining expansion projects.
Cumulative analyses are not limited by type of project, and when utilizing the list
method, should include all past,present and probable future projects producing related or
cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the
agency. (CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1)(A).) Because the FEIR's air quality
cumulative analysis did not consider the effects of other current or probable future
projects with related air quality impacts, it is inadequate under CEQA.
2. The Hydrology and Water Resources Cumulative Analysis is
Inadequate
The hydrology cumulative impact analysis again considers only the impacts of
mining projects, ignoring the fact that any project type resulting in increased stormwater
runoff and/or wastewater generation could add to the proposed Project's water quality
impacts. (FEIR at 4.5-24.) Even as to the mining projects included, it fails to quantify
cumulative water demands compared to supplies, and presents no substantial evidence
supporting the conclusion that the proposed Project's water supply impacts are not
cumulatively considerable.
3. The Visual Resources Cumulative Analysis is Inadequate
Similarly, the cumulative impact analysis for visual resources considers only the
impacts of mining projects. (FEIR at 4.8-17)
4. The Noise Cumulative Analysis is Inadequate
For noise cumulative impacts, the FEIR asserts that only mining projects were
considered in the cumulative impact analysis because they did not generate"substantial"
noise due to their location or non-industrial nature. (FEIR at 4.3-18-19.) The FEIR
presents no evidence supporting this claim. Further, a project's contribution to
227
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 21
significant cumulative impacts cannot be dismissed merely because it is relatively small
compared to existing environmental conditions. (See Kings County Farm Bureau, supra.)
VIII. THE FEIR'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION DOES NOT MEET CEQA'S
REQUIREMENTS
In order for an EIR to adequately evaluate the environmental effects of a project, it
must first provide a comprehensive description of the project itself. The FEIR fails to
meet this basic requirement.
A. The Project Description is Legally Inadequate Because it Fails to
Include Project Objectives as Required by CEQA
An EIR's project description must state the objectives sought by the proposed
project, including its underlying purpose. (CEQA Guidelines § 15124(a).) The FEIR's
project description does not meet this fundamental requirement: it does not include an
appropriate statement of project objectives. Instead,the following statement purported to
be the statement of project objectives is included in Chapter 5 (Alternatives)of the FEIR:
Consistent with the Project Description included in Section 2.3 of this FEIR,
the purpose of the Project is to expand the area subject to surface mining
excavation from 48 acres to 135 acres and increase annual sand and gravel
production from 952,520 to 1,800,000 tons per year. These physical changes
in the mining site and operation are fundamental to the proposal and are
intended to meet future market demand for aggregate. The proposal would
increase the total permitted reserves of aggregate and its availability in
Ventura County.
(FEIR at 5-2.)
This statement of project objectives does not meet CEQA's requirements. The
first sentence essentially states that the purpose of the Project is to build the proposed
project as described in the project description; any alternative that does not expand the
site to 135 acres and increase gravel production to 1.8 million tons per year would fail to
meet this impermissibly narrow objective. The second objective, "to meet future market
demand for aggregate," is impermissibly vague. The FEIR does not identify which
specific markets are intended to be served, nor does it present evidence demonstrating
that the project is actually needed. For example,the FEIR contains no evidence
establishing that the vaguely-defined"market demand"could not be met through other
competing existing and planned aggregate projects. (See City of Moorpark RDEIR
Comment A-1 and August 4, 2006 comment letter on 2006 Draft EIR, Comment No. 4.)
The third sentence of the so-called objectives is stated as an observation only: to increase
the total permitted reserves of aggregate and its availability in Ventura County.
228
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26,2013
Page 22
B. The Project Description is Legally Inadequate Because it Fails to
Include All Components of the Project
An EIR's project description must include all components of the project, in order
to ensure that all environmental impacts of the project are considered. (City of Santee v.
County of San Diego(1989) 214 Ca1.App.3d 1438, 1450.) The FEIR's project
description fails to meet this requirement because it omits a description of areas that will
be graded outside the approved mineral extraction area("additional grading areas").
Instead, the submittal of this information is deferred until after project approval by
proposed Condition of Approval 67, which requires the applicant to submit a site plan
showing the locations of additional grading areas. (County Staff Report at 100.) The
FEIR's project description does not describe the additional grading areas, nor explain
why this information could not have been included, even in general terms. Omission of
this information from the project description results in underestimation of all
environmental impacts caused by the project's grading operations, in violation of CEQA.
C. The FEIR Does Not Remedy the Deficiencies of the RDEIR's Project
Description or Adequately Respond to Comments
The RDEIR did not include a statement of project objectives in the project
description and the FEIR does not remedy that deficiency, despite the City of Fillmore's
comment letter(Comment B-47)which informed Ventura County that the RDEIR
contained no statement of project objectives. In response to Fillmore's comment,the
FEIR merely states that the Project's objectives have been restated in the Final EIR in
order to give context to the evaluation of the various alternatives, and refers the
commenter to Topical Response No. 4. (Response to Comment B.47.) However,the
FEIR, in a continuing violation of CEQA's requirements for a project description, adds
project objectives to Chapter 5 only. Topical Response 4(Project Alternatives Analysis),
which purports to remedy this deficiency, references a fourth project objective, which is
not included in the project description or anywhere else in the body of the FEIR.
IX. THE FEIR'S ANALYSIS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES DOES NOT
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA
A. The FEIR Fails to Present a Reasonable Range of Alternatives
An EIR must present a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain
most of the project's objectives but avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project's
significant effects. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) The FEIR is legally inadequate
because: 1) it evaluates no alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic project
objectives, 2)it fails to evaluate alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen
significant project impacts capable of mitigation, in particular, significant traffic impacts,
229
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26,2013
Page 23
3) it improperly rejects off-site alternatives, and(4) it fails to present reclamation plan
alternatives.
1. The FEIR Fails to Evaluate Alternatives That Meet Most of the
Basic Project Objectives
The FEIR concludes that none of five alternatives evaluated would meet the
Project objectives because they fail to meet a single project objective, meeting the precise
area of excavation and annual production rate specified by the proposed Project. (FEIR
at 5-9 and 10.) Using this rationale, any alternative that does not expand the site to 135
acres and increase gravel production to 1.8 million tons per year would fail to meet this
impermissibly narrow objective.
The FEIR's alternative analysis does not consider whether the alternatives
presented could meet most of the basic project objectives,but rather focuses on this one
impermissibly narrow objective. An EIR cannot provide a meaningful comparison
between a proposed project and various alternatives unless the project's objectives are
defined broadly enough to make such alternatives at least potentially feasible. (Kings
County Farm Bureau at 736.) An EIR's alternatives must be able to implement most
project objectives, but they need not be able to implement all of them. (Watsonville Pilot
Association v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1087.)Chapter 5 of the
FEIR omits any discussion of the extent to which the alternatives could meet the other
project objectives, namely meeting future market demand for aggregate, and increasing
the total permitted reserves of aggregate and its availability in Ventura County.
More specifically, the FEW improperly rejects Alternative 4 as failing to meet the
project objectives,whereas the RDEIR concluded this alternative could meet the project
objectives. (FEW at 5-11.) Remarkably,the sole basis for this conclusion is the
applicant's comment letter on the RDEIR(see Topical Response 4 and Comment Letter
C). However, since "CEQA charges the [lead] agency, not the applicant,with the task of
determining whether alternatives are feasible, the circumstances that led the applicant in
the planning stage to select the project for which approval is sought and to reject
alternatives cannot be determinative of their feasibility. The lead agency must
independently participate, review, analyze and discuss the alternatives in good faith."
(Kings County Farm Bureau at 736.)
2. The FEIR Ignores Alternatives that Could Reduce or Avoid the
Significant Effects of the Project
When considering the ability of the alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen the
project's significant impacts, Chapter 5 of the FEIR improperly ignores alternatives that
could reduce significant impacts that it claims are capable of mitigation, in particular
230
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26, 2013
Page 24
traffic impacts. However, an EIR must discuss alternatives that avoid or substantially
lessen a significant impact even if that impact can be avoided or reduced by mitigation
measures. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of University of California
(1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 403.) The FEIR made a fundamental error by failing to present
alternatives that were designed to avoid or substantially reduce the following significant
impacts deemed capable of mitigation: traffic, air quality impacts other than dust
generation, noise, biology impacts other than cumulative impacts, and visual impacts
other than alteration of views. (I think this belongs as one of our top 10 comments at
beginning of letter)
Commenters do not have the burden to show that feasible alternatives exist to
avoid or substantially lessen these significant impacts. (Laurel Heights at 405.)
However,the administrative record is replete with potentially feasible alternatives
suggested by the public that could avoid or substantially reduce one or more of these
effects. (See, e.g., City of Fillmore Comment No. 46 regarding reduction of significant
traffic impacts.)
3. The FEIR Improperly Rejects Off-Site Alternatives
The FEIR improperly rejects off-site alternatives. Potentially feasible off-site
alternatives are available that meet the project objectives (other than the impermissibly
narrow objective of increasing on-site mining by specific amounts) and that could avoid
or substantially lessen the project's significant impacts. (See City of Moorpark August 4,
2006 comment letter on 2006 Draft EIR, Comment No. 9.) The FEIR's claims that off-
site alternatives would have greater environmental impacts than the proposed project are
not supported by substantial evidence. (FEIR at 5-2). However, as pointed out in the
City's 2006 comment letter, if the markets to be served by the proposed Project were
identified more specifically, it would be possible to identify new or expanded aggregate
mining sites closer to these markets, that could avoid some of the significant impacts of
the proposed Project.
4. The FEIR Fails to Include a Mine Reclamation Plan Alternative
The alternatives presented in the FEIR are limited to mining operation alternatives.
The amended mine Reclamation Plan is a major component of the proposed project that
would cause significant environmental impacts,yet no mine reclamation alternatives are
proposed. In fact, a RDEIR was prepared precisely because the original EIR for the
project omitted a description and analysis of the amended Reclamation Plan. The FEIR
discloses that the amended Reclamation Plan would contribute to significant water
resources, biological, and visual impacts, among others, yet it describes no alternatives to
the proposed Reclamation Plan that would avoid or substantially lessen these impacts.
231
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26,2013
Page 25
Specific objectives for mine reclamation should have been added to the Project
description. Mine reclamation alternatives should then have been developed—with
different timing, final slopes, revegetation, and end land uses —that could feasibly attain
these objectives but avoid or substantially lessen the proposed Project's significant
environmental impacts.
B. The FEIR Does Not Remedy the Deficiencies of the RDEIR or
Adequately Respond to Comments
The City of Fillmore's Comment No. 46 requests that the FEIR evaluate a number
of potentially feasible alternatives with greater limitations on peak hour trips and
operational limitations on haul truck operations. In response, Topical Response No. 4
speculates, with no supporting substantial evidence,that such alternatives would reduce
production levels. It further speculates that any reduction in production levels would
cause the applicant to"lose its ability to be economically competitive, and future
revenues would be insufficient to amortize costs incurred to date in processing the
pending CUP application." The FEIR estimates these costs to be $1.5 million over a nine
year period.
This does not represent good faith and reasoned response, as required by CEQA.
The response presents no substantial evidence that alternatives with greater limitations on
peak hour trips and operational limitations would materially reduce production levels.
The response presents no substantial evidence that the claimed reduction in production
levels would affect the applicant's economic competitiveness to such an extent that the
proposed Project would be economically infeasible. A conclusion that an alternative is
not economically feasible must be supported by substantial evidence and analysis
showing that it cannot reasonably be implemented based on economic constraints.
(Kings County Farm Bureau at 737.) Finally, the costs and time period for processing
the Project through the County's process are immaterial to determining the economic
feasibility of alternatives under CEQA.
X. THE FEW CONTAINS OTHER FLAWS THAT RENDER IT LEGALLY
INADEQUATE
A. The Initial Study Fails to Meet the Requirements of CEQA
The purpose of an initial study is to determine whether a project will have a
significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(c).) An initial study
may also be used to help focus an EIR on a project's significant effects. In such cases,
the study is used to identify environmental impacts that are not significant and thus need
no further review. The conclusions reached in an initial study must be based on
substantial evidence.
232
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26,2013
Page 26
The initial study for the proposed Project was prepared in November 2003. (FEIR
Appendix A.) Since that time, the Project Description, environmental conditions, and
County thresholds have changed. The initial study is no longer an accurate gauge of the
potentially significant impacts of the Project.
B. The FEIR's Analysis of the Modified Reclamation Plan is Legally II
Inadequate
The modified Reclamation Plan(FEIR Appendix G) is a major component of the
Project, yet the FEIR fails to provide adequate analysis of its environmental impacts. The
air quality impact analysis (FEIR Section 4.2.3) focuses on mining, and does not
explicitly reference activities associated with the Reclamation Plan, including salvaging
and stockpiling of topsoil and removal of processing plant facilities, and therefore it is
not possible to determine whether it was analyzed. Similarly, the noise analysis (FEIR
Section 4.3), references only mining-related noise sources.
The FEIR's analysis of biological resources (Section 4.6) suffers from a similar
flaw. The four thresholds used for analysis of impacts to biological resources reference
the Grimes Rock mining project only, and apparently have not been revised to reflect the
addition of the Reclamation Plan to the Project. (FEIR at 4.6-33-34.) The introduction to
the discussion of Project impacts (Section 4.6.3), describes the sand and gravel mining
activities only, and contains no mention of the activities associated with reclamation.
Although the Reclamation Plan includes revegetation of the entire site,the FEIR fails to
discuss or analyze the Plan's impacts on plants in sufficient detail. (FEIR at 4.6-41.)
There is no indication that the water demand calculations in the Hydrology and
Water Resources chapter include water required for implementation of the Reclamation
Plan, which will require water for, among other things, dust control associated with
material stockpiles. (FEIR Table 4.5-5, Impact WR-2, Mitigation Measure AQ 1-1.)
C. The Textual and Analytical Changes Made to the 2012 RDEIR are
Impossible to Distinguish and Review
The underlined text presented in the FEIR identifies changes to three different
documents: the 2006 EIR,the 2009 FEIR and the 2012 RDEIR without differentiation.
For this reason, it is impossible to tell whether the County made changes to the text or
analysis of the RDEIR in response to comments, and if it did, what text and analysis was
changed or added. The tables presented in the FEIR Table of Contents provide little
assistance. Tables A-1 and A-2 present textual and analysis changes as well as changes
to mitigation measures, but again, conflate changes to the 2006 DEIR, 2009 FEW and
2012 RDEIR. This error requires recirculation of the document, because it renders it "so
233
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26,2013
Page 27
fundamentally and basically inadequate...that meaningful public review and comment
were precluded." (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a)(4).)
XL THE COUNTY HAS NOT PREPARED A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM AS REQUIRED BY CEQA
CEQA requires a lead agency to adopt mitigation measures that are fully
enforceable, and to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program("MMRP")to
ensure that the measures are implemented. (Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6; CEQA
Guidelines § 15091(d).) The Planning Commission Staff Report states that a MMRP will
not be adopted; instead, the MMRP"is incorporated into each mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR," and all of the measures have been incorporated into the
recommended conditions of approval for the CUP. (Staff Report at 16.)
While CEQA does not specify detailed requirements for the specific content of
MMRPs,as noted above, both CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that mitigation
measures be fully enforceable. The following mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit 5
of the Commission Staff Report conditions of approval lack a monitoring requirement in
violation of CEQA:
• Condition 30: AQ 1-2 (APCD Rules and Regulations)
• Condition 33: WR 1-1 (Groundwater Recharge)
• Condition 34: WR 2-1 (Groundwater Supply)
XII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request that the County refrain
from acting on the Project until it has prepared and recirculated an EIR that fully
complies with CEQA. Please note that this letter was prepared with assistance from LLG
Engineers(resumes attached as Exhibit C).
Very truly yours,
•
Margaret M. Sohagi
for THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
234
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Ventura County Planning Commission
June 26,2013
Page 28
CC: Ventura Coun ty Supervisors
of Su rvisors
Ventura County Executive Officer
Ventura County Counsel
Ventura County Resource Management Agency Director
Ventura County Planning Director
City of Moorpark City Council
City of Moorpark Planning Commission
City of Moorpark City Manager
City of Fillmore Acting City Manager
W:1C\3941001\00266621.DOC
235
EXHIBIT A 236
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
CITY OF MOORPARK
I . 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
' PLANNING— BUILDING AND SAFETY— CODE ENFORCEMENT
799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021 (805)517-6200 fax(805)529-8270
nn vw.dmoorpark.ce.us
December 17,2003
•
Christopher Stephens,Director
County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency
Planning Division
800 South Victoria Avenue, L#1740
Ventura,CA 93009
Attention: Scott Ellison, Senior Planner
RE: Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report
Modification No.2 to Conditional Use Permit No.4874
Grimes Rock, Inc.
3500 Grimes Canyon Road,Fillmore
Thank you for sending the City a copy of the Notice of Preparation for the proposed
expansion of Grimes Rock's mining operation. As noted in past correspondence, the
City of Moorpark is vehemently opposed to any permits or alterations to permits that
would permit additional truck traffic through the City along Walnut Canyon Road and
Moorpark Avenue. As the residents and businesses within Moorpark are already
severely impacted by this incompatible land use, the City would like this EIR to address
the following concerns:
1. Existing Haul Route Restriction—Although it is our understanding that a condition
on Grimes Rock's permit does not allow the use of Walnut Canyon Road as a haul
route, trucks to and from this mine are routinely using Walnut Canyon Road, as it
provides the most direct path to the SR-118 and SR-23 freeways. This condition as
written does not provide a mechanism for easy enforcement given that the truck
drivers are not employed by the mine operators,and therefore not under their control
when they are not on the mine property. Mitigation measures developed as part of
this EIR must be enforceable and must have a mechanism for ongoing monitoring
included for the life of the project, as well as, a means of penalty and revocation if
mitigation measures do not continue to be met. In the meantime, the City of
Moorpark requests that the existing ongoing violation be referred to the County's
Code Enforcement staff; and that if the violation is not immediately and positively
dealt with,that the County cease all processing of any expansion of the use.
2. Areas of Impact—Impacts to existing and planned land uses in Moorpark from this
project that should be addressed in the EIR, both individually and cumulatively,
include traffic and traffic safety, noise, vibration, destruction of the road surface, air
quality including toxic emissions from diesel engines, and land use compatibility.
i`Cor,m,,rnny Deve,00menr;.GEN, cunly.Ge,mes_'ar yn,"it,2 17 NOP :r,r,e5 Pod ax
PATRICK HUNTER JANICE PARVIN CUNT HARPER ROSEANN MIKOS KEITH F.MILLHOUSE
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Coundlmember Councllmember Coundlrnernber
14
CC ATTACHMENT 1
237
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Christopher Stephens
December 17, 2003
Page 2
The City would like to see the EIR evaluate noise and traffic impacts within Moorpark
using local thresholds. For traffic, staff does not believe the use of a planning level
analysis with generalized standards for lane capacity would adequately assess the
impacts on traffic in the City,given the nature of the project. The City believes that a
detailed operational analysis of capacity, passenger car equivalency for heavy
trucks, and traffic impacts at the intersections of Walnut Canyon Road and Casey
Road, Moorpark Avenue and High Street, Moorpark Avenue and Poindexter
Avenue/First Street, Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue, and Los Angeles
Avenue/New Los Angeles Avenue and Spring Road is the only way the full impact of
the proposed project could be fully understood. This operational analysis should
take into account vertical and horizontal geometry, signalization/signal timing,
railroad operations/proximity to railroad tracks, proximity to other signalized and
unsignalized cross streets, driveways, corner turn radii, heavy truck volumes,
pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and overall condition of the roadway. In the past, the
City has suggested that a Passenger Car Equivalency factor of 3.0 should be used
to assess heavy truck impacts instead of 2.0 as suggested by ATE in its early scope
of work for a traffic study prepared for this project. The City would like to see in the
EIR a detailed analysis of local conditions to determine an appropriate Passenger
Car Equivalency factor for the trucks given the complex network of streets, railroad
tracks,and driveways in close proximity to one another in the City's downtown core.
3. Alternative Route—The proposed removal of the condition that currently prohibits
the use of Walnut Canyon Road as a haul route is not acceptable given the existing
incompatibility of the truck traffic with the residential neighborhood and the
downtown commercial district. The EIR should consider an alternative to the
removal of this restriction that does not impact the residential and commercial land
uses along this route. The only alternative that would not become an enforcement
issue later on is the completion of the SR-23 Bypass from the SR-23/SR-118
freeways to Broadway. Such a route would allow trucks to haul sand and gravel on
a direct route from the mines to the freeways. Truck drivers would by choice no
longer use Walnut Canyon Road as it would be less direct. This bypass route is
planned in the City's General Plan Circulation Element to carry through traffic. City
staff is currently studying alignment and freeway connection alternatives for this
bypass route and is available to discuss these alternatives with County staff and the
EIR consultant. The City would like to see the EIR compare such an alternative with
the proposed project for impacts and accomplishing the project objectives. It should
also be noted that the construction of this bypass has been designated by the
Ventura County Transportation Commission as a priority project for STIP funding,
although the timing of the availability of funds for this project is uncertain at this time
given the State's financial crisis.
4. Saturday Operations — The City opposes any expansion of operations that would
allow Saturday hauling as this would create greater incompatibility with the City's
efforts to redevelop its downtown core into a vibrant commercial destination
consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. This land use impact
15
238
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Christopher Stephens
December 17,2003
Page 3
should be fully addressed in the EIR. The City would also oppose any expansion in
hours beyond 7:00 P.M., due to nighttime noise impacts, should consideration be
given to nighttime hauling to mitigate peak-hour traffic impacts.
5. Public Outreach— Up to this point, the only significant involvement on this EIR has
been staff from the County and various agencies, including Caltrans, VCTC, CHP,
and the Cities of Fillmore and Moorpark. Due to the significance of this project to the
quality of life in Moorpark, the City would like to see the County and EIR consultant
to hold at least one public meeting on the Draft EIR in the City of Moorpark to inform
the residents of the proposal and accept oral testimony. Moorpark residents within
300 feet of the exiting haul routes should be notified of the Draft EIR and 1/8 page
ads should be placed in the local newspapers (Ventura County Star, Moorpark
Acorn and Simi-Valley Moorpark Examiner).
The contact person for the City of Moorpark is David A. Bobardt at(805)517-6281. We
look forward to discussing these issues with you and reviewing the Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
Sincerely,
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
C: Honorable City Council
Honorable Planning Commission
Steven Kueny, City Manager
Supervisor Judy Mikels
Chron
File
16
239
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
,�-I.t City g [ oog,arif
��- �• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:PLANNING BUILDING AND SAFETY-COOE COMPLIANCE
799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021 (805)517 8200 fax(805)532-2540
August 4, 2006
County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency
Planning Division
800 South Victoria Avenue, L#1740
Ventura, CA 93009
Attention: Scott Ellison, Senior Planner
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)
Modification No.2 to Conditional Use Permit No.4874
Grimes Rock, Inc.
3500 Grimes Canyon Road,Fillmore
Dear Mr. Ellison,
Thank you for sending the City a copy of the Draft EIR for the proposed expansion of
the Grimes Rock mining operation. The City of Moorpark recognizes the importance of
the proper management of the County's aggregate resources to provide for present and
future County needs. However, as has been dearly stated in past correspondence,
expansion of any of the mining operations along State Route 23 north of Moorpark,that
either increases the number of sand and gravel trucks in our downtown area or
increases the hours in which the trucking occurs, is strongly opposed by the City.
These trucks already significantly impact downtown area land uses, and any expansion•
would be in opposition to the City's efforts to improve the livability of this area and
redevelop its downtown core into a vibrant commercial destination, consistent with the
General Plan and Downtown specific Plan. The Draft EIR prepared for the expansion
of Grimes Rock's mining operation does not adequately address the full extent of the
project impacts. Based on the comments below related to the significance of impacts
and the feasibility of mitigation measures, this document should be revised and
recirculated for public comment prior to its use as a decision-making tool on this
expansion proposal_
1. Project History and Existing Operations (Section 2.2) — One item in the
document that can be clarified is the discussion of mining activity in different terms
(i.e. tons per year, Ions per day, trucks per day, cubic yards) that are not easily
comparable. A table that shows the conversion of this information into comparable
terms would be useful and provide more clarity. The EIR also refers to truck trip
limits in terms of one-way trips per day. Clarification should be provided on whether 46-1
each truckload is considered one or two trips, and whether the trucks importing
gravel to the site are counted as part of the permitted truck trips. This section should
also provide more detail on the market for the material. Proper analysis and
understanding of the permit request depends on knowing in approximate terms how v
30
CC ATTACHMENT 3
240
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 2
much material is provided to the Simi Production Consumption Region,how much is A
provided to the Western (Ventura County) Production Consumption Region, and
how much is provided to western Los Angeles County. If the four existing sand and
gravel mines are now meeting the aggregate demand for Ventura County,where will
the additional material go if the expansion is permitted? Also, this section does not
state whether or not the Grimes Rock site is importing gravel to produce aggregate,
as is occurring at the Wayne J. Sand and Gravel operation according to that EIR,or
if sufficient gravel existing at this location to preclude the future need to import gravel
if the expansion is approved. If gravel is currently being imported or will need to be 464
imported if the project is approved, the EIR should document the source of that
gravel and assess the impacts of the importation. This information is important in
the understanding of the impacts and comparison of the alternatives. Finally, this
section states the existing CUP currently limits the mine to deliver "nearly all" its
product to the State Ready Mix batch plant in Saticoy. This term, while perhaps
quoting a project condition, is vague. "Nearly all" needs to be more clearly defined
to understand the baseline and the consequences of the applicant's requested
modification to allow hauling via any route to any customer location, and eliminate
any volume or timing restrictions on trucks going south.
2. Relationship of Existing and Proposed Permits to CEQA Analysis (Section
—The Draft EIR cites a previous court case (Fairview Neighbors v. County of
Ventura—TO CaLApp.41h 238)and establishes a baseline for analysis as that which
is permitted under the current Conditional Use Permit. If all-the permitted activities
are part of the baseline, whether or not these activities are currently taking place,
then the current restrictions on the activities should also be part of the baseline. It
should be noted that the current Conditional Use Permit expires in the year 2013.
Therefore, the baseline for impact analysis after 2013 should be with no mining
activities taking place on the project site. For cumulative analysis, the baseline 46-2
should also take into account that the Best Rock Conditional Use Permit expired in
2000 and the Wayne J.Conditional Use Permit will expire in 2012.
It should be further noted that the current permit prohibits truck traffic from Best
Rock and Grimes Rock from using Walnut Canyon Road. However the cumulative
analysis in the EIR is based only on the additional trucks under the expansion of
these mining operations, and does not count the impact of the existing trucks that
would be legally permitted to use Walnut Canyon Road if these CUP modifications
are approved. This results in an understating of transportation, air quality, noise,
and land use impacts in Moorpark. —
3. Project Objectives (Section 2.9)—The Draft EIR has seven bullet-pointed project
objectives (Pages 1-8 and 2-16). These stated objectives are inadequate since
none call for compliance with the County's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance, 46"3
fundamental requirements for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)or,in this
case, modification to an existing CUP. Without General Plan and Zoning Ordinance v
31
241
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ellison
August 4. 2006
Page 3
A
compliance as a project objective, there is no assurance that any of the alternatives
(including the proposed project)are feasible.
The County's General Plan discusses the importance of extraction areas being dose
to areas of use and demand. Among the stated goals of the County's General Plan
are to identify and manage mineral resources in order to:
• Safeguard future access to the resource.
• Facilitate a long-term supply of mineral resources within the County.
▪ Minimize incompatibility between the extraction and production of the
resource and neighboring land uses and the environment.
As stated in the Draft EIR, the project is located in the Open Space -160 Acre
Minimum with a Mineral Resources Protection Overlay (0-S-160/MRP) Zone.
Among the stated purposes of the MRP Overlay Zone are:
• to safeguard future access to an important resource. -3
• to facilitate a long term supply of mineral resources within the County.
• to minimize land use conflicts.
The feasibility analysis of the alternatives in the Draft EIR is based partly on the
ability to achieve the identified project objectives. The project objectives would also
be used in Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the project is
approved with unmitigated impacts (as is proposed). The importance of including
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance compliance as project objectives for
consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Modification application cannot be
understated. Neither the project, nor any of the alternatives should be approved if
they cannot meet such basic project objectives. Further comments on project and
alternative analysis related to this issue are provided under the respective chapter or
section comments.
Of minor note,the correct spelling is°public"in the first project objective.
4. Mining Needs and Local Context(Section 2.9.1)—Currently, at least three of the
four sand and gravel mines along State Route 23 north of Moorpark are providing
aggregate material to western tos Angeles County, as well as both the Simi
Production Consumption Region and the Western Production Consumption Region
in Ventura County. The Draft EIR does not, but should identify the current and
future aggregate demand in each of the two production consumption regions of 46-4
Ventura County, as well as the demand from tos Angeles County,and how much of
this demand is being met by each of the four Grimes Canyon quarries. Without this
information, the Draft EIR does not properly analyze whether or not the expansion of
any of the existing mining permits is needed to comply with the goals of both the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to facilitate a long term supply of mineral
resources within the County. In addition, identification of the demand is crucial in
V
32
242
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 4
understanding the project impacts in the comparison of alternatives and in the 46-4
mitigation of truck impacts through trip limits.
5. Related Projects(Chapter 3.0)—With respect to the related projects list, Moorpark:
Residential Project No 3 has about 200 units already completed and occupied.
Residential Project No. 4 is 284 units, not 247 as stated; Residential Project Nos. 5,
10, 12 and 13 have all been complete for well over a year and should be deleted;
Residential and Commercial Project No. 16 (10 on Commercial List) was denied in
February, 2006 and should be deleted; Residential Project No. 19 is 200 apartment
units, not 110 as stated;Commercial Project No. 45 is on the north side of Campus 46-5
Park Drive;Commercial Project Nos.46 and 47 are complete and should be deleted;
two shopping centers on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue between Moorpark
Avenue and Park Lane, totaling about 100,000 square feet, should be listed; a
25,522 square-foot office building, south of Los Angeles Avenue and west of Leta
Yancy Road should be listed; a 15,505 square-foot office building on Park Lane
should replace the description for site 48; a 76,000 square-foot medical office
building on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue between Leta Yancy Road and
Shasta Avenue should be added; Industrial Project No. 69 is complete and should
be deleted;Industrial Project No.70 is south of the railroad tracks.
6. Traffic/Circulation(Section 4.1 and Appendix B)—The City retained Austin Foust
Associates, inc. to review the Traffic Study for the Grimes Canyon Quarries in the
County of Ventura, Appendix B of the Draft EIR, prepared by Katz, Okitsu, &
Associates to analyze the individual and cumulative traffic impacts of the three sand
and gravel mine expansion proposals being-reviewed concurrently. Their comments
are incorporated as City comments on the Draft EIR as follows and apply to Section
4.1 as well as Appendix 13:
• The existing and short-range (2006) conditions are based on peak hour
count data that is at least two years old and may be as old as four years or
more (i.e., some data was obtained from the previous report prepared by
Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) in October 2002). In addition 46_6
to being out of date, there is a discrepancy between existing peak hour
intersection levels of service (LOS) in recent City reports (e.g., "Essex
Apartments Traffic Analysis' dated April 2005, "Traffic Impact Study for
110-Unit Residential Development Casey Road" dated June 2006, etc.)
and the existing LOS reported in the Grimes Canyon Quarries traffic study
(e.g., High Street at Moorpark Avenue is operating at LOS "C" in recent
City reports and LOS`A"in the Grimes Canyon Quarries study and Spring
Street at Los Angeles Avenue is operating at LOS "D" in recent City
reports and LOS "B" in the Grimes Canyon Quarries study). These
differences may be due to different count years or different lane
assumptions, but the result is that the Grimes Canyon Quarries traffic
study does not adequately identify the impacts from the proposed
expansion on these intersections since they would be operating at
�r
33
243
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ellison
August 4,2006
Page 5
A
unacceptable levels of service with the proposed project. The intersection
volume counts in the City of Moorpark need to be updated for a realistic 46-6
depiction of current conditions and.for projected short-range conditions.
• The Grimes Canyon Quarries traffic study concludes that the proposed
project has a significant impact at the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road
and Casey Road and identifies planned signal modifications as mitigation
for this impact; however, the City last summer completed the addition of a
protected left-turn phase from northbound Walnut Canyon Road to 46-7
westbound Casey Road at this location. A simultaneous right-turn arrow
from eastbound Casey Road to southbound Walnut Canyon Road has not
been installed. The project should determine project impacts under
current conditions and identify additional mitigation measures if needed at
this or any other locations in the City of Moorpark at which updated peak
hour counts reveal additional significant impacts.
• The Grimes Canyon Quarries traffic study recognizes the City of
Moorpark's opposition to the use of Walnut Canyon Road/Moorpark
Avenue as a haul route for trucks, and offers the use of Grimes Canyon
Road south of Broadway as an alternative route to mitigate the
inconsistency with the City of Moorpark General Plan. All quarry truck
traffic, including existing trucks, would be prohibited from using Walnut
Canyon Road/Moorpark Avenue. The removal of truck traffic from Walnut
Canyon Road/Moorpark Avenue is seen as a positive impact; however,
the increase of project trucks on South Grimes Canyon Road is
considered an unacceptable impact to the City's residents along Grimes
Canyon Road south of Broadway and on Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118)
west of Moorpark Avenue.
- Projected buildout volumes were obtained from the County's traffic model.
These volumes differ from buildout volumes produced by the Moorpark
Traffic Analysis Model(MTAM). In this case,the county model produces a
worse level of service at study intersections than the MTAM volumes.
These discrepancies may be attributable to two major circulation 46-9
improvements assumed in the .MTAM that are not assumed in the
County's model (i.e.,construction of North Hills Parkway and extension of
Spring Road to Walnut Canyon Road, the latter now under construction).
Although the buildout volume projections differ, the proposed project is not
expected to produce any long-term negative impacts that would not be
addressed under short-range conditions.
The preceding comments summarize our concerns regarding the overall
methodology and conclusions of the traffic study. The following comments refer to
specific items throughout the report.
34
244
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
•
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2005
Page 5
• Page 13: The traffic study discusses the use of the City of Moorpark's
peak hour operating standard for determining significant impacts (i.e.,
project causes.02 or more increase in the intersection capacity utilization
(ICU) value at intersections which reach LOS 'D"); however, the ICU
analysis does not use the City of Moorpark's saturation flow rate
assumptions (1,600 vehicles per hour(vph) per through lane and 1,500
vph per left-or right-turn lane). In addition, the traffic analysis does not X10
apply. a passenger car equivalent (PCE) adjustment to the background
volumes for non-project-related existing heavy truck traffic on the
roadways. Given the higher than average amount of existing heavy truck
traffic on Walnut Canyon Road/Moorpark Avenue and on Los Angeles
Avenue(SR-118), the use of 1,800 vph per lane in the traffic analysis for
all movements is too high. The ICU values at locations within the City of
Moorpark should be calculated assuming the City's saturation flow rates. —
• Figure 2: To what does "TDS Counts 10/15• in the legend of Figure 2,146-11
Figures16-22, Figures 28-31,and Figures 35-36 refer?
• Page 21, Table 6: The existing ICU values in Table 6 do not match the
ICU values in the calculation worksheets in Appendix B. In addition, the 46-12
calculation worksheets for the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road at
Casey Road are missing from Appendix B.
• Page 34, Table 10: The Scenario 2 (year 2006 with existing permit levels
of project traffic)AM peak hour ICU value for the intersection of Moorpark 46-13
Avenue at Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118)in Table 10(.526 LOS "A")does
not match the ICU value in the calculation worksheet in Appendix C(1.376
LOS"F").
• Page 45,Table 14: The Scenario 5(year 2025 with existing permit levels
of project traffic)AM peak hour ICU values in Table 14 do not match the
ICU values in the calculation worksheets in Appendix E for the .46-14
intersections of Moorpark Avenue at Poindexter Avenue (.519 LOS 'A"in
Table 14 and _514 LOS "A"in Appendix E) and Moorpark Avenue at Los
Angeles Avenue(SR-118)(.679 LOS"B'in Table 14 and .989 LOS"E"in
Appendix E).
• Page 49: The traffic analysis states that the counts of existing truck traffic—
were approximately 50 percent lower than expected based upon the
existing volume of material and the expected number of trucks for each 46-15
site. How was the expected number of trucks determined? What is
amount of material per truck assumed for the analysis? Also, please
provide additional details about how the truck traffic activity was
normalized.
• Page 50, Table 16: The Rate per Million Tons for both Cars and Trucks 46-16
are incorrect for Grimes Rock and Best Rock(e.g.,4 cars/.95Z million tons
35
245
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 7
A
•= 4.20 cars/million tons not 4.00 cars/million tons). As a result of these
errors, the Average Car Rate and Average Truck Rate are incorrect. Are 46-16
the Average Car Rate and Average Truck Rate used to determine the
requested amount of project traffic? -
• Page 50, Table 16: There is no footnote to explain the presence of an 1 46-17
asterisk next to the Average Car Rate and Average Truck Rate.
▪ Page 51: The text in the first paragraph refers to "requested" daily
average trips but the discussion in this section is about the existing 46-18
permitted trips. •
• Page 51, Table 17: It would be helpful if the order of project sites in l 46_19
Tables 16, 18, 19,21,22,22A,228,and 22C matched the order of sites in .11
Tables 17,20,and 20A to ease comparisons.
• Page 51, Table 17: Please provide more details on how the permitted
peak hour trips in Table 17 were arrived at. The Best Rock trips area
supposed to be based on the existing counts because there is no CUP trip
restriction,but the volumes in the table do no correspond with the existing
truck counts contained in Appendix A.
• Page 52: The last paragraph again refers to "requested" levels of traffic.l 46„21
although this section is about the existing permitted traffic. J
• Page 53, Table 18: The car trip volumes have no relation to the existing
�
counts or the.calculated average rate per million tons from Table 16. How -
was the permitted amount of car trips determined?
• - Page 53, Table 18: Do the permitted traffic generation truck volumes in
Table 18 include trucks delivering imported materials to the Wayne J site? 46-23
The Notice of Preparation states that the Wayne .1 site currently averages
50 to 100 tons of imported materials per day.
• Page 55, Table 20: How was the Requested Traffic Generation for each
site determined? The requested truck trips do not appear to be factored 46-24
up from existing counts or permitted trips, or calculated based on the
average truck rate per million tons presented in Table 16.
• Page 55, Table 20A and Appendix A: The existing counts of truck traffic
at the project entrances (Appendix A)indicate that the current distribution
of gravel trucks is 50 percent north of the site and 50 percent south of the
site for Best Rock during the AM peak hour, 61 percent north of the site
and 39 percent south of the site for Grimes Rock during the AM peak -
hour, and 44 percent north of the site and 56 percent south of the site for
Wayne J during the AM peak hour. These distribution patterns are
occurring now while the route restrictions along Walnut Canyon
Road/Moorpark Avenue are supposedly in place. The project sites are
requesting the removal of the route restrictions along Walnut Canyon v
36
246
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 8
A
Road/Moorpark Avenue as part of the proposed expansion, and yet the
traffic analysis assumes that the distribution of truck traffic from Best Rock
and Grimes Rock to the north will increase to 70 percent. Why is the
percentage of truck traffic to the north from Best Rock and Grimes Rock 46-25
expected to increase during the AM peak hour? If the route restrictions
are removed as requested, won't the amount of truck traffic to the south
increase?
• Page 60: Discussion of the trip distribution in paragraph 6 refers to
distribution for the two northern projects shown in Figure 16a and two 46_26
southern projects shown in Figure 16b, for a total of four project sites.
Discussions on pages 76, 81, 84, and 87 also refer to four project sites.
Ate there three or four sites as part of the proposed project?
• Figure 16a: The legend or title should indicate which project sites are 46_27
considered "Northern Projects" since there is no other reference to the
northern projects in the report.
• Figure 16b: The legend or title should indicate which project sites are 46_28
considered "Southern Projects' since there is no other reference to the
southern projects in the report
• Figure 20: The volumes in and out of the Grimes Rock site do not add up
to the AM peak hour trip generation in Table 22. The through volumes at 46.29
the Grimes Rock entrance and the Wayne's Way intersection do not add
up to the volumes at the adjacent intersections. _
- Figure 22: The through volumes at the Wayne's Way intersection do not]46.30
add up to the volumes at the adjacent intersections.
- Page 71, Table 23: The ICU values for Moorpark Avenue at Los Angeles
Avenue(SR-118) in Table 23(.582 LOS"A"AM, .679 LOS"B"PM)do not 46-31
match the ICU values in the calculation sheets in Appendix C (1.412 LOS
"F"AM, .989 LOS"E"PM).
- Page 77,Table 25: The AM peak hour ICU value for Moorpark Avenue at
Los Angeles Avenue(SR-118)in Table 25 (.679 LOS "B") does not match 46-32
the ICU value in the calculation worksheet in Appendix F (.989 LOS "E").
- Page 83, Table 28: The existing 2004 ICU values do not match the ICU—
values in the calculation worksheets in Appendix B. The Scenario 3(year
2006 with proposed permits) ICU values for Moorpark Avenue at Los
Angeles Avenue (SR-118) in Table 28 (.582 LOS "A" AM, .680 LOS "B" 46_33
PM) do not match the ICU values from the worksheets in Appendix C
(1.412 LOS "F" AM, .989 LOS "E" PM). The project has a significant
impact at the intersection of Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue
(SR-118)based on the ICU values in Appendix C. ..
37
247
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 9
• Page 85: The text should include a discussion of the projects' significant 46_34
impact on the intersection of Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue
(SR-118)based on the ICU values in Appendix C.
• Page 89, Table 31: The AM peak hour ICU value for Moorpark Avenue at
Los Angeles Avenue(SR-118) in Table 31 (.679 LOS-8")does not match
the ICU value in the worksheet in Appendix E (.989 LOS "E"); however, 46-35
the project has no significant impact on this intersection under buildout
conditions. _
• Page 91: The City of Moorpark has completed the signal modification
referred to in the discussion of Walnut Canyon Road and Casey Road
mitigation. Project impacts with the current signal operation should be 46_36
identified. There is no discussion of the significant project impact at
Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118) identified in Table
31. ---
• Page 92: There is no discussion as to why only the Wayne J site has an
impact at Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118) under 46-37
2025 conditions.
• Page 94: The intersection of Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue
(SR-118) needs to be included in the list of year 2006 impacted locations 48-38
based on the ICU values in Appendix C.
• Page 96: Discussion of project impacts on the intersection of Moorpark
Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118) under buildout conditions 46-39
based on ICU values in Appendix E and subsequent mitigation measures
need to be included in the text.
• Page 97, Table 34: Table 34 should include the intersection of Moorpark
. Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118)in the evaluation of mitigation 46-40
for year 2006 conditions based on the ICU values in Appendix C.
• Page 97, Table 34: The ICU values in Table 34 are not included in the 46-41
ICU calculations worksheets in the Appendix.
• Page 98: Walnut Canyon Road/Moorpark Avenue is not a truck route on—r
the City of Moorpark General Plan. As stated in the text, the City of
Moorpark objects to the use of Walnut Canyon Road/Moorpark Avenue by
heavy trucks. However, the offer to redistribute the project trucks to 46-42
Grimes Canyon Road south of Broadway will simply transfer the impacts
of increased truck traffic to the residents along South Grimes Canyon
Road and along Los Angeles Avenue(SR-118)west of Moorpark Avenue.
- Page 98: If the gravel trucks are to use Grimes Canyon Road south of
Broadway as a mitigation measure, then the project impacts at Moorpark 46-43
Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118)as a result of the redistribution
of truck traffic still needs to be addressed.
38
248
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ell,son
August 4, 2006
Page 10
• Page 109: The discussion of Buildout Year (2025) mitigation needs to
show that the City's signal modification improvements at Walnut Canyon 46-44
Road and Casey Road result in an acceptable LOS, and that the project
has no significant impact at this location. _
• Figure 35 and Figure 36: The peak hour figures do not show the correct J
number of project trips traveling on Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118)east of 46-45
Grimes Canyon Road.
• Page 117: The enforcement of route restrictions must be actively pursued
and meaningful penalties must be imposed. 46"46
• Page 127: The mitigation costs will need to be recalculated after updated
traffic counts are obtained and corrected lane assumptions and signal � 7
operations are taken into consideration, which may result in additional
project impacts.
• Page 133: The project impacts identified in the report are based on trips
requested by the project applicants. What assurances does the City have 46-48
that these levels of peak hour traffic will not be exceeded?
Other comments are as follows: —
Page 4.1-53: Impacts on Pavement. Moorpark Avenue has been severely damaged
by the extensive volume of heavy trucks, the vast majority of which are sand and
gravel trucks. A doubling of the truck volumes,as proposed collectively by Wayne J,
Grimes Rock,.and Best Rock,is more that a slight variation in truck usage,as noted 4649
in the Draft EIR. Deep depressions in the asphalt can now be seen on Moorpark
Avenue where the sand and gravel trucks travel on a daily basis. These
depressions were not caused by passenger vehicles. What can Moorpark expect
with an even greater number of trucks? Mitigation is needed to repair this damage
that is a direct result of the quarry operations. -J
Page 4.1-62: Mitigation Measure T 1-2. A protected left-turn phase has been
provided from northbound Walnut Canyon Road to westbound Casey Road in the
summer of 2005, however, a simultaneous right-turn arrow fron- eastbound Casey
Road to southbound Walnut Canyon Road has not been installed.
Page 4.1-64: Mitigation Measure T-1-5. As evidenced from previous attempts to
prevent Best Rock and Grimes Rock sand and gravel trucks from using Walnut
Canyon Road/Moorpark Avenue, measures that attempt to prohibit trucks on roads 46-51
where trucks are normally permitted are unenforceable without full-time code
enforcement efforts.
Page 4.1-67: Mitigation Measure T 3-4. The City of Moorpark has a reciprocal
Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee agreement with the County, therefore this mitigation is 46_52
not infeasible as stated.
39
249
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 11
Page 4.1-69: Mitigation Measure T 6-1. Repair to the Moorpark Avenue roadway
damage caused by heavy trucks should be included in the mitigation, since sand
and gravel trucks account for the vast majority of trucks, and weighing ten times or 46-53
more the weight of passenger cars, account for the majority of the pavement
damage.
7. Noise (Section 4.3) -The noise impact is understated for residential areas already
experiencing severe traffic noise. The threshold of significance used in the noise
analysis for Moorpark is a 3 dB CNEL or greater increase for sensitive noise
environments experiencing noise greater than 65 dB CNEL. .Though a similar
threshold is often used in environmental assessments, this is not an appropriate
threshold in areas experiencing substantial noise such as the residences along
Walnut Canyon Road/Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue. Because
decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, a 3 decibel increase in noise at 75 dB 46-54
CNEL (approximate exterior noise levels measure on Walnut Canyon
Road/Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue)represents a substantially greater
amount of sound energy that a 3 decibel increase at 60 dB CNEL. Therefore, under
the proposed threshold, the louder (and more incompatible for sensitive uses) the
existing noise environment, the more additional noise is allowed before considered
significant. Such a threshold becomes illogical in extremely loud environments such
as those experienced on Walnut Canyon Road/Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles
Avenue. —
Other comments are as follows:
Page 4.3-13:Table 4.3-6. Under Los Angeles Avenue,'W of Walnut Cyn`and'E of
Walnut Cyn"should be changed to"W of Moorpark Ave"and°E of Moorpark Aver as
Walnut Canyon Road changes names to Moorpark Avenue at Everett Street.
Page 4.3-17: Mitigation Measure N 3-3. This mitigation measure places the burden
on the City to adopt a noise mitigation program for impacts caused directly by quarry
activities. Contrary to what is stated in the Draft EIR,there is no need for the City to 46-56
have a noise mitigation program for this mitigation to be feasible. Such a program
should be run by the County as a permitting agency for the quarry operations and
should be in place prior to allow additional mining activities to take place. _
8. Land Use and Planning(Section 4.4)-The City concurs with the conclusion of the
analysis in the Draft FIR that this project would have a significant and immitigable
community character impact in Moorpark.
Other comments are as follows: 46-57
Page 4.4-3: Figure 4.4-1. Industrial uses should have a different color than mining
uses on this exhibit; residential land use has filled in the west side of Walnut Canyon
Road to just north of Championship Drive; the area north of Los Angeles Avenue
and east of Science Drive is industrial, not commercial: the west half of the area
V
40
250
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 12
n i
north of Los Angeles Avenue between Spring Road and the Arroyo Simi is
commercial,not residential
Page 4.4-4. Project Site General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning. For
clarity, the goals and policies of the General Plan related to mineral resources and
the purpose of the MRP Zone should be listed verbatim here. This is particularly
important since one of the thresholds of significance in the land use analysis is the
consistency of the project with the General Plan goals and policies. The
paraphrasing in this document has left out words that may be critical to
understanding the proposed project. For example, the description of the MRP land
use designation(more accurately°overlay zone")in the second paragraph alludes to
the purpose of the zone as to, "ensure access to and supply of mineral resources."
The Zoning Ordinance text includes as a stated purpose, to facilitate a long-term
supply of mineral resources within the County. The General Plan includes as a goal
to, "minimize incompatibility between the extraction and production of the resource
and neighboring land uses and the environment;yet this goal is not even stated in
this section.
9. Alternatives (Chapter 5.0) — The Draft EIR examines and rejects a number of
alternatives. Nonetheless, the analysis does not provide for a reasonable range of
alternatives as required by §15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. Many of the
immitigable impacts of this project are site specific, and at least two of the project
objectives could be achieved at different locations. One alternative in particular
missing from the analysis is an alternative site for the extraction of aggregate
resources, described in the paragraph below. This alternative would contribute
substantially to the ability to make an informed decision on the project proposal and
identifying ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced,
two basic purposes of CEQA.
Alternative Site(s)for the Extraction of Aggregate Resources—As noted in the Draft
EIR, the four sand and gravel mines along Grimes Canyon Road are currently 46-58
providing for the aggregate demand for all of Ventura County, due to the end of
extraction activities in the Santa Clara River (Page 2-17). Grimes Rock, in
particular, provides "nearly all"its material to a batch plant in the Western (Ventura
County) Production Consumption Region. In addition,though not stated in the Draft
EIR, aggregate resources are also currently being exported to Los Angeles County
from These sand and gravel mines. The Draft EIR does not evaluate alternative sites
to provide aggregate to the Western (Ventura County) Production Consumption
Region or western Los Angeles County. Appropriate sites close' to their markets
could better meet the stated project objectives, to continue to make available to the
public and construction industry adequate supplies of aggregate, concrete and
asphalt products at a reasonable price.'and"to provide a local source of aggregate
products, which would reduce regional air quality impacts of truck traffic caused by
the long-distance importation." Alternative sites could also better achieve General
41
251
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ellison
August 4. 2006
Page 13
Plan and Zoning objectives, which should have been included as project objectives 46.58
(see comment no. 3). .
Other comments are as follows:
Grimes Canyon Road South: The improvement of Grimes Canyon Road South to
accommodate sand and gravel trucks would only shift the trucking impacts from 46-5g
residents and businesses along Walnut Canyon RoadlMoorpark Avenue to residents
and businesses along Grimes Canyon Road South and Los Angeles Avenue.
Therefore,since this alternative doesn't reduce impacts,it is not acceptable.
SR-23 Bypass: The Draft EIR fails to discuss how this alternative might be
implemented, thereby precluding any meaningful evaluation of this alternative. 46-60
The City looks forward for a response to these comments and would appreciate
notification of any upcoming public hearings or meetings on this project. Please let me
know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
i a / . Hog•,
:
Co rmunity Development Director
C: Honorable City Council
Honorable City of Moorpark Planning Commission
Honorable Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Honorable Ventura County Planning Commission
Supervisorial Candidate Jim Dantona
Supervisorial Candidate Peter Foy .
Steven Kueny,City Manager
Joseph M. Montes,City Attorney
Chron
File
42
252
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
9.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Response to Commenter No.46: Barry Hogan,City of Moorpark,August 4,2006
46-1 The EIR discusses the existing and proposed mining activity using a few
descriptors that are the basis for different permit limits and/or environmental
impacts. For example, the Conditional Use Permit(CUP)limits plant throughput
based on tons per year yet some air quality impact thresholds are based on daily
emissions and therefore tons per day becomes a relevant descriptor for this
analysis. The number of trucks traveling to and from the site is another important
aspect of the requested CUP modifications. This truck limit is expressed in terms
on one-way trips per day. This limit is not based on conversion of the annual
throughput to truckloads.The applicant did not indicate a correlation between the
two.
Each truckload generates two one-way trips (one inbound and one outbound).
Whether trucks are delivering materials to the project site or exporting materials
from the project site, they are counted toward the permitted truck trip limits,which
are based on one-way trips. A clarification to this effect was made to Section 2.2
in the FEIR.
In looking at the Grimes Canyon region, the region tends to contain a high ratio
of sand relative to gravel,which means there is the potential that gravel would be
imported from more gravel-rich mines in Los Angeles County locations, such as
Solidad Canyon, and sand would be exported from the site to the mines or plants
in Los Angeles County so that proper mixes can be made with the required
combinations of sand and gravel for each locale. In that sense, the proposed
project could be helping to serve the Los Angeles County area and vice versa.
More detail on this issue is provided in FEIR Chapter 5.0 Alternatives.
While State Ready Mix in Saticoy is the primary customer of CUP 4764, the
percentage of product going to that site changes day to day. The County has no
specific definition of what the.term "nearly all" means in CUP Condition 1 in
relationship to the products of the project being sent to the State Ready Mix.
Therefore the EIR cannot be more specific.
See Response 46-4 regarding issues related to projections of market demands
within various production-consumption regions.
46-2 Under CEQA the "existing environment for the project is a combination of: (1)
the physical activities associated with the project; and, (2)any permit limits that
existed at the time of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). Where there is conflict
between what the project is actually doing and the permit conditions (i.e. the
project is violating the terms of the permit)CEQA requires that the larger project
be considered the "existing environment". Therefore even if the physical
activities violate the permit conditions, under CEQA they are still part of the
"existing environment.
Grimes Rock,Inc. Final FIR
CUP4171-3 Page 9-TT June2009
43
253
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
9.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Once an EIR establishes an"existing environment"as it existed at the time of the
NOP, this "existing environment' is assumed not to change. The "existing
environment" is considered to continue into the future, even beyond the
expiration date of the existing permit. Under CEQA,for purposes of analysis,the
mine is assumed to continue operating up to the 2025 time horizon of the EIR,
even though the permit actually expires earlier.
Per CUP 4874 Condition 87, this comment is correct that Grimes Rock is
prohibited from using Walnut Canyon Road. However, at the time of the NOP
the project was routinely violating that prohibition, therefore under CEQA that the
project traffic is part of the"existing environment'. A formal Notice of Violation
(NOV) was later issued because of this violation. However enforcement of the
NOV was suspended in that the only alternative route, Grimes Canyon Road
south of Broadway, was closed to heavy trucks for a few years due to ongoing
flood repairs. However,the route was reopened to trucks in late 2008.
46-3 As per CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the objectives stated in the project
description are those sought by the proposed project: in this case the applicants
for the proposed projects are the mining operators, Typically project objectives
do not include consistency with Zoning and General Plan requirements. These
are two of a large number of local, State and Federal laws, rules and regulations
that any project is potentially subject to. There is no basis to single out these two
legal requirements and not list other equally important regulations. A project
objective may or may not be met, but Zoning and General Plan consistency are
mandatory. Including Zoning and General plan consistency as project objectives
would tend to blur the difference between mandatory legal requirements and
desirable end states(i.e.the objectives as currently listed).
In regard to consistency with the Mineral Resources Protection Overlay Zone
(MRP) additional text has been added to the FEIR to discuss this Zone in more
detail.
46-4 A detailed discussion of aggregate supply and demand has been added to the
FEIR in Chapter 5 Alternatives. Aggregate supply and demand issues have also
been taken into consideration in the policy consistency analysis provided in
Section 4.4 Land Use and Planning in the FEIR.
46-5 The related projects list and map in the FEIR has been updated according to this
comment (see Chapter 3.0). New counts have been done and the necessary
updates have been made in the FEIR Traffic Study for counts originally taken
prior to the Notice of Preparation.
46-6 The Traffic Study was revised as requested.
Grimes Rock,inc. Final EIR
CUP 4171-3 Page 9-78 June 2009
44
254
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
9.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
46-7 The Traffic Study was revised as requested.
46-8 The FEIR analysis is generally consistent with this comment Section 4.4.3
Impact LU-6 concludes that use of Walnut Canyon Road by project related traffic
would result in a significant impact on the community character along that road.
Section 5.6.4 makes the same finding if traffic is diverted to Grimes Canyon
Road south of Broadway. Also, in both cases, these impacts are considered
significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts if they are allowed to occur. The
term "unacceptable"is not used in CEQA. However the determination of what is
'unacceptable" will be made by Ventura County when the decision-makers
evaluate whether these and other Class I impacts are "unacceptable" or
"acceptable"given the benefits derived from the project.
46-9 The County model is the only one that covered this area in adequate detail. The
use of a different model is not expected to reveal any traffic impacts that would
not be identified by the model used for analysis.
46-10 The necessary changes have been made to reflect City of Moorpark saturation
flow rates within City boundaries; however it should be noted that the values
stipulated by the City are lower than typical measurements of saturation flow rate
and generally will produce level of service results that are lower than observed
conditions,. Typically background truck traffic is presumed and built into
intersection capacity assumptions for lane capacities. This is especially true in
Moorpark,where saturation rates stipulated for use are extremely low compared
to measured values.
46-11 TDS is a traffic count company from Santa Ana that provided the counts.
October 15,2006 was the date of the counts.
46-12 The FEIR Traffic Study was revised to reflect proper values, as updated by
replacement traffic counts. The missing page was also added to the Study.
46-13 The FEIR Traffic Study was revised to reflect proper values, as updated by
replacement traffic counts.
46-14 The report revised to reflect proper values, as updated by replacement traffic
counts.
46-15 Differences between observed levels during data collection and permit allowed
levels were fully explained in the Trip Generation Section of the Traffic Study.
Observed levels were much lower than permit levels would expect. The traffic
generation is based upon permitted or requested levels, not existing activity
levels.
Grimes Rock,Inc. Final EIR
CUP 4171-3 Page 9-79 June 2009
45
255
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
9.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
46-16 The Traffic Study was revised as noted. However,trip generation Is based upon
permitted or requested rates,not observed activity levels.
46-17 The asterisk means that the average was taken from all three sites;this has been
included in the FEIR Traffic Study.
46-18 Requested daily traffic trips are discussed because it was used to obtain the
additional volume of site traffic needed to account for the existing permit levels,
because the measured activity was much lower than the permitted activity.
46-19 The Traffic Study was revised as requested.
46-20 The permitted trips are based on what the mines are currently allowed under the
existing CUPs. The mines are not all currently at the maximum allowed under
their existing CUPs, so the permitted trips are not the same as the existing trips
(described on pgs 50-51 of the Traffic Study). Appendix 8 and the EIR are
based on data supplied by the applicant regarding average traffic volumes. The
actual traffic counts are a single snapshot in time complied over a few days. The
average volumes are not likely to match a very short term snapshot. The more
accurate average provided by the applicant was considered most appropriate to
use.
46-21 Requested daily traffic trips are discussed because it was used to obtain the
additional volume of site traffic needed to account for the existing permit levels,
because the measured activity was much lower than the permitted activity.
46-22 The volume attributed to cars is based upon the existing automobile trip
generation rates that were measured for the sites and the amount of the permit
request.
46-23 Yes,the permitted traffic generation includes truck deliveries.
46-24 The traffic generation was determined using the same methodology that was
used for the existing permitted trip generation shown on DEIR Traffic Study pg 50
last paragraph.
46-25 The project distributions were derived in conjunction with the mines and County
staff and are expected to accurately reflect project conditions. The overall
distribution is believed to be correct. The northern legs are only shown at 70
percent to the north for two of the four projects in question,with 30 percent to the
north for the other two mines. The distributions assume that trucks will avoid the
steep grades of Grimes Canyon Road if this does not result in misdirected travel.
Grimes Rock,Inc. Final FIR
CUP 4171-3 Page 9-80 June 2009
46
256
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
9.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
46-26 There are 3 project sites -- Grimes Rock, Best Rock, and Wayne J; CEMEX is •
not currently proposing to amend their CUP, and is not a subject of this study but
its contribution to truck traffic is considered in a cumulative context.
46-27 The Traffic Study figure has been revised as requested.
46-28 The Traffic Study figure has been revised as requested.
46-29 Table 20 only includes the traffic generation for truck trips and does not include
PCE's. Table 22 includes the cars, trucks and PCE's, which reflects Table 20
and 21 combined including the PCE numbers.
46-30 This has been corrected in the FEIR Traffic Study.
46-31 This has been corrected in the FEIR Traffic Study.
46-32 This has been corrected in the FEIR Traffic Study.
46-33 This has been corrected in the FEIR Traffic Study.
46-34 The requested text discussion has been added to the FEIR Traffic Study.
46-35 This has been corrected in the FEIR Traffic Study.
46-36 The Traffic Study has been revised as requested.
46-37 The requested text discussion has been added to the FEIR Traffic Study.
46-38 The Traffic Study has been revised as requested.
46-39 The requested text discussion has been added to the FEIR Traffic Study. •
46-40 The Traffic Study has been revised as requested.
46-41 New counts have been taken and the necessary updates have been made as
well as the Moorpark saturation rate.
46-42 The Traffic Study and EIR fully disclose the impacts of the proposed project and
the alternative route. The County will consider these in deciding whether or not
to approve the project or an alternative.
46-43 Impacts at this location and mitigation measures are discussed.
46-44 The Traffic Study has been revised as requested.
Grimes Rock,Inc. Final EIR
CUP 4171-3 Page 9-81 June 2009
47
257
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
9.Q RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
46-45 This comment is correct, and the impacts of this diversion to Grimes Canyon
south of Broadway is discussed in the FEIR.
46-46 As discussed starting on FEIR Appendix B page 118, the County staff may
propose an aggressive permit condition monitoring and penalty program, with a
major focus on enforcing traffic conditions. While such a program would require
a major policy decision by the Ventura County decision-makers, it would be the
type of program requested by this comment.
46-47 The Traffic Study has been revised as requested.
46-48 See response to Comment 46-46.
46-49 The EIR discusses a mitigation measure for pavement impacts, however notes
that it may not be feasible to implement. For clarification,the measure has been
modified to indicate that it applies to SR-23 between SR-126 and SR-118.
46-50 The Traffic Study was revised as requested to reflect current conditions.
46-51 See response to Comment 46-46.
46-52 The FEIR has been amended to reflect the County/Moorpark reciprocal traffic
agreement.
46-53 See Response 46—49.
46-54 The threshold of significance for Moorpark residents includes both a condition of
a change from an acceptable to an excessive exterior noise exposure, as well as
an incremental increase that is substantial (+ 3 dB). The commenter correctly
notes that the change in acoustic energy is much higher for a 3 dB increase from
a 75 dB baseline than from a 60 dB baseline. However, CEQA requires
consideration of the change from the baseline. If the change Is below the human
perception threshold because the baseline is already markedly elevated,it is very
noisy now and will be very noisy in the future. However, a listener will not be
able to perceive a dear-cut difference. The combination of a clearly perceptible
change (+ 3 dB) and the possible increase of the noise impact envelope to
encompass sensitive uses not previously impacted represents standard
significance thresholds that are in common use in most CEQA analyses.
46-55 Table 4.3-6 has been revised accordingly.
46-56 As shown in Section 4.3 Table 4.3-6, the total increase in traffic from all three
mines does not exceed the 3.0 dBA significance threshold at 50 feet from
centerline for project-specific noise impacts. As such, no individual project
Grimes Rock,inc. Final EIR
CUP 4171-3 Page 9-82 June 2009
48
258
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
g.o RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
exceeds the threshold. The same result occurs for cumulative non-mining traffic
which also does not exceed the 3.0 dBA threshold.
As shown on Table 4.3-8, in 2006 the three mines result in an additional 34
homes in Moorpark being exposed to the 65 CNEL noise contour which is also a
significance threshold(Moorpark rows, 2006 With Project minus 2006 Baseline).
In 2025 the mines result in an additional 10 homes being exposed to 65 CNEL
(Moorpark rows, 2025 With Projects minus 2025 Baseline). These impacts are
identified as significant in the ERR.
However,between 2006 and 2025,the cumulative non-mining traffic results in an
additional 74 homes exceeding the 65 CNEL baseline (Moorpark rows, 2025
Baseline minus 2006 Baseline). Since the non-mining traffic impacts occur later
than the 2006 mining impacts,and non-mining traffic impacts a larger number of
houses, the 74 additional homes impacted by the non-mining traffic in 2025 will
include the 34 homes impacted by the mining traffic in 2006. That means that
the 34 homes impacted by the mines in 2006 will be impacted in the future with
or without the mines—the mines just cause the impacts to occur earlier than they
would occur otherwise. However, the 10 additional houses impacted by the
mines in 2025 would not be impacted by non-mining traffic within the time
horizon considered by the EIR(i.e.to 2025), therefore the noise impacts to these
houses can be assigned to the mines.
In summary, cumulative non-mining traffic along the mining access routes is
going to subject an additional approximately 74 homes in Moorpark to noise
levels which exceed the 65 CNEL city noise threshold. The mines will subject 34
of those homes to noise levels above 65 CNEL earlier than would occur without
the mines, but sometime between now and 2025 the homes will be exposed to
levels above 65 CNEL with or without the mines. In addition, in 2025 the mines
will expose 10 homes to noise levels in excess of 65 dBA that would otherwise
not be exposed to those levels.
This comment says it is feasible to mitigate these impacts by the Ventura County
developing a noise mitigation program within the City of Moorpark. The great
majority of the projected impacts come from non-mining traffic. Mining traffic
accelerates exceeding the 65 CNEL noise levels for 34 homes, and is
responsible for exceeding the threshold for 10 houses sometime before 2025.
Non-mining traffic has a significant impact on 74 homes.
The majority of the noise impacts are from non-mining traffic, and Ventura
County does not have land use or building authority within the City of Moorpark.
It is not politically or legally feasible for Ventura County to step in and create a
noise mitigation program within the corporate limits of the City of Moorpark which
could only address a relatively small part of the problem. It is more appropriate
Grimes Rock,Inc. Final EIR
CUP 4171-3 Page 9-83 June 2009
49
259
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
9.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
for Moorpark to set up the program and for the County to require appropriate
projects in the unincorporated area to contribute to it.
Ventura County has long recognized that traffic 'noise impacts from many
sources are occurring along the mining haul routes in Moorpark. Consequently,
mining projects in Grimes Canyon have been conditioned for several years to
contribute their *fair share" to an appropriate noise mitigation program which
Moorpark may establish. Even the County Los Angeles recognizes the
• appropriateness of this approach, in that Los Angeles conditioned every project
in the 20,000 unit Newhall Ranch project just east of the County line to also
contribute to a noise mitigation program if and when Moorpark develops one.
The City of Moorpark, Ventura County, and Los Angeles County recognize that
impacts are occurring, but the only politically and legally feasible mitigation
measure to address this issue is for Moorpark to develop such a program.
46-57 Figure 4.4-1 has been revised accordingly. The verbatim purposes of the MRP
overlay zone have been added to Section 4.4.3. See also Response 51-45.
46-58 Alternative local sites were not explicitly considered in the EIR because such
sites are limited, and would apparently create similar or greater impacts than
those in Grimes Canyon. Additional analysis in FEIR Section 5.1.1 has been
added to clarify this issue.
46-59 The restriction of southbound trips to Grimes Canyon South is a physically
feasible alternative that was identified through the Charrette process (see FEIR
Section 5.1.3) as an option to consider in the EIR, primarily for the purpose of
avoiding impacts within downtown Moorpark. The EIR alternatives analysis
recognizes that this alternative would shift the project's trucking impacts,
primarily noise impacts, from one location to another and concludes that as with
the proposed project,this alternative would result in significant unavoidable noise
impacts. However,as explained in EIR Sections 5.6.3 and 5.6.4,this alternative
would reduce the severity of this impact because it would affect fewer residents.
Therefore, this alternative would reduce impacts and is an acceptable and
appropriate alternative for consideration in the EIR_
46-60 Section 5.0 of the EIR identifies the SR-23 Bypass as a future route envisioned in
the City of Moorpark General Plan to decrease traffic through the downtown
Moorpark Avenue. The EIR describes the measures the City has been taking
with respect to development along the alignment of this route to allow for and
• facilitate implementation of this future roadway, as well as exiting obstacles to its
completion. The EIR recognizes that this is a long-term plan that will not be
implemented at the initiation of the proposed permit expansions. Therefore this
is one sub-alternative to the southbound route alternative. The Grimes Canyon
Grimes Rock,Inc. Final EIR
CUP 4171-3 Page 9-84 June 2009
50
260
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
9.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
South Alternative is also included as this alternative could feasibly be
implemented in the short term until the SR-23 Bypass is completed.
•
Grimes Rock,Inc. Final EIR
CUP 4171-3 Page 9-85 June 2009
51
261
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
w��,% City of ooiar
tAip
_
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:PLANNING-BUILDING AND SAFETY-CODE CCMPUANCE
•1"''Ilf," 799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021 (805)517-6200 fax(805)532-2540
August 19,2009
County of Ventura,Resource Management Agency
Planning Division
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura,CA 93009 •
Attention:Scott Ellison,Senior Planner
RE: Reply to Response to Comments on Final Environmental Impact
Reports(EIRs)for
1. Modification No. 3 to CUP No. 4171, Best Rock Products Corp, [SCH
20060402],Located at 2500 Grimes Canyon Road,Fillmore
2. Modification No. 2 to CUP No. 4874, Grimes Rock, Inc., [SCH 20060403],
Located at 3500 Grimes Canyon Road,Fillmore
3. Modification No. 6 to CUP No. 4571, Wayne J Sand and Gravel, [SCH
20060404],Located at 9455 Buena Vista Street,Moorpark
Dear Mr.Ellison,
Thank you for sending the City a copy of the response to our comment letters for consideration
of the Final EIRs for the proposed expansion of Best Rock's, Grimes Rock's and Wayne J's
mining operations. The City of Moorpark recognizes the importance of the proper management
of the County's aggregate resources to provide for present and future County needs. However,
as has been dearly stated in past correspondence, expansion of any of the mining operations
along State Route 23 north of Moorpark,that either increases the number of sand and gravel
trucks in our downtown area or increases the hours in which the trucking occurs, is strongly
opposed by the City. These trucks already significantly impact downtown area land uses, and
any expansion would be in opposition to the City's efforts to improve the livability of this area
and redevelop its downtown core into a vibrant commercial destination, consistent with the
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.
The Final EIRs prepared for the expansion of Best Rock's, Grimes Rock's and Wayne J's
mining operations do not adequately address the full extent of the project impacts. Although
there may be numerous points of disagreement on the conclusions of the Final EIR,this letter
focuses on the dismissing of the SR-23 bypass as a viable alternative, and the dismissing of
establishing a fund to build the bypass as mitigation. The following points are offered for
consideration by the Environmental Report Review Committee:
1. After review of the responses to our comment letters, and the contents of the proposed
Final EIR, the City remains concerned that the Final EIR, without substantial analysis,
dismisses the SR-23 bypass as a future project beyond the timeframe of the expansion
of the proposed mining operations. The City of Moorpark has had this bypass identified
in the General Plan Circulation Element since 1992, has had an alignment study was
prepared for this bypass in 2007, and is currently reviewing a proposal to prepare a
preliminary engineering design for it. Although,as noted in the Final EIR,the bypass will
be an expensive project, the Final EIR provides no evidence that the expense makes
JANICE S.PARVIN MARK VAN DAM ROSEANN MIKOS KEITH F.MILLHOUSE DAVID POLLOCK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilrnember Coundknember Coundknember
52
CC ATTACHMENT 4
262
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ellison
August 19, 2009
Page 2
this alternative infeasible. The bypass involves only three properties. One of these
properties, currently under development with the Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan,will
have the grading for the SR-23 bypass completed as part of its project improvements,
with the land irrevocably offered for dedication. One of the properties is already Caltrans
right-of-way, and the third property is currently just north of the City boundary in the
unincorporated County. The Final EIRs do not even include this alternative in the
discussion of environmentally superior alternatives.
2. Furthermore, the Final EIRs dismiss funding of the SR-23 bypass as required mitigation
because a funding mechanism for this improvement does not currently exist. The Final
EIRs have not provided any evidence to demonstrate that a funding mechanism is
infeasible. Rather,a funding mechanism should be fairly easy to establish by the County
as mitigation (i.e. fee per truckload). The proposed expansion of the mining operations
should only be considered if the establishment of a funding mechanism is required as
mitigation, and no increase in operations above what is currently permitted should take
place unless the funding mechanism has been created.
The SR-23 bypass has a reasonable potential to mitigate impacts created by the sand and
gravel trucks driving through the City's downtown. However, the Final EIR dismissed this
alternative without substantial analysis. Therefore, the proposed Final EIRs are not sufficiently
complete to warrant certification at this time. We request the Environmental Report Review
Committee to direct that this analysis be completed and that this analysis of the SR-23 bypass
be recirculated for public review prior to recommending certification.
As always, we would appreciate notification of any upcoming public hearings or meetings on
this project. You may contact me directly or Joseph R.Vacca, Principal Planner at(805)517-
6236 or via email at jvaccaaici.moorpark.ca.us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
David A.Bobardt
Planning Director
C: Honorable City Council
Honorable City of Moorpark Planning Commission
Honorable Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Honorable Ventura County Planning Commission
Steven Kueny,City Manager
Joseph M.Montes,City Attorney
Joseph R.Vacca
Chron
File
53
263
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
rw'! i City of�J�loor ar
== � „.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:PLANNING-BUILDING AND SAFETY-CODE COMPt.u1NCE
788 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021 (806)517-8200 fax(805)532-2540
March 24,2010
Scott Ellison,Senior Planner
County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency
Planning Division
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
RE: Response to County Staff Request for Recommended Conditions of
Approval for: •
1. Modification No. 3 to CUP No. 4171, Best Rock Products Corp, [SCH
20060402],Located at 2600 Grimes Canyon Road,Fillmore
2. Modification No. 2 to CUP No. 4874, Grimes Rock, Inc., [SCH 20060403],
Located at 3500 Grimes Canyon Road,Fillmore
3. Modification No. 6 to CUP No. 4671, Wayne J Sand and Gravel, [SCH
20060404],Located at 9455 Buena Vista Street,Moorpark
Dear Mr.Ellison,
Thank you for contacting the City to obtain our recommended conditions of approval for
the proposed expansion of Best Rock's, Grimes Rock's and Wayne J's mining
operations. The City of Moorpark recognizes the importance of the proper management
of the County's aggregate resources to provide for present and future County needs.
However, as has been clearly stated in past correspondence,expansion of any of the
mining operations along State Route 23 north of Moorpark, that either increases the
number of sand and gravel trucks in our downtown area or increases the hours In which
the trucking occurs, Is strongly opposed by the City. These trucks already significantly
Impact downtown area land uses, and any expansion would be In opposition to the
City's efforts to improve the livability of this area and redevelop its downtown core into a
vibrant commercial destination, consistent with the General Plan and Downtown
Specific Plan.
Given the current impact of truck traffic on the streets in the City of Moorpark,as well as
the anticipated increase resulting from approval of these projects, each project should
be conditioned to contribute its "fair share"of the anticipated cost of completion of the
SR-23 bypass. As we communicated previously in connection with comments on the
DEIR, the City of Moorpark has had this bypass identified in the General Plan
Circulation Element since 1992,and an alignment study was prepared for this bypass in
2007. Currently the City is preparing a preliminary engineering design for it. The
bypass involves only three properties. One of these properties, currently under
development with the Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan, will have the grading for the
SR-23 bypass completed as part of its project improvements,with the land irrevocably
offered for dedication. One of the properties is already Caltrans right-of-way, and the
third property is currently just north of the City boundary in the unincorporated County.
JANICE S.PARVIN ROSEANN MIKOS KEITH F.MILLHOUSE DAVID POLLOCK MARK VAN DAM
Mayor Mayor Pro Tam Coundtrnember Coundknernber Coundhnember
54
CC ATTACHMENT 5
•
264
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Scott Ellison
March 24,2010
Page 2
The SR-23 bypass has a reasonable potential to mitigate impacts created by the
existing sand and gravel trucks driving through the City's central town core area. Once
constructed,the SR-23 bypass will circumnavigate exerting sand and gravel trucks,and
additional trucks in the future If the proposed modification expansions are allowed,
around the City's residential neighborhoods and commercial districts of the downtown.
The trucks'use of the SR-23 bypass will be better served with uninterrupted access to
their customers via direct connections to existing SR-118,for distribution of goods and
materials. Furthermore, the trucks' use of the SR-23 bypass will alleviate noise, air
quality, emissions, carrying capacities of roadways, traffic and storm water quality
impacts on the existing downtown roadways of the City of Moorpark and will reduce the
conflicts that exist between the passenger vehicles and trucks in these existing narrow
roadways.
We would suggest that the timing of the payment of the fair share contribution be made
prior to any increase in truck traffic over present levels. We would be happy to discuss
with you the appropriate means of calculating the "fair share" as well as any other
issues or concerns you may have with the suggested condition.
The function of a CUP is to ensure that appropriate conditions are imposed on a given
use to mitigate the impacts on surrounding uses. The nexus between the activities
described in the CUP and the truck traffic impacts on the streets in the City of Moorpark
is clear. Limiting the required contribution to the applicants"fair share" of the cost of
addressing those impacts will ensure that the mitigation is proportional to the impacts.
As always, we would appreciate notification of any upcoming public hearings or
meetings on this project. You may contact me directly or Joseph R. Vacca, Principal
Planner at (805) 517-6236 or via email at jvaccaOci.mooroark.ca.us if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
�Vr,G�L
David A. Bobardt
Community Development Director
C: Honorable City Council
Honorable Planning Commission
Steven Kueny,City Manager
Joseph M.Montes, City Attorney
Yugal Lall,City Engineer/Public Works Director
Joseph R.Vacca
Chron
File
r IleolColerruneyOvvelommeflOTHER AGENCIESPlenloil Ceue nao..Ceer:e1100324 CUP Conditions roe.a flew Chum Wayne J.eoe 55
265
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
% CITY OF MOORPARK
V \�,ti COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1 799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021
?� .,� Main City Phone Number(805)517-6200 I Fax(805)532-2540 I Moorpark@cLmoorpark.ca.us
October 26,2012
Brian Baca
Planning Manager
County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency
Planning Division
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
RE: Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)
Modification No. 2 to Conditional Use Permit No.4874
Grimes Rock,Inc.
3500 Grimes Canyon Road, Fillmore
Dear Mr. Baca:
Thank you for sending the City a copy of the Recirculated Draft EIR, (RDEIR) for the
proposed expansion of Grimes Rock Inc.'s mining operations. The City of Moorpark
recognizes the importance of the proper management of the County's aggregate resources
to provide for present and future County needs. However, as has been clearly stated in past
correspondence, expansion of any of the mining operations along State Route 23 north of
Moorpark, that either increases the number of sand and gravel trucks in our downtown area
or increases the hours in which the trucking occurs; is strongly opposed by the City. These
trucks already significantly impact downtown area land uses, and any expansion would be in
opposition to the City's efforts to improve the livability of this area and redevelop its
downtown core into a vibrant commercial destination, consistent with the General Plan and
Downtown Specific Plan.
The RDEIR prepared for the expansion of Grimes Rock mining operation does not
adequately address the full extent of the project impacts. Based on the comments below
related to the significance of impacts and the feasibility of mitigation measures, this
document should be revised and recirculated for public comment prior to its use as a
decision-making tool on this expansion proposal.
1. Project History and Existing Operations (Section 2.4—The FIR refers to truck trip limits
in terms of "one-war trips per day. Clarification should be provided on whether each
truckload is considered one or two trips, and whether the trucks importing gravel to the
site are counted as part of the permitted truck trips. If the document means for one truck
load to equate to two trips than the document should clearly state that. This section
should also provide more detail on the market for the material. Proper analysis and
understanding of the permit request depends on knowing in approximate terms how much
material is provided to the Simi Production Consumption Region,how much is provided to
the Western (Ventura County) Production Consumption Region, and how much is
JANICE S.PARVIN ROSFANN MIKOS,Ph.D. KEITH F.MILLHOUSE DAVID POILOCK MARK VAN DAM
Mayor Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
266
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian Baca,Ventura county Planning Division
October 26, 2012
Page 2
provided to western Los Angeles County. If the four existing sand and gravel mines are
now meeting the aggregate demand for Ventura County, where will the additional material
go if the expansion is permitted? Also, this section does not state whether or not the
Grimes Rock site is importing gravel to produce aggregate, as is occurring at the Wayne
J. Sand and Gravel operation according to that EIR, or if sufficient gravel existing at this
location to preclude the future need to import gravel if the expansion is approved. If
gravel is currently being imported or will need to be imported if the project is approved,
the EIR should document the source of that gravel and assess the impacts of the
importation. This information is important in the understanding of the impacts and
comparison of the alternatives. Finally, this section states the existing CUP currently
limits the mine to deliver `nearly all" its product to the State Ready Mix batch plant in
Saticoy. This term, while perhaps quoting a project condition, is vague. "Nearly all"
needs to be more clearly defined to understand the baseline and the consequences of the
applicant's requested modification to allow hauling via any route to any customer location,
and eliminate any volume or timing restrictions on trucks going south.
2. Related Projects (Chapter 3.0)—With respect to the related projects list, the project list is
not current for Moorpark and needs to be updated.
3.Traffic (Chapter 4.1) — The traffic mitigation is not adequate; nor is the proposed
mitigation enforceable, measureable or monitorable and should be enhanced if the
RDEIR is considering an increase in truck trips.
• After review Of RDEIR, the City remains concerned that the RDEIR, without
substantial analysis, dismisses the SR-23 bypass as a future project beyond the
timeframe of the expansion of the proposed mining operations. The City of
Moorpark has had this bypass identified in the General Plan Circulation Element
since 1992, has had. an alignment study was prepared for this bypass in 2007,
and is currently reviewing a proposal to prepare a preliminary engineering design
for it. The RDEIR provides no evidence that the expense makes this alternative
infeasible. The bypass involves only three properties. One of these properties,
currently under development with the Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan, will have
the grading for the SR-23 bypass completed as part of its project improvements,
with the land irrevocably offered for dedication. One of the properties is already
Cattrans right-of-way, and the third property is currently just north of the City
boundary in the unincorporated County. The RDEIRs does not even include this
alternative in the discussion of environmentally superior alternatives. Furthermore,
the RDEIR does not include funding of the SR-23 bypass as required mitigation
and the past position has stated that this is because a funding mechanism for this
improvement does not currently exist. The RDEIR has not provided any evidence
to demonstrate that a funding mechanism is infeasible. Rather, a funding
mechanism should be fairly easy to establish by the County as mitigation (i.e. fee
per truckload). The proposed expansion of the mining operation should only be
considered if the establishment of a funding mechanism is required as mitigation,
and no increase in operations above what is currently permitted should take place
unless or until,the funding mechanism has been created,
NOCIlDepe bnenl Share1Commu ity OevelopmertlOTHERAGENCIES1Venlura Caurty'Grimes Rod,MininglCarrvnenl Lefler ROEIlROc1ober 18,2012dooc
267
EXHIBIT A
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian Baca,Ventura county Planning Division
October 26,2012
Page 3
• If all mining expansion projects were approved allowing a maximum of 3,076 total
daily truck trips with no restrictions and half of those trips travelled south, the City
of Moorpark would experience 1,538 truck trips travelling through the City which
could equate to over one truck every minute for a twenty-four hour period.
4. Noise - The RDEIR indicates that project specific and off-site traffic noise impacts are
significant and unavoidable. This is not acceptable to Moorpark as the citizens, residents
and business present along SR-23 and SR-118 should not be subject to increased noise
as a result of this project. This section of the RDEIR should include more analysis and
adequate mitigation that is enforceable, measureable or monitorable. Furthermore, the
RDEIR has not been updated to include analysis on reductions in noise from Spring Road
being improved from High Street north, connecting through to Walnut Canyon Road. This
should be analyzed in the noise section of the RDEIR, because Walnut Canyon Road
south of Spring Road experiences less noise than was analyzed with the original drafting
of this document,
The SR-23 bypass has a reasonable potential to mitigate impacts created by the sand and
gravel trucks driving through the City's downtown. However, the RDEIR has not addressed
this alternative and has not provided substantial analysis. Therefore, the proposed RDEIR is
not sufficiently complete to warrant certification at this time. We request the Environmental
Report Review Committee to direct that this analysis be completed and that this analysis of
the SR-23 bypass be recirculated for public review prior to recommending certification.
As always, we would appreciate notification of any upcoming public hearings or meetings on
this project. In that regard, can you please email us the anticipated timeline, or schedule for
project review including anticipated schedules for upcoming public hearings. In addition, the
notification area for this EIR should include all properties affected by the truck traffic from the
mine driveway to the freeway on-ramps at Los Angeles Avenue.
You may contact me directly or Joseph R. Vacca, Principal Planner at (805) 517-6236 or via
email at jvaccaci.moorpark.ca.us if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
s ✓ fir
David A. Bobardt
Community Development Director
C: Honorable City Council
Honorable City of Moorpark Planning Commission
Honorable Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Honorable Ventura County Planning Commission
Steven Kueny,City Manager
Joseph M.Montes,City Attorney
Joseph R.Vacca, Principal Planner
Chron
File
NDC1lDeperune,g Shareltornmundy U voop,nenkO1HER AGENCIESWentue Coumy1Grimoo Rock MlNnptCommerl loner RDEIR_October 1k.2012dooa
268
EXHIBIT B 269
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
•
ll ,
(sV FiL\ CITY OF FILLMORE
CEMRAL PARR P11i7A
:' D OCT 2 9 2012
254 Central Avenue
81,,,*-1111 2ffln e,California 93015-1907
API.) (805)524-3701•FAx(805)524.5717
October 26,2012
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL.RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Brian R.Baca
Ventura County Planning Division
800 S.Victoria Ave.
Ventura,CA 93009
Re: Comments on County of Ventura Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the Grimes Rock, Inc. Expanded Mining Facility Project,
SCH#2003111064
Dear Mr.Baca,
The City of Fillmore("City")has reviewed the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact
Report("RDEIR")for the Grimes Rock,Inc.Expanded Mining Facility Project("Project"). The
City appreciates the opportunity to comment on the RDEIR. We respectfully submit these
comments to help ensure that local decision makers fully comply with CEQA(Public Resources
Code§21000 et seq)and the CEQA Guidelines(14 Cal.Code of Regulations§§ 15000-15387)
with respect to the Project. The City,and its residents and business owners,are concerned about
the disproportionate and long-term significant adverse traffic impacts on our community and
roadways,as well as traffic-related noise and other impacts.
After carefully reviewing the RDEIR, with the assistance of legal and expert scientific
consultants, we have determined that the RDEIR and its analysis can be improved.in several
areas. First, the technical studies and reports upon which the RDEIR is based must be updated.
CEQA Guidelines §. 15088.5, regarding recirculation of an BUt, is predicated upon an
assumption of.a timely process. In this case, the RDEIR has been issued well over three years
after the last Draft BIR was issued,with underlying technical analyses that range in age from 5 to
17 years old,and based upon a NOP issued in 2003—a full nine years ago. The County should
have had these outdated technical analyses reviewed and verified for adequacy and adherence to
current standards by a qualified scientist or engineer before using them as a basis for the RDEIR. ' •
For example, the Air Quality technical report on which this 2012 RDEIR is based was
prepared in 2006,based upon a 2002 emissions factors model, and run through a 2025 horizon
year for a project that has a 2040 horizon year. We believe an air quality report for an FIR in
2012,that is based upon a 2002 model,and that uses baseline data from 1991 through 2005,and
which uses a 2025 horizon year for a 2040 project,and which relies upon a list Of related projects
3 to 8 years out of date for the cumulative impacts scenario,is not adequate_ But the RDEIR is
01148/0001/127462.3
270
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R Baca
October 26,2012
Page 2
based on technical reports just like that,not only in Air Quality,but in nearly every single impact j
area in the RDEIR.
All of our detailed comments are below, but we are particularly concerned about one
proposed mitigation measure. The RDEIR recommends a traffic mitigation measure that
"limits"northbound peak hour trips("PHT")through Fillmore to 300 in any single morning peak
hour and 300 in any single afternoon peak hour, and imposes-no limitation on the number of
truck trips throughout the rest of the day. (RDEIR,pp. 4.1-70 to 4.1-71.) That equates to one
truck trip every 12 seconds through Fillmore in the morning and afternoon peak hours, and
unlimited truck trips the rest of the day. The existing mining operation(before the changes being `L
proposed by the RDEIR)is limited to only 300 truck trips for the entire day. (RDEIR,pp.2-1 to
2-2.) The RDEIR states this new mitigation measure will reduce traffic impacts to a less than
significant level. But it actually greatly increases allowable northbound truck trips, to a level
that is very significant And this mitigation measure is in conflict with the conclusions of the
County's own traffic study,which states that total daily trips—not just peak hour trips—must be
limited to 300 in order to reduce impacts to less than significant (Traffic Study,p. 102.)
Because the Project is a "project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance"
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines§ I5206(b)(2)(E) (which the RDEIR does not recognize),we urge
Ventura County staff to work with the cities of Fillmore, Moorpark, and Santa Paula as though
they were "responsible agencies" under CEQA, as required by Public Resources Code § f LL
21092.4(a), to identify and implement feasible and appropriate mitigation measures to protect
our communities from the Project's impacts, which will have effects lasting over several
decades. The City requests a consultation meeting with County staff to discuss more effective
and appropriate mitigation measures, and to establish an enforceable plan by which they can
feasibly be implemented. (CEQA Guidelines§ 15082(c).) -
General Comments
1. More than three years have elapsed since issuing the second previous draft EIR (June
2009)for this proposed project. The first Draft ETR was issued in 2006 and the Notice of i
Preparation (NOP) was issued almost 10 years ago. Rather than prepare a new EIR, '
including a fresh Notice of Preparation and conducting the required public scoping effort,
the County prepared a recirculated draft EIR document in 2012 composed of modified
documents that date back to 2003, 2006 and 2009. The RDEIR is therefore a
compendium of old analyses, with supporting technical reports ranging from 1995
(paleontology), to 2004 (biology), and the most recent assessment prepared in 2007
(traffic,utilizing a County model based upon January 2004 forecast data).
01148/0001/127462.3
271
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R.Baca
October 26,2012
Page 3 _
2. The only NOP supporting this CEQA process was prepared and issued in November
2003,nearly a full decade ago,and was never reissued to solicit updated agency input or
public involvement over that time, despite the protracted lapse of time,material changes 2
in the proposed action and the high level of public concern and controversy regarding the
project as evidenced by comment letters submitted to the County in 2006 and 2009 on the
two earlier Draft EIRs. i
3. The list of related projects to support analysis of cumulative effects is based upon
coordination with the City Fillmore in 2004, and with the City of Moorpark in 2009.
There is no list and apparently no coordination for the City of Santa Paula,despite the 3
high volume of heavy mining truck traffic that will be routed through that City as well.
(RDEIR,pp.3-1 to 3-4.)
4. CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 regarding recirculation of an EIR is predicated upon ann
assumption of a timely process, in which recirculation occurs between the notice of
availability of a draft EIR but before certification,normally assumed to be about a year-
long process, (see §§15100 and 15108). This guidance is intended to protect applicants
from delay,and to insure that responsible and affected agencies,and the public generally, "!A
have timely information and meaningful opportunities for participation — both to be l
informed, and to provide input. In this case,the RDEIR has been issued well over three
years after the last Draft EIR was issued,with underlying technical analyses that range in
age from 5 to 17 years old that are either outdated by many years,or at a minimum have
not been properly confirmed as still technically and legally valid or updated. Further,the
County has not engaged in consultation with affected jurisdictions and the public over~
these 3+ years, relying instead upon a single scoping process initiated nearly a decade
ago (2003) and subsequent limited opportunities for comment and participation in 2006 q b
and 2009. This does not serve CEQA's purposes of full disclosure,agency coordination,
public involvement, and informing decision makers (see CEQA Guidelines, §§15002,
15086,and 15088).
5. More than nine years after issuing an NOP and more than three years since the previous
second Draft EIR was issued,the County should have undertaken current and meaningful
consultation and coordination with the cities (Fillmore, Moorpark and Santa Paula)that
will be primarily affected by heavy mining trucks routed through their communities,with 5
attendant air quality and noise effects. Instead, this 2012 document relies upon
comments provided in processes that are now moot as they were conducted 3, 6 and 9
years ago,including use of 2004 Fillmore data and 2009 Moorpark data for development
01146/000111274623
272
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R. Baca
October 26,2012
Page 4
of its lists of related projects for the basis of a cumulative impact analysis. The County
conducted no apparent coordination or inclusion of the City of Santa Paula despite their S
letter submitted in response to the 2003 NOP.
6. The environmental baseline the RDEIR uses to determine Project impacts is"the level of
mining operations and ground disturbance authorized by the existing permits or other
entitlements, even if only a portion of the authorized mining operations or ground
disturbance has occurred." (RDEIR,p. 2=12.) This is in direct violation of CEQA. An
impact analysis that compares impacts to conditions that may be allowed under a permit
but have not actually been reached rather than to environmental conditions as they
actually exist results in misleading comparisons rather than an analysis that informs 6
decision-makers and the public. (Communities for a Better Environment v..South Coast
Air Quality Management District(2010)48 Cal.4th 310, 320-322.) The only exceptions
are(1)when an existing facility is only being continued and not expanded, and(2)when
a previous hilt has already been certified and the document at issue is a subsequent EIR
under Public Resources Code § 21166 &CEQA Guidelines 15162(a)—not as with the
RDEIR here where no EIR has ever been certified and the document at issue is a
recirculated EIR under CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5. (Communities,48 Cal.4th at 326-
327.)
7. The definition of the baseline environment relies upon outdated information. This
includes for example the 2004 Fillmore and 2009 Moorpark lists of related projects, a
biological resources assessment based upon 2004 data,a 2007 traffic report based upon a
2004 County traffic model, 2006 air quality and noise assessments, and a 1995
paleontology assessment. (We would normally deem the 1995 paleontology assessment 7
inconsequential since ancient resources do not change over 17 years, except that in this
case, potential loss of paleontological resources has been determined to constitute a
significant impact for which feasible mitigation has not been identified.) At a minimum,
each of these underlying technical assessments should have been reviewed and their
adherence to current standards confirmed by a qualified scientist or engineer.
8. Based on analysis in the prior 2006 and 2009 EIRs,mitigation measures were formulated
to mitigate the impacts of the Project to less than significant However,the RDEIR now
rejects or deletes a large number of those mitigation measures as`infeasible under CEQA
as it relies on a future funding or implementing mechanism that has not been formulated, 9
funded, or adopted." (RDEIR, Table A-2.) The RDEIR cites CEQA Guidelines §
15126.4(a)(2) as justification for rejecting these mitigation measures. It may be
01148/0001/1274623
273
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R.Baca
October 26,2012
Page 5
acceptable to reject the mitigation measures for this reason if they are "fair share"
contribution fees because the Project is not responsible for the entire recommended
mitigation improvement and when there is no enforceable plan to ensure the fees will
actually be spent on the mitigation improvement. (Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009)
177 Cal. App. 4th 912, 937-938.) But some of these mitigation measures do not appear
to be fair shore contributions. Rather, it appears the Project is responsible for the entire 8
mitigation improvement. (See,2006 DEIR MM#T1-1 and T1-3 on RDEIR Table A-2,
page i.) If that is so, the RDEIR can and must discuss and recommend these as
mitigation measures because they can be made enforceable as a condition of approval for
the Project to comply with CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2). (CEQA Guidelines §
15126.4(a)(1)(B).)
9. For the remainder of the 2006 mitigation measures rejected based on CEQA Guidelines§—I
15126.4(a)(2)(see,2006 DEIR MM#T3-2,T3-3,T5-1,T6-1,N3-2,N3-3,LU7-1,BR1-
2, all in RDEIR Table A-2),the County has not worked with the cities of Fillmore and
Moorpark (and Santa Paula)in an attempt to develop an enforceable plan to ensure fair
share fees from the Project would be used to implement the mitigation measures. The
County must do so in order to fulfill its duty to mitigate. The City of Fillmore hereby
offers to enter into a binding agreement or other program with the County and the Project
applicant that will require the applicant to pay fair share fees to Fillmore for the a
mitigation improvements located in Fillmore and that will ensure that such fees are used
by Fillmore to implement those mitigation improvements. For instance,Fillmore hereby
offers to enter into a binding agreement with the County and the Project applicant to
require the Project applicant's fair share fee payment for noise mitigation to Fillmore is
actually used by the City of Fillmore for specific noise mitigation measures. (2006 DEIR
MM#N3-3,RDEIR Table A-2,p.v.) As such,there is an enforceable plan available to
ensure the fees are used for the actual recommended mitigation. These mitigation
measures therefore cannot be rejected based on CEQA Guidelines§ 15126.4(a)(2)unless
the City, County, and Project applicant have consulted and no enforceable agreement is
possible. (Tracy First v. City of Tracy(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912,937-938.)
10. The Project meets the definition of a "project of statewide, regional, or areawide
significance"pursuant to CEQA guidelines § 15206(b)(2)(E)because it is an industrial
facility over 40 acres in size,among other reasons. The RDEIR does not recognize this.
The County should have recognized the need to re-scope the Project as a project of i0
regional and/or areawide significance instead of relying on the 2003 NOP. Added to the
CEQA statute and guidelines in 2005, and not applicable at the time of the 2003 NOP for
01148/0001/1274623
274
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R.Baca
October 26,2012
Page 6
the first EIR regarding this project, CEQA Guidelines § 15206 needs to be recognized 10
and adhered to in a 2012 EIR.
11. Because the Project is a "project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance," the
County was required to consult with Fillmore as though Fillmore were a responsible
agency. (Public Resources Code§21092.4(a).) The County as lead agency was required
to consult with Fillmore "as soon as a lead agency has determined that an Initial Study
will be required." (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(g).) That is, consultation was required I�
"prior to determining whether a negative declaration or environmental impact report is
required." (Public Resources Code § 21080.3(a).) However, the County's first
consultation with Fillmore on the Project was when the County prepared and circulated a
Notice of Preparation in 2003—after the County had decided to prepare an EIR.
12. The lead agency must hold a public scoping meeting for every "project of statewide,
regional, or areawide significance." (CEQA Guidelines § 15082(c)(1).) There is no /'-
indication in the RDEIR that a scoping meeting was ever held.
13. Despite having been discussed in the original noticing,the cumulative effects of the three
mining projects concurrently proposing substantially expanded operations(Grimes Rock,
Inc., Wayne J Sand and Gravel, and Best Rock), all located adjacent to each other,
utilizing the same haul routes and affecting the same environment, are not adequately
discussed in this single-project E1R. For example, we can find no mention even of the
status of the other two proposals. The cumulative impacts scenarios should also have
given greater consideration to the fourth major mining operation (CEMEX), which is 13
noted to be a large operation that is presently operating at levels much lower than
permitted. Failure to adequately consider all of these projects minimizes disclosure of the
real potential cumulative effects that may represent the most significant adverse effects of
traffic and attendant noise and air quality impacts. The timing, nature, and location of
these nearly identical operations should compel the County to proactively initiate a
comprehensive and consistent management approach to ensure cumulative effects are
effectively and efficiently minimized and mitigated.
///
///
//I
01148/000111274623
275
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R.Baca
October 26,2012
Page 7
Traffic/Circulation
The following comments are presented based on a review of the Recirculated Draft
Environmental Impact Report(September 2012)and the supporting traffic study(Traffic
Study for the Grimes Canyon Quarries in the County of Ventura, Katz, Okitsu &
Associates,August 2007)prepared for the proposed mining expansion project.
14. Page 4 of the traffic study and page 2-1 to 2-2 of the RDEIR state that, as currently
permitted, the maximum number of daily one-way truck trips from the project is 300. rLL
However,page 4.1-71 of the RDEIR states the currently permitted project is allowed to l
generate 300 average daily trips. This inconsistency should be corrected.
15. The RDEIR recommends a traffic mitigation measure (T1-1) that "limits" northbound
peak hour trips (`PIT") through Fillmore to 300 in any single morning peak hour and
300 in any single afternoon peak hour,and imposes no limitation on the number of truck
trips throughout the rest of the day. (RDEIR,pp. 4.1-70 to 4.1-71.) That equates to one
truck trip every 12 seconds through Fillmore in the morning and afternoon peak hours,
and unlimited truck trips the rest of the day. The existing mining operation(before the
changes being proposed by the RDEIR)is limited to only 300 truck trips for the entire
day. (RDEIR,pp. 2-1 to 2-2; Traffic Study,p. 4.) The RDEIR labels its proposed new
"limit" as a mitigation measure that reduces the traffic impacts to less than significant
levels. But it actually greatly increases allowable northbound truck trips,to a level that is
very significant. J
16. There is no evidence anywhere in the RDEIR or its appendices for the RDEIR's
conclusion that Mitigation Measure T1-1 will reduce the impacts resulting from
exceeding Thresholds 2 and 5 (noted on page 4.1-69 to 4.1-70 of the RDEIR) to a less
than significant leveL The RDEIR claims it does so without any evidence in support.
(RDEIR, p. 4.1-70.) The traffic study concludes that these impacts can be reduced to a
less than significant level only if there is no"expansion of total trips or peak hour trips."
(Traffic Study,p. 102.) But Mitigation Measure TI-1 does permit an expansion of total 10
trips. The currently permitted project is allowed a maximum of only 300 trips for the
entire day. (RDEIR,pp. 2-1 to 2-2;Traffic Study,p.4.) Mitigation Measure T1-1 would
allow 300 trips in any single morning peak hour, 300 trips in any single afternoon peak
hour,and unlimited trips throughout the rest of the day. (RDEIR, pp.4.1-70 to 4.1-71.)
In order to implement the mitigation measure recommended in the traffic study(which
the RDEIR must do in order to support its mitigation measures with substantial
01148/0001/1274623
276
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R.Baca
October 26,2012
Page 8
evidence), Mitigation Measure T1-1 must be amended to impose a maximum of 300 16
PHTs and a maximum of 300 total one-way trips per day. .JI
17. Mitigation Measure T1-1B on page 4.1-75 of the RDEIR states that overnight parking is
allowed provided that. . . "d. All operations and activities related to overnight parking
conforms to the `hours of operation' listed in Condition of Approval 1 (Project 17
Description)." We can find no reference in the Project Description or anywhere in the
RDEIR to a"Condition of Approval 1."
18. Mitigation Measure T3-1 imposes a Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee ("TIMF") for each
"approved increase in heavy truck ADTs above the previously permitted volume . . .".
(RDEIR,p. 4.1-81.) But the mitigation measures in the RDEIR permit unlimited ADTs.
The RDEIR does not explain what"approval"it is referring to or what body"approves" 18
the increase in ADTs. Presumably this is referring to the County's approval of the CUP
for the Project. But since there is no recommended limit on ADTs in the RDEIR,what
happens if the County imposes no condition of approval limiting ADTs?
19.The RDEIR does not explain the TIMF program referenced in Mitigation Measure T3-1.
What must the fees be used for by the payee jurisdictions? Without this analysis, how pi
can the RDEIR conclude that the TIMF fees will reduce cumulative impacts to less than
significant?
•
20. Pages 2-18 —2-19. Please confirm the accuracy of the Project Description sections 2.4
and 2.5 stating that the proposed doubling of production can be accomplished with the
existing plant facilities and equipment, and that no additional equipment is required. In ZA
addition,please clarify that the total of 7 employees listed in Table 2-3 really represents a
greater number of employees over multiple shifts(21 or more to cover 24 hour operations
and weekdays and weekends?),with only 7 of those employees on site at any given time.
The RDEIR should be revised to address/clarify this inconsistency.
21.As noted in General Comments above,the lists of related projects in Section 3.0 utilized
as a basis for evaluating potential cumulative effects—including those related to traffic—
is significantly out of date(8 years for Fillmore and 3 years for Moorpark),is inconsistent 21
as to dates as noted,and fails to include the City of Santa Paula,despite its 2003 request
to be included,and it being one of the affected communities.
•
01148/0001/127462.3
277
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R Baca
October 26,2012
Page 9
22. Page 4.1.2 indicates that the proposal consists of extending the horizon year from 2025 to
2040. Therefore,a year 2040 analysis should be conducted. It is stated that no additional
project traffic would occur during this extended timeframe and therefore,no new analysis
is needed. However, it is reasonable to assume that additional cumulative traffic would
occur during this timeframe (ambient growth, additional related project traffic, etc.)
assuming a certain annual percent increase in traffic levels over time and therefore, 22
additional cumulative impacts could occur. Applying the County's logic on this point,
there would seem to be no need to adjust the analysis for any time frame beyond 2025,
which is not a reasonable assumption if the project would remain online for an additional
15 years. We also note that in the noise section, the RDEIR states that future ambient
traffic volumes are anticipated to increase over time. (See comment number 40 below,
and RDEIR,p.4.3-1.)
23. The traffic assessment for this 2012 FIR is not adequate because it is based upon a 2004
model, with traffic count data from 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006, 2006-2007 peak-hour 23
counts, a 2025 horizon year for a 2040 project, and a list of related projects 3 to 8 years
out of date.
24. The discussion of Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factors on pages 4.1-6 — 4.1-81
provides some background, although it does not acknowledge the current 2010 Highway
Capacity Manual standards (Transportation Research Board). Throughout the analysis
truck trips are underestimated when reported as simple average daily trips, and when
modified using the lowest possible (PCE) of 2 or 3 without taking into account the
constraints of existing local road conditions. Standard practice for mining trucks is a PCE
of 2 for unloaded trucks and 4 for loaded trucks when applied to good quality roads. .21
PCEs as high as 10-11 may be more applicable for rural and narrow roads or steep
grades, and higher PCEs should be used to account for the effects of hundreds of 40-ton
loaded mining trucks passing through sensitive communities with narrow lane widths,
urban, commercial and residential districts, and numerous cross streets, driveways and
sensitive uses such as schools.Accounting for those sensitivities,a PCE of 4 or 5 would
have been more appropriate for loaded trucks on State Route 126 through the City of ,
Fillmore. J
25. Impacts on pavement have also been underestimated based upon assumptions that roads
have been designed to handle heavy wicks(reference to Traffic Index Pavement Design
of 7.0 or greater, page 4.1-60). A quantitative-based analysis of pavement should be Z5
conducted for all roadway study segments. Truck traffic is the primary factor affecting
01148/0001/127462.3
278
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R.Baca
October 26,2012
Page 10
pavement design life. Therefore, pavement loadings should be estimated with and
without the project 'under existing and cumulative conditions for full disclosure of
potential impacts. According to Caltrans, at 40 tons per loaded mining truck, a road 25-
damage multiplier of 10,000:1 applies—one mining truck contributes to wear and tear of
pavement surfaces equal to the effects of 1 average passenger car or light truck.
26. Page 4.1-3 indicates that no new peak hour trips would be generated due to the-
imposition of the mitigation measures identified in Section 4.1.5 of this EIR. Since the
horizon year has shifted from 2025 to 2040, it would seem reasonable that additional
projects and additional ambient growth would occur and should be incorporated in a 26
revised analysis. Page 4.1-6 indicates that traffic counts from 2002 through 2006 were
used for existing conditions. Updated traffic counts should be provided or at least a
sampling of current counts should be compared to the previous counts to determine
whether traffic has changed significantly.
27.Page 4 of the traffic study indicates that the days of operation will be extended to include
Saturdays. A Saturday analysis should be conducted and included in the traffic and noise 21
analysis to ensure no significant impacts will occur.
28.Page 5 of the traffic study indicates that year 2007 is designated as the near term horizon
year for analysis purposes. Use of this year is now inappropriate and does not reflect on
the ground roadway conditions or traffic levels of service for roadway segment and 28
intersection and freeway on and off ramps. Based on the current proposal, an updated
timeframe should be used in which the proposed expansion is in full operation.
29.Page 52,Table 21.An average trip rate has been calculated from the three existing sites
based on empirical traffic data and corresponding production quantities. It is unclear why
all three sites need to be combined to develop an average rate. If all sites operate 2-9
independently, why weren't the independent calculated rates applied to each individual
site to estimate future trip generation?
30.Page 52. The design hour volume trip generation estimate for currently permitted traffic
was determined by dividing the daily activity by 6 hours. It seems that rather than using 3
an assumed value of 6 hours,the estimates should be based on the empirically collected
data instead.
01148/0001/1274623
279
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R Baca
October 26,2012
Page I I
31.Page 53. The application requests that on special occasions, the peak rates be allowed to
operate at higher levels than the average rates. It is unclear when these special occasions • 3
will occur. Therefore,the peak rates,rather than the average rates should be used in the
analysis. —'
32. Pages 80 and 81. The traffic forecasts on Figures 26 and 27 illustrate the Year 2025 peak
hour traffic volumes with the addition of the proposed project. Some of the turning
movements are less than those shown for existing conditions (e.g. Figure 3 shows 409
existing vehicles heading southbound through, whereas Figure 26 shows only 345 32
vehicles for 2025 conditions at the intersection of Walnut Canyon Rd./High St.). It is
unlikely that traffic volumes would be less in the future unless significant infrastructure
improvements were constructed that would cause shifts in travel patterns. This
inconsistency should be addressed.
33.Page 83.Table 36 indicates that the delay for the worst movement at the intersection of
Grimes/Broadway is shown to be 0.636 under existing conditions. However,the average
intersection delay is shown to be 8.3. It appears that this is an error since the delay for 3
the worst movement should be higher than the average delay.
34.Page 85. Table 37 indicates that the intersection of Moorpark/Los Angeles operates at
LOS D under existing conditions but operates at a better LOS(B)under future conditions 34
(Scenarios 2 and 3). This seems counterintuitive since traffic volumes are anticipated to
increase in the future and no further explanation is provided. __a
35. Page 85. Table 37. The project impacts shown are based on a comparison between
existing plus permitted conditions and existing plus proposed project conditions.
However, the project impacts should instead be based on a comparison of existing
conditions(2012)to existing plus proposed project conditions(2040).
36. Traffic Signal Warrants should be provided for=signalized intersections for all analysis]36
scenarios. This is an industry standard for a traffic impact analysis in an EIR J
37. Page 94. The intersection of Broadway/Walnut Canyon Road is forecast at a level of
service F but would not have a significant impact since the project would not add traffic
to the critical movements. The level of service worksheets are not available so it is not 3
possible to verify whether the project would add trips to the critical movements.
01145/0001/127462.3
2 00
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R.Baca
October 26,2012
Page 12
38. The mitigation measures on page 98 indicate that a 150 foot left turn pocket will be
provided at the site's entrance. This length should be based on the anticipated 95th 3e
percentile queue of project traffic entering the site during the peak hour,or the 150 foot
length,whichever is greater.
Air Quality
39. The Air Quality technical report on which this 2012 RDEIR is based is inadequate
because it was prepared in 2006,based upon the 2002 EMFAC model,with baseline data 3 9
from 1991 through 2005, and run through a 2025 horizon year for a project that has a
2040 horizon year,and relies upon a list of related projects 3 to 8 years out of date for the
cumulative impacts scenario.
Noise
40.The assessment of noise impacts presented in section 4.3 is derived entirely from the
2006 DELL No supporting technical appendix is provided, but the text notes that the
analysis is based on field measurements taken over a three day period in September 2004,
more than eight years ago.The analysis horizon for the original noise assessment is also 4 Q
for the 2025 time period that applied to the 2006 project under review. This is inadequate
for a 2012 E1R because it is based on only three days of data collected in 2004,using a
2025 horizon year for a 2040 project,and a list of related projects 3 to 8 years out of date.
41. In the preface to the noise section,the RDEIR states that"the analysis of noise generated
by project-related truck traffic on the local haul routes is independent of the duration of
the mining activities."It goes on to add an analytical conclusion that"To some extent, the
effects of project related traffic noise would be diminished with the passage of time due to
the anticipated long-term increase in ambient traffic volume. In any case, the analysis
presented herein is adequate to describe the effects of noise generated by the proposed q
project." (page 4.3-1). We disagree than additional 15 years of heightened noise from
hundreds of heavy milling trucks passing through the center of the City of Fillmore has
no additional impact than 15 years less of that noise source, and we find the County in
error to have reached its conclusions regarding the effect of "long-term increase in
ambient traffic volume" that was not included in an updated traffic assessment (see
comment number 22 above)or supported by any analysis in this document. _,,,
42. We also question why the County failed to have the noise assessment reviewed and
verified for adequacy and adherence to current standards by a qualified scientist or q2
engineer.
•
01148/0001/1274623
281
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R.Baca
October 26,2012
. Page 13
Biological Resources
43. We find no flaws worth noting in the analysis of biological resources, (section 4.6), but
we do note the County actually did consult experts to confirm the validity of its outdated
2006 biological field inspections. That is in stark contrast to its failure to confirm the
outdated studies in all other impact areas. The RDEIR does not explain why this impact
area was treated differently. The County reports that: "As part of the preparation of this 113
RDEIR in 2012, field inspections of the project site were conducted by the County
Planning Division Biologist and biologists for the California Department of Fish and
Game. These inspections confirmed the biological resource conditions reported in the
2006 Draft HR."; (Page 4.6-1). It is questionable as to why this was the only technical
area for which such expertise was engaged and at least generically described.
44.No record of the above-noted 2012 field inspections is included in Volume 2 Appendix E
with the Biological Resources supporting technical materials, no names or dates are
given, and no contacts with the California Department of Fish and Game are recorded in
section 8.2 (2)— Other Consulted Public Agencies and Contacts. The field inspections
therefore lack supporting documentation.
Paleontological Resources
45.The assessment of paleontological resources(section 43)is based upon technical reports
produced by an archaeologist (Robert Lopez) in 1995, with protection guidelines
developed by a geologist(Dr.Robert Gray)in 1998(RDEIR Volume 2,Appendix F).For
this resource area the dated analyses probably do not represent a fatal flaw since the
' nature of these ancient resources does not change over 14 to 17 years. However, in this "S
case, potential loss of paleontological resources has been determined to constitute a
significant impact for which mitigation is deemed infeasible. Because of the significance
the County attributes to the impact on these resources, at a minimum, each of these
underlying technical assessments should have been reviewed and their adherence to
current standards confirmed by qualified scientist(s).
.r+
Alternatives
46. The selection and assessment of alternatives (section 5.0) is inadequate for a variety of
reasons. Had the traffic impact assessment been properly formulated, the impacts ,6
ffi
identified as drivers for the selection of alternatives should have included traffic, as well
as traffic related noise along haul routes(which is identified in the RDEIR).In that case,
01148/0001/127462.3
2 02
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R Baca
October 26,2012
Page 14 .
alternatives may have considered greater limitations on peak hour trips, and operational
limitations on haul truck operations, including for example hours of the day, and
elimination of Saturday haul operations as a means to reduce potential impacts of greatest
concern to the local communities. Instead the selected action alternatives examine only
whether to continue existing operations with or without the new reclamation plan G,b
(Alternatives 2 and 3), or reducing the increase in production capacity with mining to
continue either longer(to year 2053), or to the year 2040 as now proposed(alternatives 4
and 5). These alternatives produce no meaningful reduction in the allowed daily peak
hour trips or average daily trips, and therefore do not really address either traffic or
traffic-related noise experienced in Fillmore,Moorpark,or Santa Paula. f•
47. One criterion listed for measuring and identifying the environmentally superior
alternative is whether the alternative will `Attain project objectives? Yes/No'; (section ?
5.7,table at bottom of page 5-7). While there is nothing inherently wrong with applying
this criterion to the assessment,we note that nowhere in the document could we find any
statement of the Project's[applicant's]objectives. ....r
Section 8.0-8.3 Preparers of the EIR,Contacts and References
48. Flaws described in earlier comments are hi•hlighted in the List of Preparers (section 8.0,
pages 8-1 — 8-2), and the References Section 8.3, page 8-3 — 8-5. Following a brief
explanation that the recirculated document has been prepared by County staff, the list of
preparers includes parties that prepared technical reports for earlier iterations of EIRs for
the project with no identification of roles in preparing this 2012 RDEIR,or whether they
were consulted in any way six years after their initial involvement. At the very least, ti.g
technical experts should have been consulted regarding their professional opinions about '1
the adequacy of their original analyses for use 5 to 17 years after they were originally
prepared. That no effort was made to update or confirm the analyses is likewise
confirmed in the list of references,which contains no reference materials dated later than
2004 other than the County General Plan, Initial Study Assessment Guidelines, and Air
Quality Assessment Guidelines.
Conclusions
We again request a consultation meeting with County staff to discuss more effective and
appropriate mitigation measures, and to establish an enforceable plan by which they can feasibly
be implemented. (CEQA Guidelines § 15082(c).) After such consultation,we respectfully urge
the County to revise and recirculate a new RDE[R in accordance with our comments above and
01148/0001/127462.3
283
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R. Baca
October 26,2012
Page 15
the results of our consultation. It is in both the County's and the City's interest to protect our
communities from the impacts of this project of areawide significance that will have effects
lasting over several decades.
Respectfully submitted,
'go :I deros
Acting City Manager
City of Fillmore
cc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,City of Fillmore
Steve Stuart,Fillmore Community Development Director
Tiffany Israel,Fillmore City Attorney
Jeffrey G.Harvey,Ph.D.,HMCG
01148/0001/1274623
284
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
NC !? NANCY KIERSTYN SCE-REINER
A!larrta
J
H c (805)988-8318 dirrct
):v�,'' i 1 (805)988-7718 fax
nicbrairtar(Jrtrbr.ram
VIA E-MA[L:brian.baca@ventura.org AND
U.S.MAIL
October 26,2012
Mr.Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura,CA 93009
Re: Modified Conditional Use Permit No.4872-2-Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report-Applicant Russell Cochran
Dear Brian:
Our law firm represents the neighboring property owners. We have reviewed the Notice of
Availability and obtained a copy of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report
(RDEIR)both from the County Planning Department Website and the CD from the
Planning Department. Our comments in our letter dated October 22,2012,are
incorporated herein as set forth in full and we provide the following additional comments
and concerns.
•
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
•
Section 4.6 of the RDEIR.the section on Biological Resources.is out of date,i.nadeauater
and inappropriately relies on documents(specifically the 2006 DEIR)that are superseded
by this RDEIR.
The document is unclear as to when biological surveys were conducted on the site. It
appears that none of the plant or animal specific surveys have been conducted within the
last 5 years and there is no evidence of additional updated surveys by consultants,
including date of inspection and observations. In addition,areas of the proposed project
have never been surveyed.
The RDEIR references biological resource surveys completed in 2000/2001 and again in 1
2003. The most recent survey listed in the RDEIR was the"Envicom Corporation EIR
Biological Surveys"conducted in 2003 and 2004. Oak Tree surveys from 2003 and 2004
are also referenced. It appears that the last survey for California Coastal Gnatcatcher
1000 Town Center Drive, Sixth floor, Oxnard, California 93036 I P.O. Box 9100, Oxnard, California 93031 805.485.1000 www.nchc.com
285
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 2
was conducted in 2003, nine years ago.As we have seen repeatedly in Ventura County,
sensitive species appear between surveys. The oak trees enlarge and may be of necessary
documenting size or new trees.
The Biological Resources Section is vague and does not provide clear and understandable
disclosure for what protocols were followed and when, and under what circumstances the
various surveys were conducted. Some of the surveys appoar to have been conducted
concurrently for multiple mining facilities. Results from the surveys are not clearly
presented in this document. In addition, a devastating regional wildfire swept through
the area in 2004. It appears that some of the analyses are dependent on pre-2004 aerial
photographs in order to reconstruct what may have site conditions prior to the wildfires.
The last Envicom survey, conducted in 2004, occurred just months following the fires. It is 2
unclear what the site physical conditions were this close following a regional wildfire. It is
likely that the fires may have substantially altered the biological community on and
adjacent to the project site. In any case,the Envicom survey is also over five years old.
There are no referenced comprehensive floristic biological surveys that have been
conducted on the property within the last five years.
Further,we have also seen repeatedly in Ventura County new or undocumented plant 1
species after a fire, especially species that need heat to produce or germinated seeds.
There is a lack of discussion whatsoever on this issue.
Section 4.6 the RDEIR contains the following language under Existing Conditions [Ref
RDEIR4.6p. 1]:
•
To prepare the Biological Resources Section of the EIR for the proposed Grimes Rock
Sand and Gravel,Inc (Grimes Rock)project,Envicorn Corporation, the County's
CEQA consultant, conducted site specific surveys,evaluated data from existing
reports for the proposed expanded project area(existing plus additional project area)
and adjacent areas, and studied a variety of technical and scientific publications.
Data from the sources are incorporated herein by reference and presented in
summary form as appropriate. Updated research conducted for this EIR included
vegetation mapping(prior to a November 2003 fire and a January 2005 flood),
observations and recording of on-site plants and animals, a focused springtime
floristic survey, an oak tree inventory, and a protocol'survey for the coastal
California gnatcatcher.
286
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 3
As part of the preparation of this RDEIR in 2012, field inspections of the project site
were conducted by the County Planning Division Biologist and biologist for the
California Department of Fish and Game: These inspections confirmed the
biological resource conditions reported in the 2006 Draft EIR.
Inclusion of this statement in this Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report is
troubling on several levels. As written,it may even lead one to believe that the surveys
were recently conducted,were comprehensive in nature and that the status of the impact
analyses is fully complete and up to date.There is no documentation of what occurred and
what was reviewed in 2012. What about enlargement of oak trees,new oak trees or new
species as a result of fire? This is simply not addressed.
This Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report is intended,on its own,to provide
sufficient evidence in order to understand and consider the potential adverse
environmental impacts from the proposed project. As stated in the Scope of the RDEIR
[Ref:RDEIR 2.71:
It is intended that this document be adequate to satisfy the requirements for
environmental review for each of the discretionary entitlements required to authorize
the proposed changes in the facility.
This is a Recirculated Draft EIR. This RDEIR(not the 20(56 Draft EIR),is the
environmental document circulated for review and comment by the public. This RDEIR
(not the 2006 Draft EIR),is also the environmental document that will be used by the lead
agency to make a reasoned determination based on presented substantial evidence. The
conditions reported in the 2006 Draft EIR are irrelevant(and are,additionally,
unavailable for public review). The County agency that reviewed the 2006 DEIR(the
Environmental Report Review Committee)does not even exist anymore. Any reliance on
the 2006 DEIR is suspicious.
Of equal or greater concern, even if there were merit in referring to the 2006 DEIR(which
there is not), the"conditions"that are contained in the 2006 Draft EIR that were If
"confirmed",were based on incomplete biological surveys conducted in 2004 and earlier,
all of which are now well over five years old. Furthermore,the County's initial study has
been updated. Board of Supervisors adopted new initial study guidelines on April 26,
2011. These were not used for the RDEIR and should have been. Appendix A is the 2003
initial study. Further biological protocols have also been updated and it cannot be
determined from the document were followed. New thresholds have been adopted in
biological and other areas addressed in the initial study guidelines.
287
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 4
This RDEIR does not contain any survey results from any comprehensive biological
surveys(conducted while following recently revised protocols)that were completed within
the last five years. If the recent"inspections"referenced in the narrative section above
constitute actual comprehensive floristic biological surveys,then the RDEIR should 6
reference them as such, provide the results, and include the date and specific reference to
the surveys in the Biological Resource list in Section 8 of the RDEIR.
Of additional concern,none of the surveys conducted in 2004,or earlier,included the
proposed additional expansion area(such as the truck parking area,the newly proposed
onsite haul road, or the area adjacent to the proposed new intersection at Grimes Canyon
Rd). If the surveys did include these areas, the results are not presented in this RDEIR.
All of these areas may experience adverse environmental impacts to Biological Resources
that have not been surveyed under standardized protocols. As one example,light from 7
truck headlights and the noise generated from trucks using the newly proposed onsite
haul road may adversely impact adjacent biological communities. There are also many
existing trees(and potential nesting sites)in immediate proximity to the newly proposed
southerly project entrance, and there is a drainage course along Grimes Canyon Road in
this location. None of these have been considered in this RDEIR.
The California Natural Resource Agency(CDFG),recently revised their biological resource
protocols and published"Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating'Impacts to Special Status
Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities"in 2009(revision date:November 24,
2009). This RDEIR is subject to these changes in protocols(though several key
components of the RDEIR do not even comply with the old:protocols).
The purpose of the revision to the protocols was, in part, to provide direction for the B
appropriate means and methods to be followed to adequately disclose the potential
impacts from a proposed project during the public review process,as specifically required
under CEQA. In addition,the protocols are to"assist the lead, trustee and responsible
reviewing agencies to make an informed decision regarding the direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of a proposed development,activity, or action on special status native
plants and natural communities".
The timing and number of survey visits to be conducted are determined by geographic
location, the natural communities present, and the weather patterns of the year(s)in
which the surveys are conducted. The seasonal timing of the surveys must match the
times when_observance of species is likely to occur. In addition,"Surveys should be
comprehensive over the entire site, including areas that will be directly or indirectly
•
288
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25,2012
Page 5
impacted by the project." [Survey Protocols p. 3]. Under the section of the new protocols
titled"Use of Existing Surveys",the new protocols state: "Habitats, such as grasslands or
desert plant communities that have annual and short-lived perennial plants as major
floristic components may require yearly surveys to accurately document baseline conditions
for purposes of impact assessment. In forested areas, however, surveys at intervals of five q
years may adequately represent current conditions."
The revised protocols specifically include the necessity for additional surveys when
existing surveys are not current; are not comprehensive in nature,or; the physical site
conditions may have changed due to fire history [Survey Protocols p. 4].
Except under extraordinary and supportable circumstances, 5 years is the upper limit on
the age of biological surveys. Some of the site surveys appear to have taken place at least
eight or nine years ago(it is hard to tell), and may be over ten years old. The last 10
California Gnatcathcher survey was conducted in 2003. No results from comprehensive
floristic biological surveys conducted within the last five years are presented in the
RDEIR.
The analyses on Biological Resources do not consider the 2004 wildfires. Wildfires have 1
the potential to substantially alter the biological community in the short term and over
medium and longer term periods. Most of the surveys were conducted prior to the fires.
The last Envicom survey was conducted within months following the wildfires. The area's
biological communities would have been substantially different for the short period of time I
immediately following a major fire when the Evicom surveys were conducted. The
biological site conditions have undoubtedly changed significantly in the eight years
following the fires. The existing surveys are out of date.
In addition,it appears that there have been no comprehensive surveys completed on the
proposed expanded areas,including:the new haul road,near the newly proposed southern
entrance,in the area of proposed truck parking,or on any of the adjacent properties in the 12
immediate proximity to these areas.
All of the biological surveys need to be redone and completed with updated current
surveys.All the data is stale. There is no data contained in the RDEIR that reflects what
are the current(post wildfire and within the last five years)biological conditions on the
site. New surveys are the only way the public has an opportunity to review and comment i3
on the potential adverse environmental impacts to Biological Resources that may be
caused by the project. In addition,it is not possible for the lead agency to make an
informed decision based on outdated,incomplete information and stale information.
289
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25,2012
Page 6
TRAFFIC
The circulated RDEIR document is incomplete. In addition,the traffic analysis is out of
date and uses calculations that are no longer valid. Portions of the traffic study referenced
in the RDEIR are missing from Appendix B. In addition, the traffic/circulation element of 'i
the RDEIR calculates so-called"current"traffic conditions for 2007,not for 2012. The
information has not been updated. In addition, the traffic volume calculations use an
understated growth factor in determining"near term"traffic conditions.
The traffic study(and the calculations included therein)has not been updated since 2007
and components of the traffic information are missing entirely. The RDEIR states [Ref:
RDEIR p.4.1-5 and 6]:
Existing traffic data was obtained from the Grimes Canyon Quarries Ventura,
California Traffic and Circulation.Study,Associated Transportation Engineers
(ATE), October 2002. The additional traffic counts were conducted specifically for
this study by Traffic Data Services in September 2003, January 2004,April 2004,
and November 2006. Traffic count data used in the study is compiled in Appendix
B.
There is no traffic count data provided in Appendix B. In fact,Appendix B is limited to a 15
copy of only a portion of the 2007 traffic study by Katz,Okitsu&Associates. The Katz,et
al,study in Appendix B is included only through page 137. The balance of the document is
missing. None of the appendices to the traffic study(which are presumed to include the
referenced traffic count data)are included in Appendix B of the circulated document. It is
impossible to determine which studies were used for which intersections or when any of
the traffic counts were taken. The RDEIR document is incomplete, In order for the public
to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to review the environmental documents, a
complete set of documents must be provided to the public with adequate time to review
and provide comments. It is impossible for the lead agency to make a reasoned
determination based on incomplete information.
Not only is a significant portion of the data missing,but the data that is presented has not
been updated to reflect traffic conditions in 2012. It appears that the Traffic/Circulation
section is written as if the project were to be implemented in 2007. So-called"current" lb
290
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 7
traffic volumes are calculated based on much earlier traffic counts(though the document
is unclear when the actual count dates occurred at specific intersections). An"escalator"is
then applied to the earlier traffic counts to account for traffic changes over the ensuing
time period to predict what traffic volumes would be in 2007 [Ref: RDEIR 4.1 p. 21]. f(o
Baseline 2007 conditions describe the near-term condition that is expected to occur if
the mines are allowed to continue to operate at the maximum level of operation
allowed under their existing permits.
The same paragraph later goes on to state:
To simulate near term area-wide growth by the year 2007, the 2006 peak hour
volumes in Figures 4.1-3, 4.1-4, and 4.1-5 were increased by a factor of 1,04.
None of the traffic analyses presented in this RDEIR uses 2012 as the baseline year for
the proposed project expansion. The traffic information has not been updated since 2007. �?
All of the traffic counts took place over five years ago. To compound that flaw,the
calculations have not been updated for any of the years since 2007. The document
continues to reference traffic conditions in 2007,as if 2007 were now. A"near-term 2007
traffic condition"is meaningless in the year 2012. If updated calculations have been
completed,where are the results? The traffic calculations,the tables and the text should
be updated.
The calculations in the traffic analyses include a growth factor of 1.04 percent. This is
based on an annual traffic volume growth factor of 2% [Ref:RDEIR 4.1 p. 22]. If one were
to utilize the same 2%annual growth factor through 2012(not through 2007; a much
shorter time period),the growth would be approximately 1.2%,not 1.04%as used in the
study. These calculations are flawed. As such,the information presented in this RDEIR l8
is inadequate. The flawed calculations render it impossible to make an informed
determination on the traffic information as presented in this RDEIR. The public should
have a fair and reasonable opportunity to review any updates to the traffic information.
The traffic count data is confusing and the age of the collected field data is out of date,
Therefore,the Traffic and Circulation analysis is inadequate. The traffic study is based on
traffic counts conducted in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006. There is no information provided
in this RDEIR that describes when one set of data is used and when a different set of data !/
is used. The RDEIR states [Ref:RDEIR p. 4.1-5 and 61:
291
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 8
Existing traffic data was obtained from the Grimes Canyon Quarries Ventura,
California..Tra5lc and Circulation Study,Associated Transportation Engineers
(ATE), October 2002. The additional traffic counts were conducted specifically for
this study by Traffic Data Services in September 2003, January 2004,April 2004,
and November 2006. Traffic count data used in the study is compiled in Appendix
B.
The age of the traffic count compilation dates are all more than five years old. Some are
•
over 11 years old. Again,the data is stale. Substantial changes in traffic patterns or
subsequent development may have substantially increased(or reduced)vehicles volumes
over the last 6 to 11 years. Additionally,the information provided is confusing. It appears
that the traffic and circulation analysis mixes data from different studies and from
different dates.
For instance,in the Traffic/Circulation section of the RDEIR, Figure 4.1-3 [Ref: Existing
Traffic Volumes-AM Peak Hour,p. 75],suggests that the traffic heading south on Grimes
Canyon Road at the project entrance is 552 vehicles(545 southerly through-traffic vehicles
+7 vehicles turning southerly from the mine entrance). At the next southerly analyzed
intersection(at Grimes Canyon Road and Waynes Way),there are 594 vehicles reaching
the intersection from the north. There is an increase of 42-vehicles on this short section of
highway. Why are these counts so different? There is no intervening intersection to
account for this significant discrepancy in vehicle counts. Were these counts taken on
different days? Were they taken at different times? Are tiie traffic counts from different
studies? Because the traffic study is incomplete,there is no way to review the 0
intersection-specific data. Intersection-specific data spreadsheets should be provided for
review in the traffic study. The entire portion after page 137 of the traffic study(including
the study appendices where the data spreadsheets may be located)is missing from the
published document. This missing data may provide information as to why the
intersection traffic counts provided in Figure 4.1-3 show such inconsistent information.
On the other hand, even if the supporting data is presented)in Appendix B, the RDEIR
narrative in the Traffic/Circulation element should provide an explanation for the
substantial discrepancy. The RDEIR should provide information in a clear and
understandable manner. The public should not have to dig.through the appendices to try
to understand the data being presented. Based on the limited information provided, one
can only presume that the traffic counts at these two intersections were taken at different
times or on different dates. Without the missing data,however,it is impossible to make a
reasonable or meaningful comment on the document as published.
292
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 9
The traffic counts are out of date(up to 11 years old). The information provided is
confusing and inconsistent. The traffic study in Appendix B is incomplete. As such, there
is insufficient evidence on which to base a reasonable determination on the adequacy of
the traffic and circulation element contained in this RDEIR. The traffic counts are out of 2�
date and come from too many sources. New and current traffic counts(specific to this
project)should be undertaken. A new traffic study(specific to this project)should be
completed. The public should be provided with a reasonable opportunity to review and
comment on the updated information.
The assumed baseline used for traffic Analyses is fatally flawed for any proposed traffic —
increase that will occur along any route other than on one(,‘f the currently approved haul
routes. The existing CUP has restrictions that establish specific haul routes that can be
used for truck traffic. Additionally, the existing CUP includes limits on the times and
number of truck trips that are allowed on any of the approved haul routes. The 2003
Notice of Preparation states [Ref: NOP 1.6 p. 6]:
The existing CUP limits the project to only deliver material to the State Ready Mix
batch plant at Vineyard Avenue and SR 118 in Saticoy. Delivery occurs via two
approved routes: 1)a Northern Haul Route which runs from the project site north on I
SR 23 to SR 126, west on SR 126 to SR 118, then south to the State Ready Mix plant,t 2„2,
and;2)a Southern Haul Route which runs from the project south on SR 23 to
Broadway, west on Broadway to Grimes Canyon Road, south to SR 118, then west to
the State Ready Mix plant. Only 64 of the currently permitted daily maximum of
300 one-way truck trips may use the Southern Haul Aoute. In addition,project
related truck traffic using this Southern Haul Route have limitations on their arrival
and departure times in order to minimize traffic volumes during peak travel hours, f
and during school bus operations.
The existing CUP contains limitations and establishes the approved routes that the trucks I
may follow. This is the"existing condition"at the time of publication of the Notice of
Preparation. If these restrictions have changed,then the fkindamental existing conditions
at the time of the issuance of the Notice of Preparation have changed and a new Notice of
Preparation should be issued,
This CUP modification seeks to eliminate the haul route restrictions that are currently in
place by allowing project-related traffic to use any route. This proposed modification is a
substantial change in the currently permitted existing conditions even without any 23
expansion in material production at the mining facility.
293
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 10
The baseline for existing conditions(under CEQA), are substantially different along any of
the Approved Haul Routes when compared to any of the locations that are not on one of ,
the Approved Haul Routes. This difference is important, The traffic analyses utilized in
this RDEIR fails to make a distinction in the currently permitted vehicle trips between
what is currently permitted along the Approved Haul Roui;es and what is currently
permitted at locations outside of one of the Approved Haul Routes.
How many project-related vehicles are currently permitted to travel along any location
that is not on one of the Approved Haul Routes? (As the existing permit limits the
direction of travel to the Approved Haul Routes,one would expect the number allowed
outside of the Approved Haul Routes to be zero,by definition). Under the route and
timing restrictions contained in the current CUP,it is certainly not 300 trips, as suggested
by the assumptions and methodology adopted in the traffic study.
The RDEIR utilizes Average Daily Trips(ADT's)in much of the analyses. The Traffic
Volumes allowed under the existing permit is 0(zero)Average Daily Trips(ADT)at any 1
location that is not on one of the currently approved haul routes. This is the"existing
environmental condition"at the time of the NOP publication. If this is not the case,the
RDEIR document should clearly explain why this is not the case. The RDEIR should 74
provide the current existing permit allowances along all routes where truck traffic will
likely travel under the CUP modification. This should disclose the existing condition
along the Approved Haul Routes and also what are the existing permitted traffic
allowances at locations outside of the currently Approved Haul Routes.
The proposed CUP modification will increase project-related traffic volumes in new
locations where no permitted traffic currently exists. Since no project related traffic is
currently allowed at these locations,the appropriate traffic volume"existing baseline"for
any location that is not on a currently Approved Haul Rouge should be 0(zero)ADT's. If 25
this is not that case,then the RDEIR should explain why a higher baseline is appropriate
to use in these non-permitted locations.
Many of the potentially impacted intersections and roadway segments included in the `S?b
RDEIR traffic analyses are not on one of the Approved Haul Routes.
The Traffic Study assumes that the "maximum permitted 300 Daily Trips"under the 7
existing CUP creates an existing"baseline"condition. The-analyses in the RDEIR
inappropriately use this 300 ADT baseline for all locations that are analyzed(both along
and outside of the Approved Haul Routes), as if the existing CUP allows unrestricted a?
traffic on any route and at any time. However, the maximum 300 Daily Trips are not an
294
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25,2012
Page 11
accurate baseline under the current permit for any location that is outside one of the
Approved Haul Routes. The project traffic is currently restricted outside of the Approved
Haul Routes.
The traffic analysis in the RDEIR uses an"incremental analysis"methodology by
theoretically analyzing only those additional ADT's that would be created by the plant
expansion. Essentially, the assumptions are:total traffic from expanded operations is 460 1
trips;less the maximum 300 currently permitted ADT's; equals 160 new ADT's. This
"incremental"ADT is listed at 160 additional ADT's resulting from the increased plant
expansion. The subsequent impact analyses in this RDEIR are based on this limited 160
ADT increment. This approach(analysis of incremental traffic volumes above the
currently permitted maximum traffic volume)is certainly appropriate under CEQA in 27
many circumstances. However, in this instance,the current CUP(the existing permit),
restricts truck traffic to very specific Approved Haul Routes. The current CUP also
restricts the volume of allowed truck traffic at specified times at many locations. Most of
the intersections that are analyzed in this RDEIR are at locations that are not on one of
the currently Approved Haul Routes. The modification to allow travel on routes not
currently approved(or at times not currently approved)will create"new"project–related
traffic at locations where that traffic is not currently permitted. Therefore,the use of a so-
called"maximum 300 currently permitted ADT"is inappropriate for most of the locations
analyzed in this RDEIR. If this is not the case,the RDEM should explain why utilization
of 300 ADT's is an appropriate baseline to be used for locations outside of one of the
approved haul routes. The explanation should be in sufficient detail so as to make the
explanation understandable.
—
Without further explanation,all of the anticipated traffic(not the supposedly
"incremental"traffic)that will be generated from the mine would be new Project-related
traffic at any of these intersections. That is, all project related traffic that comes from the
facility and which will travel on roadways that are not on one of the currently approved
haul routes,is"new"traffic at these locations. The full volume of the traffic(not an
inappropriate"incremental"projection), should be analyzed at these locations. If this is
not the case, the explanation should be presented for public review with adequate time
available for comment. '2g
The"baseline"as used for the Current Peak Hour Trips(Riff's)is inappropriate at any
intersection or roadway segment that is not on one of the currently approved haul routes
In addition,the removal of time restrictions would cause impacts that have not been
analyzed in this RDEIR. As described above, the current CUP restricts truck traffic to
specifically approved haul routes and additionally restricts the time when truck traffic
295
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 12
may impact the surrounding roadway network. As much of the traffic analysis in this
RDEIR is based on Peak Hour Trips, the same questions raised above regarding Average
Daily Trips also pertains directly to Peak Hour Trips. Currently permitted truck traffic
along any roadway segment or at any intersection that is not on one of the currently
Approved Haul Routes is restricted. Therefore, the appropriate baseline to be used for
analysis of PHT's is dictated by the limitations in the current CUP. The baseline at
locations along any of the Approved Haul Routes would be different than would be the
baseline at locations outside of any of the Approved Haul Routes. Any traffic generated
from the plant during a Peak Hour that would not be allowed under the current CUP(i.e.
outside of one of the currently approved haul routes)would be"new"project-related traffic
at those locations. The removal of the route restrictions and the re-routing of traffic onto
these roadway segments would increase traffic from what is currently permitted, even
without the expansion of the mining operations. As such, all project related traffic(from
the existing operations or from the proposed expanded operations)should be analyzed as
"new"project-related traffic at any intersection or roadway segment where traffic is
currently not permitted.
The current permit restricts traffic to 64 PHT's going south during the AM Peak Hours. T~
This modification seeks to remove that restriction(through.adoption of Mitigation
Measure T1-1A). If the volume is currently"time restricted"at a location, and that
restriction is removed allowing a higher traffic volume, then the resulting increase in
traffic during that time along any affected location is also"new"project-related traffic
during that time. The CUP modification is seeking to remove the time restrictions. The
increase in traffic resulting from the removal of the time restriction would result in higher
traffic volumes than are allowed under the Current permit'even without an increase in (�'�
plant operations and should be analyzed as such.
The full volume of the increased Peak Hour traffic(not an inappropriate"incremental"
projection), should be analyzed at these locations using the appropriate baseline. The
analysis should include proposed changes in approved roues and removal of time
restrictions,as well as increases due to plant operation volume. The new data should be
presented for public review with adequate time available for comment.
The traffic analysis understates the number of proiect-related truck traffic trips that will
impact the area roadways. The project is proposing to double the traffic volume generated
by the facility(from 300 daily trips to a maximum 600 daily trips(DT's). The RDEIR
anticipates that up to 600 daily trips would be required in;Order to adequately service 30
some customers or to provide enough material during busy demand periods. The
increased vehicle traffic that would be generated is dependent upon customer needs. As
296
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 26,2012
Page 13 •
such,it is reasonable to assume that the maximum 600 DT's would occur at the project at
some time. Otherwise,the applicant wouldn't request the'higher allowance. The traffic
analyses(and the related Noise,Congestion and Safety elements)utilize a lower daily j
average(460 daily trips). Daily averages reflect what may happen on average over a given
period of time. Use of traffic"averages"may make sense when analyzing impacts over
time, such as in determining long-term health risks or cumulative impacts. However,this
modification is seeking an increase in vehicle trips up to 600 trips per day. An increase to
600 daily trips is exactly what the CUP modification is asking,and this is the traffic
volume that will impact the area roadway network on any given day. This increase in
traffic(600 daily trips)will cause much longer delays,more congestion,more noise, and
may contribute to more safety concerns than would the lower"average"traffic volume.
This higher daily trip allowance is being requested so as to meet specific expected
requirements of a customer that may have a higher daily load requirement or to send out
more trucks when the regional demand is higher. It is unrealistic to assume that on any I
given day, at any given intersection or along any given roadway segment that fewer than
600 daily trips would occur. This is the'permit modification that is being requested. It is 30
unreasonable to assume that the higher maximum traffic volume would not happen. As
this higher project-related daily trip volume is likely to occur,and because the increased
traffic will additionally adversely affect traffic impacts at the studied intersections,the
traffic analyses should analyze the actual anticipated higher volume(600 DT's),not the
lower average(460 DT's). CEQA does not distinguish between an environmentally
significant impact and an environmentally significant impact that only happens for a
temporary period of time. Both are significant under CEQA. The RDEIR should utilize
the actual traffic volumes that are likely to impact the roadways. This is 600 daily trips.
In addition,by virtue of their dependence on the traffic analysis:the Noise, Congestion,
and Safety assessments should also utilize the higher 600 daily trip traffic volume in the
analyses,not the lower 300 daily trip average that is currently used in the analyses. In
particular,higher traffic volumes will undoubtedly result in higher noise generation. The
traffic analysis for noise should be revised to reflect the actual projected anticipated
higher daily trips.
The new data should be presented for public review with adequate time available for
comment.
The cumulative traffic analysis is inadequate. For the reasons stated above, at all
intersections and roadway segments that are not currently on one of the Approved Haul
Routes,the full traffic generated from the project(that will utilize any of these locations) 31
is contributory"new traffic"generated by the Grimes Rock mining facility at these
297
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 14
locations. It should be included as such in the cumulative traffic analysis. Furthermore, it
does not appear that the traffic analysis has taken into consideration all projects that have
been approved in the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, City of Oxnard,that have a
cumulative impact on traffic in this area since the original traffic studies. The cumulative ,3
impact analysis is lacking such considerations. Not all of the mines are subject to
regulated Approved Haul Routes. For purposes of cumulative analyses,the traffic
generated from each mine will vary in what is the currently permitted maximum traffic. J
NEW TRUCK PARKING AREA
The analysis of potential impacts from Overnight Parking of Trucks on the site is
inadeouate and defers an environmental determination until a later date. The DEW
delays the environmental assessment of the potential impacts that may be caused by
parking trucks on the site. The RDEIR states [Ref: 4.1-p. 76-77]:
Overnight parking and daytime parking of driver's cars could increase contaminants
leaking into the aquifers and surface waters if the vehicles are parked on water
permeable surfaces. If the vehicles are parked on impermeable surfaces, the surfaces
could reduce aquifer recharge and/or result in contaminated surface runoff.
Later in that same paragraph,the RDEIR states (Ref p. Z
�
Any plans or operations authorized under this mitigztion measure [onsite truck !
parking]could only occur if the Watershed Protection District WPD concludes that
no adverse impacts to water resources will occur,
It is the purpose of this RDEIR to identify potential impacts,present data and provide
information sufficient so as to allow the lead agency to make a reasonable decision based
on the evidence presented. This portion of the DREW puts off a determination of
potential adverse impacts to Water Resources to a later date, and defers that
determination to an agency that is not the lead agency. The impact on the aquifer and
water resources must be fully analyzed, addressed and mitigated as part of the RDEIR,
not at some future date.
As other identified significant impacts(specifically noise and traffic congestion during
peak hours)contained in the RDEIR are intended to be mitigated,in part,by the
overnight parking of trucks on the site(and those reductions in impacts are dependent on I
this measure), environmental analysis of the potential impacts from this addition to the
project are necessary now, in conjunction with this RDEIR,, Putting this analysis off until
298
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 15
later jeopardizes the other mitigations and creates an inability to make the mandatory
finding required to certify the RDEIR.
The potential adverse impacts from parking trucks overnight on the site should be
analyzed and quantified in conjunction with this RDEIR,not put off(or"piecemealed")to
a later date when there is little likelihood of opportunity for further public review or
comment. The RDEIR must address all mitigation measures in the document.The
provided analysis of potential impacts on water resources from truck parking on the site is
inadequate, as presented. J
WATER RESOURCES
The water basin is in severe overdraft. Evidence is not presented to establish that the net
quantity of groundwater in the basin will not be decreased due to the expansion of the
mine. The continued availability of water for the mine is not clearly established. The
current water usage reported in the RDEIR does not match the current water usage stated ('3
in the Reclamation Plan. Neither of these annual water usage volumes coincide with the
historical water usage volumes reported by The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management
Agency, (FCGMA).The rationale that the mine expansion will not cause a significant
environmental impact on Water Resources is inadequate ai'1d inacQurate,
The RDEIR lists the Thresholds of Significance for impacts on ground water resources in
section 4.5.3. These include five thresholds. The relevantthresholds;one,three and five
state [Ref: RDEIR 4.5 p. 14];
1. Any land use or project that will directly or indirectly decrease, either
individually or cumulatively, the net quantity of ground water in a groundwater
basin that is overdrafted or creates an overdrafted groundwater basin shall be
considered to have a significant groundwater quality impact. ... .
3. In areas where the groundwater basin and/or hydrologic unit condition is not
well known or documented and there is evidence of overdraft based upon declining
water levels in a well or wells, any proposed net increase in groundwater extraction
from that groundwater basin and/or hydrologic unit-shall be considered to cause a
significant groundwater quality impact until such tine as reliable studies determine
otherwise. ...
•
•
5. General Plan Goals and Policies—Any project that is inconsistent with any of the
policies or development standards relating to groundwater quality of the Ventura
299
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 16
County General Plan Goals,Policies and Programs or applicable Area Plan(above),
may result in a significant environmental impact. ...
The increased operations from the proposed project will require more water for dust
control,plant operations, and evaporative loss. This increased water consumption is in ru
excess of the water recharge from the site and will cause the net quantity of groundwater
to diminish,thereby exceeding threshold 1. _
The water usage numbers in Table 4.5.5 [RDEIR 4.5 p. 15] are incomplete(or at least —'
confusing). It is unclear if the water usage calculations in Table 4.5.5 include the new
expansion area;including the newly proposed truck parking area and newly proposed
onsite haul road. The newly proposed onsite haul road and the newly proposed southerly
entrance to the mine will require significant dust control. There is no indication in the
RDEIR that the calculations in Table 4.5.5 include the water usage for dust control on this 133
new onsite haul road and for the daily offsite road washing that will be required at the
newly proposed southerly project entrance(as will be necessary under the Air Quality
mitigation measures). In addition,the RDEIR states that proposed truck parking area is
not located over the lower aquifer outcrop area and, as such,dust control water used at
that location will not re-enter the groundwater basin from this area.
Of even greater concern,it appears that the current water usage numbers reported for the
plant(and the usage numbers that form the basis for the future water demands calculated 36
in Table 4.6-5)may be grossly understated. 0
There is also a legal question whether or not the applicant`has a right to use of water from
its alleged wells and whether or not its alleged allocations are accurate and whether or not
such water can be used for such industrial use.The FCGMA has been analyzing this issue 37
and has not made a final determination.At this point in time,the available water to the
applicant cannot be confirmed and the RDEIR cannot proceed until these final
determinations have been made by FCGMA. ..1
The RDEIR suggests that groundwater quantities are not impacted by virtue of well water
availability. This"availability"is in question. The RDERl states that water will come
from well 03N19W19K02S,located on the adjacent egg city property to the south of the
quarry. The section goes on to state[Ref RDEIR 4.5 p. 15]:
The historic FCGMA allocation for well 03N19W19K02S is 131.868 AF/yr. As 38
discussed above,-by 2010 FCGMA Ordinance No. 5 will result in a reduction of this
allocation to 98.901 AF/yr, after which it will remain constant.
300
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 17
The RDEIR fails to address the Los Posas User Group and the developing Las Posas Basin I
Management Plan.Water is not assured through the life of the permit extension(through
2040). It is not clear that a continuous and enduring allocation of 98.901 AF/yr for this
well has been established.There is no analysis of continued water use and availability to 38
2040.There is no analysis of the proposed Ordinance 8.5 and 8.6 which FCGMA is
processing.This will further reduce water availability.The lack of future water must be
addressed. r
The RDEIR states [Ref:RDEIR 4.5 p. 12]: wt
The calculated water usage for the existing quarry is 29.5 AF year, as shown in
Table 4.5.-5. This value is consistent with the 30 to 32 AF/year of water usage
reported by the operator for the current quarry production.
However,the Reclamation Plan states[Ref:Reclamation Plan p.22]:
"The existing quarry currently uses approximately 70 acre-feet of groundwater per
year for processing of aggregate and dust control." ,
We understand that the actual•water usage may historically be even higher than the 70 131
AF/yr stated in the Reclamation Plan. Historical water usage from the well from 2002- 1
2009(the years we have available)as reported by the FCGMA indicate that the annual
average water usage was 82.066 AF. This data should be updated. Historical water usage 1
rates(over a prolonged period)should be verified by the FCGMA. It may also be the case
that the facility is currently,or may be planning to use water from another nearby well; a
well that may not be authorized for industrial use. The significant discrepancy in current
water usage requires explanation and verification. If another well is being used or will be
used in the future,including its applicability for industrial use,it should be disclosed.
This historical usage discrepancy also suggests that the calculations for future demands
(which are based on lower actual annual water usage)as provided in Table 4.5-5 may be
grossly understated.
The RDEIR does not reference or provide evidence that clearly establishes water rights
capable of meeting the increased water demands from the proposed project. If a guarantee
of continuous water availability and a guarantee of continuous and unchanging allocations YO
•
301
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 18
(that meet the appropriate calculated future water requirements),the evidence should be
provided for public review and comment.
The RDEIR should demonstrate clear and unequivocal evidence from the FCGMA(or
other recognized source)confirming the historical water use and providing a guarantee of
continuous future groundwater availability.
Without clear and appropriate disclosure of the current existing conditions,the analysis of 1
impacts to water resources is inadequate. Without appropriate calculations 1}0
demonstrating the future water demands that will be required to accommodate the
proposed mine expansion, analysis of impacts to water resources is inadequate. Without
clear and sufficient evidence from the FCGMA to demonstrate that sufficient water is
currently, and will continue to be available through the life of the CUP,the analysis of 1
impacts to water resources is inadequate.
As presented, there is not sufficient evidence in order for the lead agency to render a
determination that Water Resources will not be significantly impacted.
The references in the RDEIR related to the underlying rocic outcrops are confusing and_the
provided information may be conflicting. The information should be presented in a dear
and understandable form.
The water quality section states [Ref:RDEIR 4.5 p. 3]
The runoff from the 28 acres located to the south of the crest of Oak Ridge currently
flows southward off of Oak Ridge to a retention basin at Egg City. 1...] The
retention basin at Egg City is not located over the lower aquifer outcrop area. Thus,
most of the surface runoff from the 28 acres located south of Oak Ridge is most likely
lost to evaporation and evaportranspiration. 9
The traffic section states [Ref: RDEIR 4.1 p. 76]:
As discussed in Section 4.5(Hydrology)the site sits over the surface outcrops of the
Fox Canyon aquifers. Overnight truck parking and daytime parking of driver's cars
could increase contaminants leaking into the aquifers and surface waters if the
vehicles are parked on water permeable surfaces.
This is confusing. The proposed truck parking area is located south of the crest of Oak
Ridge. The statements appear to be in direct conflict. Furthermore,the truck parking may
302
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 19
be required to comply with the County's new M-S4 permit,if impervious pavement is
required,and this is not addressed in the RDEIR.
Even if they are not in conflict, why is it the case that runoff and standing water from this
southerly area(and from the proposed truck parking area)would not reach the aquifer,
while water from the mine operations located to the north would reach and"recharge"the
aquifer? If onsite water discharge from the north would reach the aquifer(and thus
provide recharge),would not runoff from the portion of the facility that is located further
south(but contiguous), also reach the aquifer? It appears this would be the case from the t'f f
traffic section,but not the case from the Water Quality section.
Has the"outcrop"been investigated to the extent that its boundaries can be defined in thist
level of detail? If so,where is the data to support this level of determination? The graphic
details,particularly Figure 4.7-1(Rock Formations Onsite and Nearby), and the
geotechnical narrative provided in the RDEIR do not provide sufficient evidence to
demonstrate this level of information. If this information exists,it should be made
available to the public in an understandable form for review and comment.
If the water reaches the aquifer,it should be considered for water quality purposes;if it
doesn't,it is an additional net loss to the aquifer and should be included in the water
usage analyses. —1
The discussion referenced above regarding the inappropriate deferral of determination for
potential adverse environmental impacts at the Truck Parking Area also pertains directly
to the newly proposed onsite haul road and the newly proposed southerly project entrance.
What analyses of the potential runoff from the newly proposed onsite haul road have been
completed? Not only is there potential for ground water imipacts,but there is also
potential for grease and other contaminants to impact the riparian and drainage courses
located immediately adjacent to Grimes Canyon Road at the newly proposed southerly
project entrance. '12
The RDEIR inappropriately defers determination of environmental impacts on water
quality at the truck parking area to a later date and to an agency that is not the lead
' agency(as described in the comment regarding the proposed truck parking area above).
There is no provided information on potential water quality impacts from the newly
proposed onsite haul road included in the RDEIR. The potential for adverse impacts from
trucks using the proposed onsite haul road should be analyzed and quantified in
conjunction with this RDEIR,not put off(or"piecemealed")to a later date when there is
303
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 20
little likelihood of opportunity for further public review or comment. The potential for
impacts to water quality at the newly proposed southerly project entrance should also be
analyzed. As the inclusion(or exclusion)of the proposed onsite haul road and the newly
proposed intersection with Grimes Canyon Road have the potential to impact other
Significant Impacts(Congestion among others)and the respective Mitigation Measures for 142
those impacts is intertwined with the proposed access road and southerly project entrance,
it is necessary to complete the environmental review of the potential impacts in
conjunction with this RDEIR. Alternatively,the proposed onsite haul road should be
removed from the project and from this RDEIR. The provided analysis of potential
impacts on water resources from the onsite haul road is inadequate,as presented.
NOISE
The environmental analysis on potential noise impacts in the RDEIR is confusing,omits —
areas requiring analysis and fails to disclose the location or magnitude of potentially
significant impacts. As presented,the environmental analysis for Noise in this RDEIR is
inadequate.
The statements provided in this RDEIR regarding noise are misleading,confusing and in
error. For instance,the RDEIR states [Ref:RDEIR 4.2 p. 11:
Given the Open Space designation of the area and the mountainous terrain,it is not
foreseeable that this condition[distance to noise sensitive receptors]would change
from 2025 to 2040. In addition,the analysis of the noise generated by project-
related truck traffic on the local haul routes is independent of the duration of the
mining activities. To some extent the effects of project related traffic noise would be
diminished with the passage of time due to the anticipated long-term increase in
ambient traffic volume. '3
•
This statement fails to recognize the potential future noise impacts on the immediately
adjacent residential subdivision,tentative Tract No. 5277 approved in 2005,which has
been approved for 12 large estate lots. The newly proposed onsite haul road is located
within feet of this approved subdivision.In addition,it is lifdicrous to assume that traffic
noise from the project would be diminished because ambient traffic noise increases. If the
production levels at the site continue at the same level, and the number of trucks hauling
material from the site does not change, the noise from the project will not diminish. On
the contrary, subsequent development(causing increased ambient traffic)would generate
. additional overall noise which should be considered nnder'ihe cumulative impacts
analysis. This statement is particularly confusing in that the traffic section of this RDEIR
304
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 21
utilizes a background(ambient)traffic escalator(2%annually)to calculate near term
traffic conditions,but takes the position that there will be no traffic changes subsequent to N3
2025 that would need to be considered in the cumulative traffic analysis between 2025 and
2040. The trafficicirculation element ignores traffic increases after 2025. The RDEIR
cannot have it both ways. •
The onsite noise generating machinery at the facility has shifted closer to potentially
sensitive receptors(housing and biological communities). The plant boundaries in this
RDEIR significantly expand the site to include APN 500-009-032. This expansion would
include a newly proposed onsite haul road and new southerly entrance to the facility
located predominantly within this parcel. This parcel was not included in the initial 2003
Notice of Preparation. The project also includes a proposed truck parking area that was
not considered in the Notice of Preparation.The newly proposed southerly project
entrance will be located on SR23 approximately 700 feet northerly of Shekell Road. There
are two existing residential units located immediately across SR 23 from this proposed
new entrance. No analyses of the noise impacts to these residences have been included in
the RDEIR. In addition,the new facilities are located southerly of the historical plant
facilities on the south side of the ridge. To some extent,the ridge forms a natural sound
barrier to points further south. The new plans include cutting a breach in the ridge that
currently isolates the existing plant facilities from the sensitive receptors located south of
the ridge. This proposed boundary change and the proposed new uses in the expanded 1/1
southern area significantly shift major sources of noise producing equipment at the
facility. Trucks will be stopping and starting at the new intersection on SR 23. There will
also be a substantial quantity of noise from the trucks utilizing the onsite haul road. The
onsite haul road appears to include what looks like a 180°u-turn located at the bottom of
an 11%grade. Trucks will be required to come to a near standstill at this location(both
going up and going down)in order to negotiate the sharp turn. Noise will also be
generated during the morning warm up at the proposed onsite truck parking lot. The
project entrance intersection,the u-turn and the truck parking area will generate new
sound source locations where trucks will be generating substantial noise where no sound
currently exists. The newly proposed southerly project entrance and the onsite haul road
are located just across SR23 from existing residences and immediately adjacent to Tract
5277(not the 2400 feet stated in the RDEIR). The proposed truck parking area is near
Tract 5277 and within site distance of the residences off SP 23. Noise generated from
these onsite locations may cause environmentally significant noise impacts. There is no
noise analysis included for any of these facilities in the RDEIR. In addition, the increase
in noise at these locations may affect adjacent biological communities.The noise analysis
for the expanded onsite operations(due to the southerly shift in onsite operations), and
•
305
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25,2012
Page 22
from offsite truck noise at the proposed new southerly project entrance is inadequate in J in
this DEIR, as presented.
There is no noise study provided in this RDEIR. The limited noise analysis as presented -1
in this RDEIR is out of date and fails to disclose where environmentally significant
impacts will occur.It does not address the present circumstance in the area. It is stale.
The RDEIR does not contain a noise study. Though a noise study is not specifically
required as part of the CEQA process,most of the elements that are found in a standard
noise study are required. The RDEIR does not contain any graphics or aerials that
disclose where significant noise impacts currently exist or where the additional locations
may be that would be additionally impacted by the proposed project. The RDEIR
describes six locations in the narrative and tables where sound monitoring took place. The q5
sound monitoring was used to establish Haul Route Baseline Noise Levels in 2004 [R.ef:
Table 4.3-1]. The noise monitoring took place in 2004,over eight years ago. There has
been substantial residential development in the area in the last eight years. The noise
study fails to consider potential noise impacts to homes on Shadow Estates,Redbird or
Turnstone. It does not consider potential noise impacts to homes on Mann Ct.,Vare Ct.,
Lopez Ct.,or Hogan St. The potential noise impacts to Tract 6277 are completely ignored,
and the potential noise impacts to the residences located immediately easterly of the
proposed new southerly entrance have not been completed.
The methodology adopted to gssign noise impacts is confui3ina and nonsensical.
The methodology used in the noise element in the RDEIR appears to use contour distances
from centerline to generate potential impacts from the Grimes project relative to the noise
generated from the other plants. The analysis applies percentages of distances within a
given sound contour to one mine or the next based on the prorated traffic that is generated
from each mine. For instance,if there are ten trips in total,and three trips come from
mine"A",then mine"A"is assumed to cause 30%of the noise contour. If the noise contour
is 100 feet,then the RDEIR assigns 30'of the contour to Mine"A". It does not distinguish
if the assigned percentage is closest to the roadway centerline or at the outside edge. In �b
one example, the noise analysis in the RDEIR appears to assign 7 feet of a 56'noise
contour expansion to the Grimes Rock facility. The rest of the contour line is assigned to
the other mines. In the context of the proposed CUP modification under consideration,it
is nonsensical to assign noise within one sound contour line to one source over another.
The noise comes from the trucks. As the trucks passes by,they create noise. Under this
CUP modification, the applicant has requested that up to 600 vehicle trips per day be
allowed to travel on the area roadway network in order to meet customer demand. As
such, it is reasonable to expect that that number of trips(600)will be generated from the
•
306
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr.Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 23
project on any given day. It is unreasonable to expect anything else. That is what the
CUP modification seeks. As such,the higher number of vehicle trips(600), not a lower
"average",should be used for the analyses. In addition, since the trucks will be coming
from the Grimes rock facility in order to meet customer needs during days of increased LH,
demand,it is reasonable that all of the sound coming from the roadway when the Grimes
Rock trucks pass by is,in fact,generated by those trucks passing by. If the sound goes out
an additional 56 feet,then it is unreasonable to assume that only 7 feet of the generated
sound comes from the passing truck. All of the noise comes from the passing truck.
The use of"maximum Permitted average daily trips"and"Average Daily Trips"to
establish a baselines as used in this RDEIR is calculated inappropriately for any location
that is not on one of the approved haul routes. The additional modifications and resultant
changes provided by approval of Mitigation Measure Tl.-1A are inadequate.
As described in more detail under the similar comment regarding the inappropriate
calculation of baselines used in the traffic analysis,the baseline for traffic used in the
noise element of this RDEIR is fatally flawed at any location not on one of the approved
haul routes.The maximum permitted daily trips(the"baseline")at any location not along
one of the approved haul routes is different than the maximum permitted daily trips(the
"Baseline")at any location that is located along one of the approved haul routes. This
distinction is important. This CUP modification seeks to eliminate existing restrictions on
the'routes that can be used by truck traffic. Truck traffic under the current permit is only
allowed to use specifically Approved Haul Routes. As such, any change to the CUP which 4 7
allows traffic to go where it is not currently permitted(or modifies how much traffic is
permitted at specific times)creates new project-related tra' c at that location. As the
CUP modification seeks to alter these restrictions, the appropriate new project-related
•traffic(and the associated traffic driven noise impacts)must be analyzed using the
appropriate baseline. Several of the locations analyzed in the noise element are at
locations not on one of the approved haul routes. In addition,the allowed truck traffic
volumes during Peak Hour Trips will be additionally affected by other proposed changes in
the existing CUP restrictions(including under Mitigation Measure Ti-1A). The RDEIR
fails to adequately disclose and analyze the various parameters and changes that may
occur as a result of the proposed modifications. For further clarification on this issue, •
please see the related comment in the tra. ic/circulation portion of these comments. The
RDEIR fails to address and consider the new CEQA thresholds and initial study
guidelines adopted by Board of Supervisors in 2012.The RDEIR is inadequate and
additional information should be provided to the public with adequate time for review and
comment.
307
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 24
VIBRATION
There is no analysis of vibration of existing homes and proposed home Tract 5277.This 48
must be analyzed.
AIR QUALITY
r
The increase in NOx(ozone)emissions that will result from the project expansion will
cause a significant environmental impact on,Air Quality. There is no evidence or support
that the projected improvements in diesel engines(as suggested in this RDEIR)will Lfq•A
actually happen. The analysis of NOx emissions`with"or"without the project"are
flawed,
Increases in NOx(ozone)will be significant and above Ventura County thresholds. The Ky 6
RDEIR suggests various reasons why these significant impacts will be mitigated to
insignificant levels.
The current significance threshold for NOx is 25(lbs/day). The RDEIR states that the c C
plant has not operated at the permitted capacity. It does not indicate whether,or not
daily emissions have been exceeded. The RDEIR fails to disclose the existing —^
environmental condition at the site. However, at the currently maximum permitted
capacity,the NOx emissions are estimated to be 30.94(lbatday), or about 6 lbs/day above
the County's threshold. The increase in production that would result from the proposedq. D
modification to the CUP is estimated to increase the NOx emissions by 26.94(lbs/day),to a
total of 57.88(lbs/day) [ref:Table 4.2-5]. The increase alone is more than double the
County's threshold of 25 NOx(lbs/day).
The analysis uses future projected improvements in diesel engines to support
substantially cleaner emissions from the plant equipment:The logic is unsupported and
actually establishes an environmentally significant impact(if one were to actually believe
in the future unsupported engine improvements as presented).
The RDEIR is particularly egregious and misleading in the discussion on increases in NOx
emissions.The RDEIR assumes that theoretical future improvements in diesel engines 49,
will cause a drop in operational NOx emissions. The study quantifies these improvements
and states that the after the engine improvements take place,
308
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 25
The difference between on-site mobile emissions(currently permitted versus proposed it q,c
project)will be less than significant in the future as the equipment fleet slowly
modernizes as shown in Table 42-6. [Ref 4.2 p. 14].
The RDEIR quantifies these projected improvements in Table 4.2-6 and provides very
specific reductions in NOx emissions over time. The table reflects that the improvement ti4.F
in diesel engines will reduce emissions by 56%between 2010 and 2025. The RDEIR does
not give an approximation, but quantifies the emission reductions in actual pounds per
day. The reductions will be 56%(not 50%,or about 50%,but 56%).
What is the basis for this definitive assumption in diesel engine improvements? ]49.G
What are these rates of improvements in emissions based on over a fifteen year period J 4-9.H
(2010 to 2025)?
Is it a sliding scale or do the engines just keep on getting better and better,year after tf9•I
year?
Is there a definitive timetable for the replacement of the diesel engines?None is included. Lct'
The study uses the year 2025 as the Long-term analysis projection, and reflects a
reduction of 56%in emissions between 2010 and 2025. Based on these projected y q.K
improvements,if these same percentages were to continue for the balance of the CUP
permitting period(to 2040),the emissions would be close to zero. This makes no sense.
Taken a step further, however,if one were to assume that the diesel engine improvements
actually were to occur as stated, then without the project expansion,the NOx emissions
would certainly drop below the 25 lbs/day county threshold. In this case,the
improvements in diesel engines would cause a reduction in NOx emissions such that they 46LL
would no longer be environmentally significant, even at the currently permitted maximum
activity level. This is a major improvement. Why is this significant benefit not listed in
one of the Project Alternatives? One can only assume that it is not listed because there is
no logic or support behind it. The County has not guaranteed that all new state of the art
equipment is purchased and mandated to be used. Continued use of old equipment will 49114
impact air quality. `
Using the calculations provided in this RDEIR, the theoretical improvement in diesel
engines cited in this RDEIR would significantly lower the NOx emissions below the MR'N
environmentally significant threshold without the project. However, the increase in plant
309
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R.Baca •
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 26
production would simultaneously raise NOx emissions and create a significant impact
where none existed without the project. Either way(believe the assumptions or not),there
is simply no way to quantify the offsets. The whole premise is absurd. Without additional
data to support the engine improvement assumptions made in the RDEIR related to Lel
future NOx emissions,there is not sufficient evidence to support a reasonable
determination for what are the likely air quality emissions related to NOx. If there is
sufficient data to support this position on improving diesel engines,where is the numeric
support and where is a timetable for implementation of equipment replacement?
The Proposed mitigation measures do not establish that the impacta will be reduced to
Less than Significance. ] 0. A
Actual, effective and feasible mitigation projects to reduce air quality impacts must be
identified as part of the relevant mitigation measures under CEQA. The RDEIR _co.8
establishes the VCAPCD's Carl Moyer Program to reduce emissions through payment of
fees in lieu of physical mitigation. The RDEIR lists an efficiency of$2.67 per pound of
emissions reduced. This appears to be using 2008, or older,reports. These numbers are
actually at least four to six years old. The calculation of the fees in 2012 efficiencies is not 50•C
clearly provided. Are the efficiency numbers used in the RDEIR still valid in 2012
numbers? In addition, the mitigation fee appears to be predicated on calculations for
three years of emissions from operations. The RDEIR is unclear on why three years of
facility operations is the basis for determining the mitigation fee for operations that will
continue for 35 years. The RDEIR does not contain information on how the fee will be
adjusted. Fundamentally, the RDEIR does not include information on how the Carl Moyer (), L
program will actually and effectively offset the project related emissions.
No impact analysis has been included for the proposed recent additional expansion area.
The RDEIR includes an additional expansion area above what was previously considered
in the Notice of Preparation(an additional 27 acres). The expansion includes a new onsite
haul route,potential truck parking and the potential to add additional off-road haul trucks
to the list of on site facilities. Much of the onsite activity has been shifted to the south of
the ridge. No potential Air Quality impact analysis has been included for activities in this
southerly area, including substantial new truck exhaust from using the 11%gradient
onsite haul road,or from the proposed truck parking area. This proposed new onsite haul 51
route is immediately adjacent to several agricultural and residential uses,including the
homes and avocado grove located on the easterly side of Grimes Canyon Road immediately
adjacent to the new southerly project entrance. In addition to trucks stopping and
starting at SR23 at the newly proposed southerly project entrance, substantial truck stack
emissions will result from the trucks going up and down the steep(11%gradient)onsite
haul route. Additional substantial emissions will be generated during morning truck
•
310
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 27
warm-up periods at the truck parking area. Additionally,no consideration has been
included for the referenced additional onsite equipment;the referenced off-road haul 51
trucks. These new onsite emissions have not been analyzed in this RDEIR.
THE NEWLY PROPOSED ONSITE HAUL ROAD AND NEWLY PROPOSED
SOUTHERLY PROJECT ENTRANCE
--r
The newly proposed onsite haul road and new southerly project entrance were not
included in the initial 2003 Notice of Preparation. The information presented in this
RDEIR regarding the newly proposed onsite haul road and southerly project entrance ie
incomplete. The limited information provided is inadequate. The RDEIR inappropriately
delays determination of potentially environmentally significant impacts to a later date
when other mitigation measures in this RDEIR are dependent on the feasibility of these
newly proposed facilities.
The project now includes a newly proposed southerly project entrance to the facility that
will create a new intersection with SR 23(Grimes Canyon Road)to be located
approximately 700'northerly of the intersection of SR23(Grimes Canyon Rd)and Shekell
Rd. The current project entrance to the mine(which will remain in use),is also located on
Grimes Canyon Rd, but on the other side of the ridge top to the north closer to F illmore.
There is an existing locked gate at the newly proposed entrance,but no intersection
currently exists. The RDEIR references a"Grimes Way"in-this location,but apparently
that is an old driveway, and certainly no entrance to the mine exists at this location. No
mine traffic currently enters or leaves the mine at this location under any existing I
permits. In addition to the newly proposed entrance,the project now also includes a new
onsite haul road. This road would go from the new intersection at SR 23 up to the top of
the hill,through the ridge and into the mine facility from the south.
The new intersection and the new onsite roadway have the potential to adversely impact
biological resources, noise,congestion,traffic,visual resources,glare,water quality,
paleontological resources, agricultural resources, and community character, among others.
There is no safety hazard analysis on this on site haul road:We have all seen the tragedy
in Santa Barbara where a truck on Highway 154 lost control and its brakes and plowed
through a house on a Sunday morning killing a family of four. This is an 11%grade and
at the bottom of the road, directly across the street, is an existing residential dwelling.
None of these potential impacts is addressed in the body of the document. A superficial
reference to a couple of potential impacts is mentioned in the document,but no
meaningful environmental analysis is provided. The RDEIR is incomplete. The document
doesn't even include a referenced map and description of the facilities.
311
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
•
Page 28
Section 4.1 references the proposed new onsite haul road and a new southerly entrance to
the mining facility. Page 4.1—72 of the document states:
Appendix B includes a map and description of this_read.
Appendix B contains no such map or description. In fact,Appendix B is limited to a copy rr
of a 2007 traffic study by Katz, Okitsu&Associates. Not only is any reference to a map or •
description of this roadway omitted from the document,Appendix B only includes a
portion of the traffic study. Even the study is incomplete. The traffic study is included
only through page 137. In order for the public to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to
review the environmental documents,a complete set of documents must be provided to the
public with adequate time to review and provide comments. It is impossible for the lead
agency to make a reasoned determination based on incomplete information.
There is no reference at all to the new intersection in the traffic study. Apparently,the
new intersection and new onsite haul road were not contemplated when the traffic study
was written. This newly proposed intersection does not show up on any of the figures or
tables contained in the entire Traffic/Circulation section in the RDEIR. It isn't mentioned
in the Traffic Study. There is no numeric analysis of this intersection in the entire
RDEIR. This intersection appears to have been thrown in at the last moment without any
supporting traffic analysis. Per the RDEIR,SR 23(Grimes Canyon Road)operates at LOS
E at this location under existing conditions. It appears that the project is proposing to •
double the traffic volume generated by the facility(from 300 daily trips to a maximum 600
daily trips)and remove any existing restrictions on the number of vehicles that may head
south from the facility. Does this mean that on any given day that up to 300 trucks could
enter and leave the facility from this entrance? It is hard to imagine the consequences of
adding this much traffic to SR23 at this location: The RDEIR fails to provide information
on the potential impacts on traffic that may be created at this new intersection. In 53
addition, elimination(or modification)of the existing restrictions on the volume of traffic
that can go south from the plant(as contemplated by approval of these new facilities),
would affect the traffic on all downstream intersections and roadway segments. An
adequate CEQA analysis would determine if the impacts would be environmentally
significant.
The RDEIR suggests this intersection would be built to CALTRANS specifications and
that the review of the design of this intersection would happen at the time of plan
submission. Of concern,this proposed intersection is located on an uphill gradient of
SR23,located on a curve where visibility is restricted, and at a location where the LOS is
312
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr.Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 29
already at an unacceptable level(LOS"E"). From what limited information is available,it
looks like the newly proposed onsite access road may also come into the intersection at an
acute angle. In addition,the geometries of the location include steep hillsides immediately
outside of the existing right of way on SR 23 which may preclude the ability to add turn
lanes, acceleration lanes or other elements necessary to achieve CALTRANS
specifications. The eastern side of SR 23 at this location is a steep hill in private
ownership, and expansion of the western side of the right of way is impeded by the newly
proposed onsite haul road. It is very possible that a high use intersection may not be
feasible at this location at all;much less one designed to CALTRANS standards. Site
distances alone may preclude this as a viable location.
Other identified significant impacts contained in the RDEIR(traffic congestion and safety
concerns on SR23), are intended to be mitigated by construction of this newly proposed
entrance. The mitigation of those impacts is dependent on this new entrance. As such,
additional analysis of the feasibility of this intersection is necessary now, in conjunction
with this RDEIR. Putting this off until later jeopardizes the other mitigations(and the
related anticipated impact reductions).
Dependence on mitigation through compliance with established programs and 53
specifications(such construction to CALTRANS standards)is recognized as fundamental
to the CEQA process. In this case,however,the delay in feasibility analysis(even basic
feasibility analysis)is inappropriate. The location may not-he feasible. Delaying the
analysis would put off until later the information needed to determine if other
environmentally significant impacts(congestion and safety)would remain significant.
Analysis of this intersection,including volumes,turn lanes, acceleration lanes,sight
distance,stacking distance, approach geometries and other elements need to be reviewed
now,as part of this RDEIR, in order to make an informed decision. There is insufficient
data contained in the RDEIR to allow the County decision makers to make an informed
decision(or for the public to make an informed comment)about the potential traffic
impacts that may result from this new intersection. There is insufficient data to
determine if the intersection is feasible and that other mitigations may be warranted or
not.
From the limited information supplied,the new internal haul road appears to include a
full 180° u-turn within what appears to be a 30 foot radius before heading up the steep
11%gradient toward the top of the hill. There is no analysis of the feasibility of
constructing this roadway. Is there sufficient turning radius to accommodate trucks
passing each other on this u-turn? The location and design of this roadway appears to be
limited by steep terrain and the narrow private property ownership at this location.
313
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 30
Having a u-turn at the bottom of an 11%grade on a thirty foot wide("paved and dirt")
road used predominantly by trucks invites dangerous safety issues. This roadway needs
to be fully analyzed and the information needs to be presented to the public with adequate
time to review and comment. Because decisions regarding other mitigation measures 53
(and what other identified significant impacts will remain environmentally significant)are
dependent on this roadway,this analysis needs to be completed now and not
"piecemealed"to a later date.
The description of the existing traffic restrictions and the Proposed char•es to the affic
restrictions that would be eliminated(or not)resulting from the construction of the newly
proposed southerly project entrance is hopelessly confusing.
There are existing restrictions that limit truck traffic to defined approved haul routes at
locations away from the project. There are also restrictions on the allowed volumes that
may go north or south from the mine. There are also time restrictions that restrict the
direction or volumes that can be generated,as well as the routes that can be followed.
These restrictions are different during peak hour times and during the balance of the day.
The CUP modification being analyzed under this RDEIR seeks to alter,or in some cases
eliminate entirely,these existing restrictions.The limited narrative that describes the
existing restrictions is hopelessly confusing. It does not clearly define what traffic is
currently permitted to travel along specific routes and at what time of the day restrictions
are in place or what those restrictions are. These are the"existing conditions"under this
RDEIR. It appears that the currently permitted traffic baselines are different for different 5y
locations(along verses outside of the Approved Haul Routes)and at different times of the
day(Am Peak Hour for traffic heading south). The traffic analysis appears to ignore the
restrictions imposed by the Approved Haul Routes entirely, Nowhere does the document
state what the various existing restrictions are in,a comprehensive and understandable
manner for the various locations and roadway network surrounding the mine.
The narrative that supposes to describe the proposed modifications to the CUP is also
hopelessly confusing. It appears that the mitigation measures(Ti-1 and T1-1A in
particular)would each cause different modifications to the current restrictions. Not only
are the current restrictions not adequately explained(i.e.the"existing conditions"),but
the multiple ramifications of implementing one or more of the mitigation measures is not
clearly disclosed in the RDEIR. In some cases, it appears that the traffic volume to the
south would be limited and the specific route would also be`restricted. In others,the
traffic volume would be limited,but the route would no longer be limited. In others, the
volume could be up to 600 daily trips,but the traffic during-peak hours would be only 64
trips allowed to the south. In others the traffic volume to the south would be unlimited
314
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 31
and without time restrictions. The traffic study does not include any numerical
information on the traffic impacts at the proposed new southerly project entrance. The
traffic analysis also does not provide any numerical analysis for what would happen at
intersections located further from the facility where volumes,approved haul routes,traffic
volumes or times of travel would be affected with implementation of the newly proposed
southerly project entrance(Mitigation Measure T1-1A). The traffic analysis on the
surrounding roadway network that would result with implementation the newly proposed 5�
southern entrance(MM T1-1A)is hopeless confusing and inadequate. It may even be the
case that the traffic analysis already assumes the implementation of Mitigation Measure
T1-1A. It is impossible to understand. CEQA requires a clear understanding and
disclosure of the existing conditions,the proposed changes and the potential impacts that
will result from the proposed changes. As presented,this RDEIR fails to do that.
The RDEIR suggests that implementation of the proposed new southerly project entrance
would mitigate traffic congestion on SR 23 toless than significant. The RDEIR fails to
address what additional congestion impacts may be created by the new intersection. The
RDEIR fails to address potential congestion impacts on portions of SR 23 outside of the
hilltop location.
The RDEIR presents no numerical data to support that the:Congestion impacts would be
reduced to less than significant along any portion of SR 23,'with or without the proposed
new southerly project entrance. There is no provided baseline in the RDEIR that
demonstrates that congestion on this section of roadway would be less than significant
without traffic from the project. It appears that congestion'along this section of SR23
would still be significantly impacted(though obviously not from truck traffic from the
Grimes Rock mine). However, the traffic without the project still appears to be SS
environmentally significant. The analyses do not indicate what would happen at or near
the new intersection. This new intersection may cause delays on SR23 that have not been
analyzed. The significant stacking that will occur while trucks wait to make a left turn .
across northbound SR 23 to enter the project may cause new significant northbound or
southbound congestion impacts. Any delays on SR 23 caused by the new intersection
would be project-related impacts. In addition,the RDEIR fails to address potential
congestion impacts on the section of SR 23 south of the newly proposed southerly project
entrance(between Shekell Road and the new project entrance) or on other locations along
SR 23 south of the project. Is this section of roadway still environmentally impacted?
There will certainly be increased impacts from project-related traffic at this roadway
section. The information presented is inadequate in order to understand the potential
ramifications of adding a new intersection on this portion of SR 23(if such an intersection
is even feasible).
315
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 32
From the limited information available,it appears that the newly proposed onsite haul
road and southerly proiect entrance may cause adverse environmental impacts in addition
to traffic impacts.
The new onsite haul road and proposed new southerly entrance will result in substantial
changes to the project that were not envisioned or disclosed in the initial 2003 Notice of
Preparation. These new facilities shift a large portion of the entire onsite impact causing SS
sources of impacts into the southerly community area,south of the ridge top where none of
these impacts would have existed without the new onsite haul road,the new southerly
entrance or the new truck parking area.
As set forth in the County Code section 8104-7.2 the purpose of the Mineral Resources
Protection overlay zone(MRP)is"to minimize land use conflicts and the purpose is not to
obligate the county to approve the use permits for the development of the resources subject
to the MRP."
Community Character: The newly proposed onsite haul road and proposed southerly
project entrance appear to be located immediately next to tentative tract No 6277,which
has been approved for 12 large estate lots, There are also two existing homes across from
this proposed new entrance. The proposed road and project entrance have not been 56
analyzed for their impacts on this residential subdivision and the existing home. The new
haul route and project entrance are certainly not in character with these residential and
agricultural uses.
Noise: The RDEIR states that the closest sensitive receptors are located approximately
2400 feet from the mine operations. This newly proposed onsite haul road is located only
feet away from residential subdivision Tract 5277 and the.new project entrance is
immediately adjacent to the existing homes across SR 23. This tract and the homes will 61
undoubtedly be impacted by onsite noise operations from trucks going up and down the
steep gradient of the onsite haul road and by the offsite noise impacts created at the newly
proposed intersection along SR 23.
Glare:The RDEIR suggests that because the mine operations already cause an
unavoidable significantly adverse impact for glare visible along SR23, that the glare
caused by the new onsite haul road and new project entrance would not be additionally
environmentally significant. However,this road and the new intersection are on the south 5%
side of the ridge where no light intrusion and glare issues currently exist. This new haul
road has the potential to cause glare and other visual impacts across the lands to the
•
316
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R. Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 33
south, especially in consideration of the steep roadway leading down from the ridge where
headlights in the early morning hours may cross the entire southerly landscape.
Undoubtedly,glare from the trucks coming down the 11% gradient would impact
conditions at Shekell Road just southerly of the proposed new project entrance. Glare
from the onsite operations,including the proposed haul road and the truck parking area 5$
would be incompatible with the rural nature of the community south of the ridgeline.
Glare from headlights from the use of the onsite haul road in the early morning hours(and
from the truck parking area)would also not be compatible with Mitigation Measure B11-1
in the Biological Resources element,which prohibits light intrusion into lands outside the
limits of disturbance to 0.5 foot-candles.
Visual Resources:As all previously identified visual impacts were limited to the north or '
to the adjacent SR23,the visual analysis contained in the RDEIR does not show views
from the southerly side of the ridge. Before the introduction of the new onsite haul road,
the truck parking area and the new proposed southerly project entrance,views of the
operations or views of the trucks from the project were not going to impact the area to the
south. However the onsite haul road,the southerly project entrance and the proposed
truck parking area, as well as the breach that would be cut through the ridgeline,all have 1
the potential to cause visual impacts to the south where none currently exist. A new and
adequate visual impact analysis showing views from the south would assist in
determining potential adverse impacts on visual resources, Without such a study there is
insufficient evidence on which to base a reasoned determination on potential adverse
impacts on Visual Resources.
Biological Resources:None of the biological surveys conducted for the property included
the area of the newly proposed onsite haul road or the area adjacent to the proposed new
intersection at SR 23. If the surveys did include these areas,the results are not presented
in this RDEIR. These areas may experience adverse environmental impacts to biological
resources that have not been surveyed under standardized protocols. Light from truck 60
headlights and the noise generated from trucks using the newly proposed onsite haul road
may adversely impact adjacent biological communities. There are also many existing
trees(and potential nesting sites)in immediate proximity to the newly proposed southerly
project entrance,and there's a drainage course along Grimes Canyon Road in this location.
None of these have been considered in this RDEIR.
Water Resources: Water quality issues may be caused by runoff(grease and dust)along
the proposed new onsite haul road and in the area of the new project entrance. No
environmental analysis for potential impacts to water quality related to the onsite haul 61
•
317
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr.Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25,2012
Page 34
road or new project entrance are included in this RDEIR. Applicability to M-S4 has not 41
been considered or addressed,if impervious areas are required.
Paleontological Resources:The RDEIR states that paleontological resources will be
unavoidably significantly impacted by the project. No survey of the of proposed new onsite
haul road,proposed truck parking area,or the area in pro:amity to the newly proposed 62
project entrance have been surveyed for Paleontological Resources.
Air Quality and Agricultural Resources: Stack smoke and increased particulate matter, —
especially from trucks stopping to cross SR 23 and from trucks going up the steep grade on
the proposed onsite haul road,may adversely impact the avocado grove(located just
easterly of SR 23 at the proposed project entrance)and may impact the agricultural (p3
operations located just to the south of the expanded facility area(project numbers 64, 65
and 66 on the List of Related Projects [Ref: RDEIR p. 3-41). The adjacent residential Tract
5277 is also slated to include substantial agricultural elements.
Health:No analysis is provided in this RDEIR that addresses potential health risks from
the new intersection and onsite haul road on the residences located immediately adjacent 6y
to the proposed new intersection or within Tract 5277.
The newly proposed onsite haul road and new southerly project entrance have the
potential to cause significant environmental impacts that have not been analyzed in this
RDEIR. These facilities were not even contemplated in the initial 2003 Notice of
Preparation. There is insufficient information provided in'this RDEIR on which to make
reasonable comments regarding these facilities. There is insufficient evidence on which
the lead agency could base a reasoned determination that these new elements will not
cause significantly adverse environmental impacts.
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS
The RDEIR is vague,confusing or fails to provide sufficient information in order to answer
the following questions:
1. The Reclamation Plan shows mine production will continue through 2040 [Ref:
Reclamation Plan Table 2, p. 101. This table is slightly different,but it is roughly
analogous to the annual average production rate described in the body of the
RDEIR(approximately 1.8 million tons annually). Per the schedule in the
Reclamation Plan, there are 4.9 million tons of material slated to be produced in the
318
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr.Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 35
last 3 years(2038-2040). However, the Reclamation Plan also states in another
location that the reclamation of the site,including a 3 year monitoring period on the
re-vegetation,will be completed by the 2040 end date [Ref:Reclamation Plan p. 151.1i
These two operations appear to conflict. How can the production continue through
2040, and simultaneously be subject to a 3 year reclamation and re-vegetation (!
monitoring period on the same area at the same time? This requires additional
explanation. What amount of water will be required for re-vegetation?
. r.
2. Figure 3.3-1 in the Reclamation Plan shows that the existing Egg City foundation
slabs will remain after re-vegetation. The mine boundary was expanded to
encompass this area. The 2003 Notice of Preparation states:
Upon completion of all mining activities, the applicant would remove its plant
facilities and all equipment from the site at the commencement final
reclamation. All foundations and pavement, the plant and buildings will be
removed. The compacted areas will be ripped and reworked to a consistency
and permeability similar to that of the original soils, and remaining
412
unvegetated areas will be regraded to conform:with the local topography and
• revegetated.
The narrative in the Reclamation Plan also indicates that all unnecessary
foundations will be removed. The Figure and the narrative appear to be in conflict.
Will these foundations be removed and the area revegetated? These two potential
outcomes are inconsistent. The Reclamation Plan and body of the RDEIR should
clarify what will happen. What about fugitive dust for removal of the foundation
and grinding thereof?
3. Figure 3.3-1(Revegetation Plan)in the Reclamation Plan does not show the newly✓-
proposed onsite haul road or the area around the proposed new southerly project b7
entrance. Will these areas be removed and revegetated? The narrative in the body
of the RDEIR and the Reclamation Plan are not consistent or this area.
4. The Reclamation Plan [Ref: p.22] states that runofff from the quarry flows
northward and eventually into the Fillmore Basin. Section 4.5 (Hydrology and
Water Resources), in the body of the RDEIR, suggests that water from the quarry 68
319
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr.Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25,2012
Page 36
re-enters the aquifer located south of the ridge. These statements appear to be 169,
inconsistent. Please explain. J
5. Section 4.1,Trafb'ic/Circulation suggests that Passenger Car Equivalents(PCE's)
are utilized in some components of the traffic analyses. Several of the tables in
section 4.1 include notes that PCE's are not used, and that these tables are to be
used for information purposes only. This is confusing. Why are PCE's used at some Gi
times, and not in others? Why are these tables included and what does for
information purposes only mean in this context? The document should not compare
apples to oranges.
6. The very first entry,Related Project,No 1, Tract 5277(Caprock),in the list of
Related Projects,is not shown on Figure 3.1c(Related Projects Map—Ventura
County). This 12 lot residential subdivision is located immediately adjacent to the 70
proposed project. The impact on this project seems to be missing in various areas of
the RDEIR.
7. The following information is not provided in Section 4.1 or in the traffic study.
Given all of the variable parameters contained in the existing conditional use
permit and what is proposed by the project, the traffic analysis is particularly
confusing as presented in the RDEIR. These questions are included to attempt to
clarify some(but certainly not all)of the questions that are raised by the proposed
project as presented in the RDEIR):
a. What is the current daily maximum truck trait volume that is permitted 71
(under the existing CUP)to go through the intersection of Moorpark Avenue
(SR 23) and High Street in the City of Moorpark? This is one of the selected
intersections in the project study area. Maximum Daily? Average Daily?AM
Peak Hour? PM Peak Hour?
b. What will be the truck traffic volume that will be allowed at this intersection
under the proposed project? Maximum Daily" Average Daily?AM Peak
Hour? PM Peak Hour?
320
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr. Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 37
c. What is the"incremental"truck traffic volume that was used for the traffic
impact calculations at this intersection? Maximum Daily? Average Daily?
AM Peak Hour? PM Peak Hour?
d. What will be the maximum allowed truck traffic volume at this intersection if
Mitigation Measure T1.lA is approved? Maximum Daily? Average Daily?
AM Peak Hour? PM Peak Hour?
e. If the volumes in"d"are different than the volumes in sub-question"b",
above,was this difference considered in the calculations? If so,where are 71
the calculations presented?
f. Were these variables(particularly the potential variations in"average daily
trip"allowances under the various different mitigation measures)at this
intersection,including the change in vehicle volume restrictions inherent in
Mitigation Measure T1-1A,considered in the Health Risk and Climate
Change elements in the RDEIR? This doesn't appear to have been addressed
anywhere in the document. If it was considered,where are the results? If
not,then it should be,with adequate time allowed for review and comment.
8. The RDEIR indicates that there are concerns regarding trucks leaving the mine and
not following existing regulations. The DEIR specifically references this for gravel
extraction vehicles using Moorpark Avenue through:the central district of Moorpark
[Ref RDEIR 4.1 p. 13]. There are potential impacts_-to safety,traffic,community
character,noise and other potential impacts. The RDEIR suggests that these
concerns are being investigating separately from this RDEIR. Isn't this RDEIR
exactly the place to address with this issue? If operations at the mine are causing 72
downstream issues/impacts(directly or indirectly), then isn't it the purpose of this
RDEIR to effectively identify the nature and scope of those impacts,determine if
they are environmentally significant and provide direction in determining if the
impacts can be mitigated, or if the impacts are unavoidably significant? Putting
this issue off and failing to disclose and address an identified impact is contrary to
the basic tenants of CEQA. This issue should not be put off(or"piecemealed")until
later.
9. The midday peak hour was included in the traffic analysis because the project site
currently generates higher traffic activity during this hour than during the 13
321
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr.Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura, Planning Division
October 25, 2012
Page 38
traditional AM and PM peak hours. The traffic analysis attributes this to the
nature of operations as well as to existing CUP limitations upon hauling of
materials during the AM Peak. The proposed project,particularly under Mitigation
Measure T1-1A,proposes to modify,or eliminate,the AM restrictions. How was
this proposed modification(the modification or elimination of the AM restrictions) 73
considered in the traffic analysis? Were separate calculations prepared? Are
separate tables available? Would different criteria be applied to these intersections
with or without mitigation measure T1-1A? Where in the RDEIR is this
information disclosed?
10.Midday peak hour analyses are not available in the County's traffic model. What
consideration was given to analyzing traffic impacts for midday peak hour traffic
analyses between 2006/2007 and 2026/2040? Because the project traffic is highest
during these periods,is it not appropriate to complete this analysis? If the analysis
has not been completed,what justification is there for not completing this analysis?
Also,this is 2012, not 2007. Have midday peak hour activities been calculated
through 2012? If not,why not?
The published document is incomplete,thus preventing a thorough and comprehensive
review. The missing elements are inextricably intertwined with other elements of
document. As such, we reserve the right to make additional comments to the Recirculated
Draft Environmental Impact Report until such time as we have had adequate time to
review and comment on the complete document.
Should you have any questions or comments,please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
NORDMAN CORMANY HAIR&COMPTON J.LP
Nancy l erstyn Schreiner
Attorney
NKS:ke
copy: LeRoy Smith, County Counsel
19704\00111TR110769252.2
322
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
OCT 2 3 2012 G-
N l"1 NANCY KIERSTYN SCHREINER
O�Iv'rAi�!l Attorney
FTC TO:' (805)988-8318 direct
i.;' 1.l. (805)9887718 jaa
T:RNCY.S nrrbrerser @ntbr.rom
VIA E-MAIL:brian.baca@ventura.org AND
U.S. MAIL
October 22, 2012
Mr. Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
800 South Victoria Avenue •
Ventura,CA 93009
Re: Modified Conditional Use Permit No.4872-2-Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report-Applicant Russell Cochran
Dear Brian:
Our law firm represents the neighboring property owners. We have reviewed the
Notice of Availability and obtained a copy of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact
Report(RDEIR)both from the County Planning Department Website and the CD from the
Planning Department. We are surprised to see that the RDEIR is an incomplete
document. The RDEIR document appears to have been made available to the general
public and published with parts missing. Since new information has been added to the
EIR, prior to final certification of the EIR, the EIR, must be recirculated with this A
information. Public Resource Code section 21092 and CEQA Regulation 15088.5. It is 1
critical that the general public have all of the information to fully comment and evaluate
the proposed project. As set forth in the County Code section 8104-7.2 the purpose of the
Mineral Resources Protection overlay zone (MRP) is "to minimize land use conflicts and
the purpose is not to obligate the County to approve the use permits for the development
of the resources subject to the MRP." It is critical to the general public to have the full and
accurate information.
The following information is omitted both from the website and the CD. -'
The applicant listed on the Notice of Availability refers to Russell Cochran.
However the RDEIR refers to Grimes Rock Inc., as the applicant. See Page 1-1. This
inconsistency is not explained anywhere in the RDEIR. -Who is the actual applicant? Is 8
there an amended application?
Section 4.1 references a proposed new onsite haul road and a new southerly
entrance to the mining facility. Page 4.1-72 of the document states:
"Appendix B includes a map and description of this road."
1000 Town Center Drive, Sixth floor, Oxnard, California 93036 f P.O. Box 9100, Oxnard, California 93031 805.485.1000 I www.nchc.com
323
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Lc OCT 2 3 2012
Mr. Brian R.Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 22, 2012
Page 2
Appendix B contains no such map or description. In fact,Appendix B is limited to a
copy of a 2007 traffic study by Katz, Okitsu &Associates. Not only is any reference to a
map or description of this roadway omitted from Appendix B, Appendix B only includes a �J 6
portion of the traffic study. Even the study is incomplete. The traffic study is included
only through page 137. The balance of the document appears to be missing. In addition to
the missing map and description of the newly proposed onsite haul road, none of the
appendices to the traffic study are included in Appendix B of the circulated document.
The traffic study(and the calculations included therein)has not been updated since'
2007 and components of the traffic information are missing entirely. The RDEIR states
[Ref:RDEIR pg 4.1-5 and 6]:
"Existing traffic data was obtained from the Grimes Canyon Quarries Ventura,
California Traffic and Circulation Study, Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE),
October 2002. The additional traffic counts were conducted specifically for this study by
Traffic Data Services in September 2003, January 2004, April 2004, and November 2006.
Traffic count data used in the study is compiled in Appendix B."
There is no traffic count data provided in Appendix B. In fact, Appendix B is 12-
traffic study by Katz, Okitsu& Associates. I
The Katz , et al, study in Appendix B is included only through page 137. The balance of
the document appears to be missing. None of the appendices to the traffic study (which
are presumed to include the referenced traffic count data) are included in Appendix B of,
the circulated document. It is impossible to determine which studies were used for which
intersections or when any of the traffic counts were taken. The RDEIR document is
incomplete. In order for the public to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to review the
environmental documents, a complete set of documents must be provided to the public
with adequate time to review and provide comments. It is impossible for the lead agency!
to make a reasoned determination based on incomplete information.
Further, Section 1.5 which describes the project does not include this new internal
access road and entrance onto the public street. The maps set forth in the project
description do not reflect his new internal access road and entrance onto the public street.
However, on page 4.1-72the DEIR states "to accomplish this, the applicant proposed to
construct an internal access road within the project site." However it is completely 3
omitted from the project description even though it is proposed by the applicant. One
cannot ascertain without the map supposed to be set forth in Appendix B exactly where
this new road will be.This internal access road and new entrance onto the public street is
inconsistent with the purposes of the MRP to minimize land use conflicts. This new road
324
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr.Brian R.Baca
OCT 232012
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 22, 2012
Page 3
appears to be proposed immediately next to Tentative Tract No 5277, which has been
approved for 12 large estate lots. There is also an existing home across from this proposed 3
new entrance. The proposed road set forth in T1-1A has not been analyzed for its impact
on this residential subdivision(Tract 5277)and the existing home.
In order for the public to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to review the
environmental documents, a complete set of documents must be provided to the public.
The newly proposed onsite roadway and new southerly project entrance at Grimes
Canyon Road are substantial changes from the Project Description as provided in the
initial 2003 Notice of Preparation. Neither the published RDEIR available online, nor the
document CD provided through the County include any information in Appendix B 1
regarding this proposed onsite roadway. The document is incomplete. As such, it is
impossible for the public to have an opportunity to review and meaningfully comment on
the newly proposed onsite haul road and new project entrance.
As stated, not only is reference to the proposed onsite haul road and new project
entrance omitted from the circulated RDEIR document, the provided traffic study is
incomplete. It is impossible to understand from the data provided what are the means
and methods used to create the traffic study. For instance,no detailed intersection data is
provided. No traffic count data spreadsheets, no dates on which traffic counts were taken
at specific intersections, and none of the other data that normally accompanies a traffic
report are provided. For instance, on Figure 4.1-3 (Existing Traffic Volumes-AM Peak
Hour, pg 76), the Figure suggests that traffic heading south on Grimes Canyon Road at
the project entrance is 652 vehicles (545 southerly through-traffic + 7 vehicles turning
southerly from the mine entrance). At the next southerly analyzed intersection(at Grimes
Canyon Road and Waynes Way),there are 594 vehicles reaching.the intersection from the
north. There is an increase of 42 vehicles on this short section of highway. Why are these
counts so different? There is no intervening intersection to account for this significant
discrepancy in vehicle counts. Were these counts taken on different days? Were they
taken at different times? Because the traffic study is incomplete,there is no way to review
the intersection-specific data. Intersection-specific data spreadsheets(normally shown in
a traffic study appendix) should be provided for review in the traffic study. The entire
portion of the traffic study after page 137 is missing from the published document. This
missing data may provide information as to why the intersection traffic counts provided in
Figure 4.1-3 show such inconsistent information. On the other hand, the missing
intersection-specific data may not show why the vehicle counts are so different (a
discrepancy which may cause one to question the fundamental conclusions of the traffic
325
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Mr,Brian R. Baca i y our 23 2012
County of Ventura,Planning Division
October 22,2012
Page 4
study). Without the missing data, however, it is impossible to make a reasonable or S
meaningful comment on the document as published.
There is no traffic analysis provided in the RDEIR for the proposed new intersection
that will be created at the new southerly project entrance where the new onsite haul road
would enter Grimes Canyon Rd. Potential adverse environmental impacts on Traffic, and
on Glare, Noise, Biological Resources, Community Character and other elements may be
influenced by the missing data. The traffic analysis is inextricably intertwined with the
other potentially adverse environmental conditions that may be generated from the
proposed project. As such, the missing information is not isolated in the context of an
appropriate review. Informed comments can only be generated by reviewing the missing 6
data in conjunction with the balance of the document.
Without a complete document, especially a map specifically reflecting this new
access road and entrance to the public street, as well as other missing vital data, the
public is deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon potential substantial
adverse environmental effects of the project. As such, a complete RDEIR must be
recirculated with adequate time for the public to review and provide comments.
We would appreciate your reconsideration that the RDEIR be recirculated and that
the full review and comment period will be restarted upon availability of the complete
document. We reserve our right to provide further public comments on the RDEIR.
Should you have any questions or comments,please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
NORDMAN CORMANY HAIR&COMPTON LLP
t
Nancy Kierstyn Schreiner
Attorney
NKS:ke
copy: LeRoy Smith,County Counsel
19704\001\LTR\10768696
326
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
+7: NOV 0 2 MIL
•
State of California-The Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G.BROW JR.,Governor "'�
• ' " DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CHARLTON H.BONHAM,Director
<<; South Coast Region en
3883 Ruffin Road -
\.‘11.71: San Diego,CA 92123
(858)467-4201
httpJ/www.dfg.ca.gov •
October 31,2012
Brian Ft Baca
County of Ventura,Planning Division
800 S.Victoria Ave.
Ventura,CA 93009
Fax No.:(805)654-2509
Subject Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Grimes Rock,Inc.CUP
Modification 4874-2 and Amended Reclamation Plan Project,SCH 82003111064,
Ventura County
Dear Mr. Baca:
The Department of Fish and Game(Department),has reviewed the Recirculated Draft
Environmental Impact Report(RDEIR)for impacts to biological resources. The applicant is
proposing to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for the Grimes Rock Mine to:
• increase the size of the permit boundary from 164 acres to 231 acres(a 41%increase);
• increase the maximum permitted mined area from 48.4 acres to 135.3 acres(a 180%
increase);
• increase the sand and gravel production rate from 952,500 tons per year to 1.8 million
tons per year(a 89%increase);
• extend the mining end date to 2040;
• expand allowable average daily one-way truck trips from 852 to 1,576,from the hours of
6:00 AM until dusk;
• implement revised Reclamation Plans.
The proposed project site is located at 3500 Grimes Canyon Road(Highway 23),between the
cities of Moorpark and Fillmore,adjacent to Oak Ridge in the Santa Susana Mountains,In •
Ventura County(County). Mining Is proposed to be conducted in 3 phases,each phase taking
10-15 years to complete,until a final anticipated end date In the year 2040. Site reclamation is
proposed to occur in phases,roughly corresponding with the end of each phase of mining(e.g.,
Phase 1 site reclamation will be performed at the end of Phase 1 mining). The end use of the
reclaimed mining site is proposed as open space.
Proposed project impacts include the removal of the following habitat types:
• Venturan coastal sage scrub and sparse coastal sage scrub(65.4 acres);
• coast live oak woodland(2.14 acres);
• Southern California black walnut woodland(4.78 acres);
• southern riparian scrub(0.3 acre);and
• annual grassland(14.02 acres). -
Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870
327
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R. Baca
October 31,2012
Page 2 of 7
Wildlife with the potential to be impacted by the project include the Federally Threatened and
California Species of Special Concern coastal California gnatcatcher(Polioptlla califomica
califomica), the California Species of Special Concern loggerhead shrike(Lanius ludovicianus),
northern harrier(Circus cyaneus),coast horned lizard(Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), silvery
legless lizard(Anniella pulchra pulchra),Townsend's big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendi),
San Diego desert woodrat(Neotoma lepida intermedia), and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
(Lepus califomicus bennettii),and the California Native Plant Society List 1B slender mariposa
lily(Calochortus clavatus ssp.gracils), Robinson peppergrass(Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii), and wedge-leaf horkelia (Hori<elia cuneata ssp.puberula).
Measures proposed in the RDEIR to mitigate impacts include:
• compensatory mitigation acreage,with maintenance endowments,to be dedicated as
open space at a ratio of 2:1 for removal of coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub,and
woodland habitats,0.5:1 for removal of sparse coastal sage scrub,and 1:1 for annual
grasslands;
• preparation of a wedge-leaf horkelia protection plan;
• pre-construction surveys for or avoidance of nesting birds and other sensitive wildlife
species,with buffer zones placed around active bird nests;
• relocation of sensitive animal species discovered during pre-construction surveys,to at
least 500 ft.beyond the limits of mining;
• protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher,
• preparation of Native Vegetation Planting Plans for reclaimed sites;
• protection of sensitive wildlife from lighting impacts.
The Department is California's trustee agency for fish and wildlife resources,holding these
resources in trust for the People of the State pursuant to various provisions of the California
Fish and Game Code.(Fish&G. Code, §§711.7,subd.(a), 1$02.)The Department submits
these comments in that capacity under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). (See
generally Pub.Resources Code,§§21070; 21080.4.)Given its related permitting authority
under the California Endangered Species Act(CESA)and Fish and Game Code section 1600 et
seq.,the Department also submits these comments likely as a responsible agency for the
Project under CEQA. (Id.,§21069.)
California Wildlife Action Plan
The California Wildlife Action Plan, a Department guidance document, identified the following
stressors affecting wildlife and habitats within the project area: 1)growth and development;2)
water management conflicts and degradation of aquatic ecosystems;3)invasive species;4)
altered fire regimes;and 5)recreational pressures. The Department looks forward to working
with the County to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources with a focus on these
stressors.
Rare Plant Assessments
The RDEIR Section 4.6.1 indicates that, in 2012,field inspections of the project site were
undertaken by the County biologist and Department of Fish and Game biologists.The RDEIR
states that these inspections confirmed the biological resource conditions contained in the 2006 1
draft EIR. Department staff visited the proposed project site,which included two areas
containing stream channels:on May 25, 2012. That site visit was not intended to supplement
328
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R. Baca
October 31, 2012
Page 3 of 7
survey data for the RDEIR,thus the RDEIR should not imply the RDEIR contains up-to-date ( 1
biological survey data.
The RDEIR relies upon a series of botanical assessments of the project site which were
undertaken at various times by various consultants between 2001 and 2004.The original
reports that describe these assessments are not included in the RDEIR and therefore we cannot
determine whether they were conducted in a manner that is consistent with the Department's
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and
Natural Communities(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/bicgeodata/cnddb/pdfs/Protocols_for_ 2
Surveying and_Evaluating_Impacts.pdf). Surveys by Mr. Carl Wishner, a botanical consultant,
are described in the RDEIR as being conducted in June and July, 2003,with a subsequent one
day visit in May 2004(post 2003 wildfire and a drought year). This information suggests that
spring blooming species, and species sensitive to drought conditions could have been missing
or under-represented.
Also,the County has developed and adopted Locally Important Species lists for special status
plants and animals that are uncommon and declining in the local and regional area
(http://www.ventura.org/rmalplanning/pdf/cegal locally-important-species/Final-2012-Locally-
Important-Plants.pdf). Botanical assessments therefore should be conducted consistent with 3
the Departments 2009 protocols, and they should include addressing species on Ventura
County's Locally Important Plant list.
The Department is concerned the project area could support the state listed endangered plant 1
species,San Fernando Valley spineflower(Chorizenthe parryi ssp.femandina), San Fernando
Valley spineflower occurs in geologic formations at Newhall Ranch that are similar to those
found within the proposed mining area, including older surficial sediments, Pico and Saugus 4
formation. Observations over the last decade suggest that in years of drought, spineflower
populations can be extremely scarce,or even absent. The Department is therefore concerned
that field surveys may not have been adequate to determine the presence or absence of this
endangered species within the project area.
The RDEIR identifies two special status plants which occur onsite,slender mariposa lily and
wedge-leaf horkelia. The RDEIR lacks maps showing the locations of these populations and
does not describe the aerial extent or population numbers for these two special status plants.
The Department is therefore unable to evaluate the feasibility of avoiding impacts to all or a 5
portion of the onsite populations, nor can we adequately evaluate the mitigation proposed to
offset impacts to wedge-leaf horkelia(Mitigation Measure BR 1-2).
—a
Special Status Plant Communities
The Department is concerned the proposed project would expand mining into sensitive
woodland habitats.We are also concerned about loss of the"escarpment"area, located on the
highest ground within the project area, in the south central portion of the Grimes Rock site. This
escarpment is associated with dense stands of walnuts on the north facing slopes and is a
unique geologic feature likely to support important local wildlife habitat,including various bat
species, San Diego desert woodrat and possibly other.Califomia Species of Special Concern.
This geologic/habitat feature is not specifically discussed in the DEIR, and we cannot determine
whether it was examined adequately for nesting sites and/or habitat for sensitive wildlife
species. An alternative which avoids this escarpment area should be evaluated.
329
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R. Baca
October 31, 2012
Page 4 of 7
During our onsite visit in May 2012, the Department observed extensive areas occupied by a
native annual grass,little-seed muhly(Muhlenbergia microsperma).While this grass is not rare,
the extensive stands may constitute a unique herbaceous component of a local and regional
plant association. This species seems to favor south and west facing slopes.The Department
recommends that seeds from this species be collected for use in reclamation of south and west
facing slopes(hottest slopes)following completion of mining. A native plant nursery could grow
out little-seed muhly for the purposes of increasing the amount of seed available for
revegetation.
Indirect Effects of the Proposed Project
CEQA requires a lead agency to consider the whole of the action when analyzing a project's
environmental impacts(CEQA Guidelines§15063(a)(1),§15378). This includes actual or
potential indirect effects that are reasonably foreseeable(CEQA Guidelines§15064(d)). The
proposed project includes mining activities which would remove several hills within the proposed
project site. The hill removals will lead to changes in photoperiods and hydrology at adjacent
off-site habitats,particularly in the northeast corner of the proposed project site,adjacent to !
Grimes Canyon Creek. Changes in photoperiod and hydrology have potential for significant
effects to off-site habitats(e.g., creating significantly drier conditions). The Department
therefore recommends an analysis of the effects of this indirect impact.
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BR 1-1 -BR 1-1 describes the general criteria and requirements for 1
addressing impacts to sensitive habitats by acquiring and permanently protecting offsite habitats i
of comparable or greater value. Offsite natural habitats in the general area are likely subjected
to livestock grazing. We recommend that the plan and documentation required under BR1-1
include provisions for addressing livestock grazing through development of a grazing
management plan. This plan should generally limit or restrict livestock access to streambeds 9
and shrub-dominated plant communities and exclusionary fencing may be necessary. Grazing
of areas dominated by annual grasses may be appropriate, but residual dry matter should be t
retained at levels above 750 pounds per acre; in area of year round grazing or duririg droughts,
grazing should be restricted.
The Department is concerned the proposed mitigation for removal of sparse coastal scrub, by '–'
providing compensation habitat at a ratio of 0.5:1,would be inadequate. In general,the
Department does not recommend compensation habitat for temporary impacts atless than a 1:1
ratio. The RDEIR should provide additional information to support the rationale for the 0.5:1 7 0
ratio(e.g.,extremely diminished habitat utility for wildlife within the existing sparse coastal scrub
community).
The Department is also concerned the proposed mitigation for removal of southern riparian —
scrub habitat at a compensation habitat ratio of 2:1 would be inadequate. The Department
typically requires mitigation for this habitat type,as part of a Lake and Streambed Alteration 11
Agreement(LSAA),at a compensation habitat ratio of 3:1. The RDEIR would likely serve as the
CEQA document for a LSAA required for the proposed project,and so should reflect a 3:1 ratio
requirement for compensation habitat for southern riparian scrub.
Mitigation Measure BR 1-2-The RDEIR identifies two potential mitigation options to address
toss of onsite populations of wedge-leaf horkelia. Option 1 directs that an offsite population be
protected, and Option 2 directs that a population of wedge-leaf horkella be introduced to a I2.
330
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R. Baca
October 31, 2012
Page 5 of 7
permanently protected offsite location where it does not currently exist. For either option to be
effective, a more detailed characterization of the onsite wedge-leaf horkelia population is
necessary,including a determination of the aerial extent and population abundance. If an offsite
introduction is pursued,additional information on its biological, ecological and habitat 12.
requirements would be critical to inform those efforts. The Department recommends that any
offsite introductions demonstrate they have met effective success criteria prior to allowing any
direct or indirect impacts to the onsite population. We also recommend that any offsite habitat
acquired for wedge-leaf horkelia support an existing population of comparable or greater size to
that being impacted.
Truck Traffic and Roadkill
The County Planning Division has produced"Roads and Biodiversity Project:Guidelines for
Safe Wildlife Passage"(Ventura County Planning Division, 2005), intended to educate and
instruct on methods to mitigate negative wildlife-roadway interactions. A paragraph contained in
that document states:
'According to the U.S.Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration,
as of 1999,there are more than 3.9 million centerline miles of public roads that span the
United States.Each day,an estimated 1 million animals are killed on roads, making
roadklll the greatest direct human-caused source of wildlife mortality in the country
(Forman 1998).
111
The project as proposed will result in an increase in truck traffic on State Route 23 from the
Grime Rock Mine almost double the current condition. Trucks will be traveling on several miles
of highway through open space containing a variety of wildlife species which could be run over.
We could not find in the Biological Resources or Traffic sections of the RDEIR a discussion of
the impact an increase in truck traffic will have on wildlife.
The Department therefore recommends impacts on wildlife from the proposed increased truck
traffic be analyzed in the RDEIR. Adequate mitigation for significant adverse impacts should be
presented. The guidelines mentioned above should be consulted for appropriate mitigation
measures.
The Department also is concerned with the allowance for truck traffic beginning at 6:00 AM. -1
6:00 AM is an hour or more before sunrise for part of the year, and can be very dark. Wildlife
activity can be greater just prior to and atdawn, atthe same time that driver visibility is reduced. 11
The Department therefore recommends the truck hauling time restriction changed to between
sunrise and sunset.
Reclamation Plan
The Reclamation Plan(Plan)contained in Appendix G describes a finished slope of 2:1
(horizontal:vertical). To minimize erosion and facilitate revegetation,the Department 15
recommends a finished slope no steeper than 3:1. The slopes should be configured to prevent
grading outside of the permitted mining area.
Topsoil stockpiles should be protected from erosion and placed where they will not intercept
drainage. To preserve beneficial soil microorganisms and retain seed bank viability,the piles -
should not be deeper than three feet or stored for more than five years. The mining method, if,
top-down on slopes,will facilitate reapplication of topsoil as soon as the bench is constructed.
331
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R. Baca
October 31, 2012
Page 6 of 7
Revegetation should emphasize the use of plant propagules obtained from the local and
regional area.We therefore recommend that onsite seed collections be undertaken over a t/
period of several years prior to mining disturbance, and that this seed be properly stored for
future use when mining is completed.
Soil amendments are not recommended unless soil testing Indicates that specific micro-or —'
macronutrients are lacking. To determine the appropriate level and type of soil amendment,
project soils should be compared to undisturbed native soils and amended to approximate the
natural condition. If fertilizers are used,the application rate should not exceed 100 lbs.per
acre. Slow release fertilizers are preferred when working with native species so that
mycorrhizal function is not impaired. Reapplication of topsoil/growth media often precludes the
need for soil amendment.
The revegetation component of the reclamation plan generally does not recognize that plant 1.$
community composition on south and west facing slopes can be very different from those On
more mesic north and east facing slopes. We therefore recommend that specific plant palettes
be developed for each slope aspect.Plant palettes for revegetation should be based upon
actual sampling of onsite plant composition and relative cover values should reflect differences
between south and north facing slopes.
The reseeding methodology described for seed mix B (representing about two-thirds of the
reclaimed site)involves hydroseeding. Hydroseeding is ineffective in arid sites. Seed is not
incorporated into the substrate and is subject to predation and desiccation if it germinates. Drill
seeding or imprinting are far more effective methods of introducing seed to an arid site. Drill
seeding is proposed in the Plan for slopes 3: 1 and flatter. Configuring finished slopes to
3:1 would allow the use of drill seeding for the entire site.
Reclamation Success Criteria-The proposed Plan identifies minimum success criteria for
revegetation of mined areas. A table for Seed Mix°A°(to be used on the floor of the mined
area)stipulates that a minimum of four perennial species be represented. However,we note 20
that only three perennial species are proposed to be seeded there,so this table should be
corrected to show three and not four species.
Revegetation performance standards should be based on perennial species unless an annual
plant erosion control cover is specified. The revegetation performance standards should also
include density and species richness in addition to plant cover to ensure that pre-disturbance 21
vegetation conditions are approximated. Sample sizes must be sufficient to produce at least an
80 percent confidence level.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Drainages
The Department has regulatory authority with regard to activities occurring in streams and/or
lakes that could adversely affect any fish or wildlife resource. For any activity that will divert or
obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank(which may include associated
riparian resources)of a river or stream or use material from a streambed,the project applicant
(or"entity)must provide written notification to the Department pursuant to Section 1602 of the a
Fish and Game Code. Based on the notification and other information,the Department then
determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA)Agreement is required. The
Department's issuance of an LSA Agreement is a project subject to CEQA. To facilitate
issuance of a LSA Agreement, if necessary, the environmental document should fully identify
332
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Brian R. Baca
October 31, 2012
Page 7 of 7
the potential impacts to the lake,stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance,
mitigation,monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA Agreement. Early
consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to
avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. The failure to include this analysis in the 22.
project's environmental document could preclude the Department from relying on the Lead
Agency's analysis to issue a LSA Agreement without the Department first conducting its own,
separate Lead Agency subsequent or supplemental analysis for the project.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment. Questions regarding this letter and further
coordination on these issues should be directed to Mr. Martin Potter,Staff Environmental
Scientist at(805)640-3677 or Ms. Mary Meyer, Staff Environmental Scientist at(805)640-8019.
Sincerely,
Leslie S. MacNair
1J Environmental Program Manager
South Coast Region
Reference
Ventura County Planning Division. 2005. Roads and Biodiversity Project:Guidelines for
Safe Wildlife Passage. Southern California Association of Governments. 48 pp.
cc: Department of Fish and Game
Ms.Betty Courtney, Santa Clarita
Mr. Martin Potter, Ojai
Mr. Dan Blankenship, Santa Clarita
Ms.Mary Meyer, Ojai •
Mr.Jeff Humble,Ventura
State Clearinghouse
Mr. Scott Morgan,Sacramento
•
333
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
S.
`. Ventura County
'="' ' Watershed Protection District
Groundwater Section
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 26,2012
TO: Brian Baca-RMA Planning Division
CC: Mark Bandurraga-Watershed Protection District,Hydrology Section
FROM: Rick Viergutz-WateriheProtection District,Groundwater Section
SUBJECT: Comments on Grimes Rock Re-circulated Draft EIR and Amended Reclamation Plan
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject documents. The Re-circulated Draft EIR is for
a modified Conditional Use Permit(CUP)4874-2 and amended Reclamation Plan for the Grimes Rock,
Incorporated Mining Facility. The applicant is requesting approval to extend the effective term of the
permit from 2013 to 2040,expand the excavation area from 48 to 135 acres,and increase production
from 950,000 to 1,800,000 tons per year. Our comments are broken down into comments on the Re-
circulated Draft EIR,and comments on the Amended Reclamation Plan.
General Comments.
In general we find that Section 4.5 of the Re-circulated draft EIR contains updated information about
identification of impacts and mitigation,but it also contains older information that has become dated. We
feel this dated information should be updated, and in at least one instance we are raising a concern
about the dated information and its ability to be used to project water use for the'Expanded Project".
The Watershed Protection District did an independent analysis of the groundwater recharge at
reclamation and it conditionally indicates groundwater recharge at reclamation will be at least equivalent
to recharge prior to mining:however our independent analysis is only valid If the infiltration of the surface
soils Is maintained. There is no provision In the Re-circulated Draft EIR that the infiltration performance
of On-site sods at mitigation be quantified. It is the Groundwater Section's opinion that infiltration 1..
performance be quantified,and a performance standard should be established now and included in the
mitigation measures. Doing so provides better assurances that at reclamation(year 2040)it will be clear
what the actual performance criteria for site soil infiltration are.
Specific Comments:
Surface Water Quantity —
Page 4.5-3 describes that runoff from the 28 acres located to the south of the crest of Oak ridge currently
flows southward off of Oak Ridge to a retention basin. it further states that most of the surface runoff
from the 28 acre area is'most likely'lost to evaporation and evapotranspiration. Please summarize the
supporting evidence for this conclusion,end please summarize the retention basin construction details.
If the retention basin bottom is pervious, a portion of the surface water will likely infiltrate into the
underlying shallow alluvial aquifer.
Page 1 of 4
334
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Groundwater Quantity
Page 4.5-5 states that after reclamation the excavated area of the site will convey all storm water runoff
to the Santa Clara River valley. This section also states that the basins are in a state of "severe 3
overdraft." it is not clear what the subject document means with the term "severe overdraft, however,
data indicate that localized pumping cones of depression exist in the Las Poses Basins and groundwater
levels have risen In other parts of the Las Posas Basins.
Page 4.5-6 states that Ordinance No. 8.1 is the current version of the Fox Canyon Groundwater
Management Agency's Ordinance Code. Actually Ordinance No. 8.1 is no longer in effect,the current
Ordinance Code was adopted in December 2011. This section also provides statements about the
purpose of Section 4.0 and 5.0 of the FCGMA Ordinance Code No. 8.1; however the statements are
overly-narrow and do not reflect a number of goals within those Ordinance Code sections. Those
statements should be removed,or clarified.
The second to last paragraph on page 4.5-6 references Table 4.5-3,and Table 4.5-4. The data source
for Table 4.5-3 is listed as the FCGMA(undated). The well numbers are truncated in the table making
verification of the well number and the data linked to it difficult. Table 4.54 is also out of date as the 5
most recent water level data listed is from 1982. This table should be updated, and if that well is no
longer available,the County Groundwater Section may be able to provide more recent water level data
from nearby wells.
The final paragraph on page 4.5-6 describes groundwater extraction trends in the East Las Poses—
Basins. This section describes that groundwater extraction has recently declined to approximately
15,000 acre feet per year(U.S. Geological Survey,2003). More current data Is listed in the data table
below and it indicates that the average groundwater extractions from 2007-2011 is approximately 24,636
acre-feet per year. Please update the subject document to reflect this.
Calendar East Las Poses Basin Reported Extractions in
Year Acre-Feet(data from FCGMA records Nov 2012)
2001 12,743
2002 18,216
2003 15,231
2004 17,172
2005 12,908
2006 17,415
2007 21,774
2008 24,163
2009 29,669
2010 27,158
2011. 20,365
The final paragraph on page 4.5-6 also describes some generalized data from U.S. Geological Survey`
2003 about recharge to the Las Poses Basins from the aquifer outcrop area, and recharge to the Las
Poses Basins from other sources. This paragraph describes groundwater extraction as creating 7
groundwater quality problems. We suggest that this paragraph be improved by describing some of the
uncertainty In the U.S.Geological Survey,2003 report. It could also draw on more recent data about the
basins. Some of this data is available from the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency.
Page 4.5-6 also includes a discussion about pending groundwater allocation reductions that will be
triggered by the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency. Those allocation reductions have S
already been completed.
Page 2 of 4
335
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Figure 4.5-2 is shown as being sourced from the FCGMA(undated). An inspection of the map shows
that the map legend is incorrect. 'Aquifer Outcrop"should be labeled the'Lower Aquifer Outcrop Zone," 9
and°Additional Recharge Area"should be labeled the"FCGMA Expansion Area."
Page 4.5-11 states that the mine operator reports(year 2003?)that the existing quarry currently uses
approximately 30 acre-feet of water per year for processing and dust control. It states that water usage
for 2003 was 32 acre feet per year,and the current water source is well 03N19W19K02S.
FCGMA records indicate that reported extractions from 03N19W19K02S were 107.9 acre feet in 2003. )p
The reported average annual groundwater extraction from 2002 through 2011 for wells used by the mine
operator is approximately 95 acre-feet per year. Data from 2010 and 2011 indicate that mine water use
was 51.882 and 53.865 acre-feet per year, respectively. Actual reported groundwater use is much
greater than 30 acre-feet per year;this discrepancy should be addressed.
Page 4.5-12 includes Table 4.5-5 'Water Use Calculations Grimes Rock, Inc. Ventura County
California" The table fists Total Net Annual Water Usage for "Current Conditions° and "Expanded
Project." Table 4.5-5 shows the net annual water usage is estimated at 29.5 acre feet;however,actual
reported water usage to the FCGMA is significantly higher. Data reported to the FCGMA for 2002-2011
show an annual average water use of approximately 95 acre-feet per year. Data from 2010 and 2011
indicate that mine water use was approximately 52 and 54 acre-feet per year,respectively. Given this I
discrepancy, it appears something is not being accounted for in Table 4.5-5. Table 4.5-5 and its
supporting discussion in the subject document is used to provide an estimate of water use for the
Expanded Project;however,the discrepancies between reported and estimated water use suggest it is
not an accurate reflection of actual water use or water use for the Expanded Project. We recommend
these estimates be verified and revised using actual groundwater extraction data reported by the mine
operator.
Based on FCGMA extraction reporting for the Grimes Rock Mine, groundwater is extracted from four
groundwater supply wells(03N19W19K02S,03N19W19NO3S,03N19W19P02S,and 03N19W180018).
The project will exceed the 1.0 acre-foot threshold of net annual increase in groundwater extraction.
Generally the County of Ventura relies on input from the FCGMA where increases in groundwater
extraction are proposed. Normally,if a project increases water use,but the water use stays below the
FCGMA allocation, then the water quantity impacts are not considered significant by the County. (Z
Unfortunately the environmental document does not clearly lay out the Expanded Project water use. It
appears the proposed water use for the "Expanded Project' (which approximately doubles current
production)is much closer to the existing 2010 and 2011 water use for the existing project In summary, .
it Isn't clear what the`Expanded Project°groundwater use will be,or if it will exceed the mine operator's
extraction allocation. Until this Is made clear, the potential threat to groundwater quantity cannot be
determined.
Section 4.5.4 Project Impacts
Changes in Groundwater Recharge(Impact WR 1)
According to the Re-circulated Draft EIR, Mr. Brian Baca(CHG 398)of Ventura County Planning has
certified that the lower slope gradients resutting from mining will increase percolation of rainfall into the
ground and increase average annual recharge to the underlying groundwater aquifers. This may be i3
correct;however,the Groundwater Section's key concern with this is that there is no performance metric
in the subject document describing a necessary minimum soil infiltration rate at reclamation,or how it
should be measured.
Page 3 of 4
336
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Section 4.5.6 Mitigation Measures
Reduction in Groundwater Recharge(Impact WR 1)
To verify that mitigation measure WR 1 is successful, the document should outline requirements to
establish a numerical baseline for pre-mining infiltration rates. The baseline can be used to validate the
referenced Santa Barbara County recharge rate, and to confirm the post-mining infiltration rate at
reclamation is equal to or greater than pre-mining conditions. 13
To support a requirement for establishing baseline permeability of the proposed mining area, Mr. Mark
Bandurraga of the Watershed Protection District—Hydrology Section,conducted an analysis of the pre-
and post-mine infiltration based on available information. Mr.Bandun-aga's analysis Is attached.
Comments on the Amended Reclamation Plan
Based on our review of the Grimes Rock Amended Reclamation Plan,we have the following comments:
Water Supply Wells: Currently,one water supply well(State Well Number(SWN):03N19W18Q01 S)is
located on the floor of the mine at an elevation of approximately 1,130 feet above mean sea level(amsl).
The proposed final mining elevation Is approximately 1,000 feet ems,which will likely require the well
casing to be lowered. The permittee should summarize how they plan to lower the well casing as mining (H
progresses,and intentions for the well at reclamation. Lowering(cutting off)the well casing may remove
the required annular seal,so this should be addressed.
Impervious Concrete Surfaces: Several(6)concrete surfaces are located south of the active mining
area and within the mine property boundaries. The Reclamation Plan should clearly state if the concrete 15
surfaces will remain at mine reclamation, or be removed. If the concrete surfaces are to remain at
reclamation,the impervious surface should be factored into the final percolation values.
Attachment:Email from Mark Bandurraga November 9,2012
Page 4 of 4
337
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Page 1 of 2
Dana Files-Grimes Recharge Issues and Qualitative Evaluation
From: Mark Bandurraga
To: Vlergutz,Rick
Date: 11/9/2012 2:10 PM
Subject: Grimes Recharge Issues and Qualitative Evaluation
CC: Files,Dana; Rindahl,Bruce
Attachments: Shcs.jpg
Rick,Dana:
Based on the info contained in the EIR I don't think we need to do the Curve Number analysis to look at the
runoff and related infiltration for the existing and post project conditions for this sand and gravel mine. The
following data are provided in support of this conclusion.
Existing Conditions
CURRENT MINING AREA
Contains impervious or compacted surfaces related to excavation and processing activities.
Our soils maps for the current mining area(attached)show that as mostly badlands WPD soil type 1(SCS type
0)with a high runoff potential/low infiltration capacity
Aerial photos show non-vegetated disturbed soils.
Relatively flat processing area,steep slopes at the excavation front.
Runoff currently limited to 10-yr peak with detention basin
PROPOSED MINING AREA
EIR Vegetation Section says the primary vegetation for the 87.7 ac expanded mining area is 56.3 ac of Coastal
Sage scrub,9.1 ac of sparsely vegetated steep slopes,and 14 ac of non-native annual grasses.
Average slope In existing proposed area greater than average slope after reclamation
Current natural slopes lead to channelization of flow and fast concentration times.
Soils are sandy or day barns,WPD soil type 4,which is similar to SCS type B with relatively low runoff
potential/high Infiltration capacity.
Proposed(Reclaimed)Conditions
CURRENT AND PROPOSED MINING AREAS
Current processing areas will be converted to vegetation with a top layer of relatively pervious soils.
Reclaimed slopes encourage longer overland flowpaths before channelizatlon occurs,leading to more
opportunities for infiltration. SThe steepest reclaimed slopes are located above relatively flat (1%)slopes of
the processing area that will lead to more Infiltration than the existing condition.
Redamation plan calls for minimum 3 inches of topsoil and use of processed fines for top layer of soil at site
prior to revegetatbn.
Revegetatlon of site will likely replace current sparsely vegetated steep slopes with more vegetation than in the
current condition,leading to slower runoff travel times.Slightly more evapotranspiration will occur in these
areas,offsetting the Increased percolation to an unknown extent.
Runoff from proposed area will be limited to pre-developed 10-yr peak.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above data,the infiltration from the current work area should be enhanced by the reclamation
activities through the application of topsoils and alteration of slopes to cause more infiltration and slower travel
times than currently occur during design-level storms. For the proposed excavation areas,the soils
are currently are shown to have a relatively high infiltration rate so If testing of the soils after reclamation show
the upper soil layer to have a similar percolation rate as existing,then recharge to the ground water aquifers
should not be decreased by the project. The current steep slopes and channellzatlon of runoff In this area will
be converted to flatter slopes and longer overland flow distances by the project,offsetting any losses due to
file://C:\Documents and SettingsWilesD\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\509DOEBAVC... 11/26/2012
338
EXHIBIT B
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Page 2 of 2
evapotranspiration from increased vegetation over what is currently observed at the site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Following the statement on Page 4.5-16 about mitigation measures,we should provide a comment requiring the
site developer to collect pre-and post project percolation data from the proposed mining area to show that the
percolation rate has not been affected by the project or redarnation activities.
Let me know if you need more Info on this,or clarification on anything from the above.
Mark Bandurraga
Engineer IV-Design Hydrology
Ventura County Watershed Protection District
800 S.Victoria Ave-M/S 1610
Ventura CA 93009
Office(805)654-2015
Fax(805)654-3350
>>>Rick Vlergutz 11/9/2012 8:05 AM>>>
file://C:\Documents and Settings\FilesD\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\509D0EBAVC... 1I/26/2012
339
EXHIBIT C 340
EXHIBIT C
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
LlNSf. TT
LAW &
DN
MEMORANDUM G p F ySA
c/r cr]r.'8 r
To: Dave Bobardt Date: June 25,2013
City of Moorpark
Engineers&Planners
From: Clare M.Look-Jaeger,P.E.OAI cG LLG Ref. 1-13-4026-1 Traffic
Alfred C.Ying,P.E.,PTP N TF8Fr octiaon
LLG,Engineers Parkin
Peer Review of Grimes Rock Mining FEIRJTraffic Analysis/Conditions of Lieseet tewa
Subiect Approval Gramm,Eaginaers
600 S.Lake Avenue
sulte 500
As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has prepared this pasadena,CA91106
memorandum summarizing the peer review comments on the various environmental X6.796 371
review documents associated with the Grimes Rock, Inc. Expanded Mining Facility 626.19Z0943 F
project. Our review has focused on transportation-related topics and issues of interest wwwIgennineers.com
to the City of Moorpark. We are also quite aware that a fairly significant history is
associated with the site and its operations as evidenced by the current and amended Pasadena
Conditional Use Permit (CUP-4874) and associated Conditions of Approval as well Inane
San Diego
as subsequent requests, appeals, and decisions. This memorandum highlights several Woodland He's
issue areas that in our professional judgment require additional review and analysis,
including but not limited to the following:
• Saturday Impact Analysis
• Analysis of the SR-23 Bypass Route
• City of Moorpark Significant Impact Thresholds
Proposed Project Overview
The existing Grimes Rock Mining Facility is located at 3500 Grimes Canyon Road.
CUP-4874 outlines several conditions and limitations as they relate to hours and days
of operation, allowable haul/truck routes and use, identification of trucks, among
others. The Grimes Rock, Inc. Mining Facility is currently limited to 952,500 tons
per year and no more that 300 truck trips per day. Truck arrivals and departures can
occur every 15 minutes during certain AM hours and only 64 of the 300 one-way
truck trips may use the Southern Haul Route (i.e., Grimes Canyon Road to
Broadway, to Grimes Canyon Road). Therefore, the Southern Haul Route does not
include use of Walnut Canyon Road and/or Moorpark Avenue.
The proposed project("Project") consists of an expansion in current operations up to
460 average daily truck trips, with no more than 600 daily truck trips during peak
operations. The project also consists of the expansion from a five day a week
operation(i.e.,Monday through Friday between 6:00 AM to dusk)to a 6 day a week
operation (i.e., Monday through Saturday) between the hours of 6:00 AM and dusk
for trucks entering and exiting the facility. The Project also reflects the Applicant's
request to permit 24-hour on-site mining operations and maintains the current time of
day restrictions in terms of permissible truck entry and exit hours. Furthermore, the
Project proposes to extend its CUP to the year 2040.
O VOB FFLEWn26\Cones\Grimes Rock FEIR Tr.fic Studv-LLG Peer Review(Fat 6-25-13)des
341
EXHIBIT C
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Dave Bobardt _ NSCGTT
June 25,2013 LA;.: &
Page 2
GREENSPAN
City of Moorpark's 12/17/03 Response to the EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP)
for Modification No.2 to CUP 4874,Grimes Rock,Inc.
The City of Moorpark responded to the County's NOP noting that the City was
vehemently opposed to any permits or alterations to permits that would permit
additional truck traffic through the City along Walnut Canyon Road and Moorpark
Avenue. As such, the City requested that several items be addressed in the EIR,
particularly relating to traffic and transportation issues, and are generally described
below:
• The City stated opposition to expanded operations to include Saturday
operations and requested that the land use impact be fully addressed in the
EIR.
• The City opposes any deletion of conditions that currently prohibit use of
Walnut Canyon Road and requested that the SR-23 Bypass Route be analyzed
as an alternative, given that the bypass route is reflected in the City's General
Plan Circulation Element and has been designated by the Ventura County
Transportation Commission as a priority project for State Transportation
Improvement Program(STIP)funding.
• The City noted that the current CUP-4874 haul route restrictions (i.e., which
expressly prohibit use of Walnut Canyon Road as part of the Southerly Haul
Route) do not include associated mechanisms for on-going monitoring and
enforcement as well as a means for penalty and revocation if violations occur.
The City requested that the County's Code Enforcement staff be referred this
matter and if violations are not immediately and positively dealt with,that the
County cease all processing of any expansion of the use. Violations have
been documented by LLG and are summarized in the CUP-4874 section of
this memorandum,below.
• The City requested project-specific and cumulative traffic analyses using local
thresholds and highlighted five specific intersections for analysis within the
City.
Review of 2007 Traffic Study and the 2013 Supplemental Traffic Analyses
Two traffic analyses were prepared by Katz, Okitsu&Associates("KOA")as part of
the environmental documentation associated with the Project and both studies were
found to be generally prepared using transportation planning industry standard
methodologies. LLG specifically reviewed the following documents; 1) Traffic Study
for the Grimes Canyon Quarries in the County of Ventura, August 16, 2007, as
contained in Appendix B (Transportation/Circulation) of the Grimes Rock, Inc.
Expanded Mining Facility Final EIR, and 2) the supplemental technical
memorandum, Traffic and Transportation Technical memorandum for the Grimes
Rock Quarry, May 20, 2013, as contained in Section C (Supplemental Traffic
O:VOB_FII.64026\CorrestGrime,Ruck FEIR Traffic Studs-LLG Peer Rev,,,(Find 6-25-53)dos
342
EXHIBIT C
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Dave Bobardt L,N5CelT
June 25,2013 L 1 A re Ot W p
Page 3
o,!R l reef:
Information) within Volume III of the Final EIR. While the analyses have been
prepared in accordance with industry standards,the following comments are provided
for consideration by the County prior to taking any action on the Project, as LLG
believes additional review and analysis is needed.
Traffic Study Analysis Time Periods
The following points are made with respect to the review of the traffic analysis time
periods:
• The City of Moorpark specifically requested that a Saturday analysis be
provided. In LLG's review of both KOA studies, no Saturday impact
analysis was provided. Since the Project includes an expansion from no
Saturday operations allowable under the current CUP,to up to 600 truck trips
per day allowed on a Saturday, it is our professional judgment that this is a
glaring omission in the CEQA-required environmental documentation.
• While the studies purport to analyze weekday AM, mid-day and PM
operations, only the project driveway at the Grimes Rock facility was
analyzed during the mid-day peak hour. None of the other study intersections
were analyzed for the mid-day condition.
Depending on the current Saturday operating conditions at the 15 study intersections,
additional significant traffic impacts could result which would not have been
disclosed to the public and the decision makers.
Analysis of the SR-23 Bypass Route
No analysis of the SR-23 Bypass Route is included in either the.2007 or 2013 KOA
studies. As previously noted, the City of Moorpark in their response to the Grimes
Rock NOP specifically requested that this route to be analyzed as an alternative in the
EIR. The City's General Plan Circulation Element includes the SR-23 Bypass Route.
The City has completed feasibility studies and conceptual alignment studies(prepared
by RBF and Parsons) and has started to obtain some of the property right-of-way
within the City. For example, one of the three properties along the SR-23 Bypass
Route (i.e., the Pardee Homes) is required by their Development Agreement and
associated Conditions of Approval to grade the SR-23 Bypass within their property as
part of the project improvements,with the land offered to be irrevocably dedicated to
the City. In addition, if approved by the City of Moorpark City Council, an in-lieu
fee as determined by the City Manager may be deposited by the developer to pay for
the grading of the rights-of-way, thereby relieving the Applicant of the responsibility
to grade the identified areas. LLG also notes the following:
• The Ventura County Transportation Commission's (VCTC) 2009 Ventura
County Congestion Management Program, adopted July 10, 2009, lists the
SR-23/SR-118 Junction to Walnut Canyon Road (RTP#U5M0704)as one of
11 VCTC Adopted STIP Priority projects.
O:UOB_FILE\40161Corres\Grimes R.&FEIR T613133c Stud}-LLG Peer Remcw anal 6-23-131 me
343
EXHIBIT C
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Dave Bobardt `: S C 01?
June 25,2013 ±\w a
Page 4 GKLLNSPAN
rl�n, ir.arts
• Chapter 7 of the 2009 Ventura County Congestion Management Program
(CIP Projects List), includes the Near-Term, Mid-Term, and Long-Term
project lists. The SR-23 Bypass Route Project (i.e., noted as SR-23,
Construct New Alignment from SR-23/SR-118 to Walnut Canyon,
RTP#U5M0704) is contained on the Long-Term Project list for FY2026/27
through FY2034/35. While it is included on the Long-term Project list, it is
recognized and noted by the VCTC that, `Projects could be advanced to
Near-Term List if funded".
Therefore, since the Applicant is requesting approvals of expanded operations
through the year 2040, the analysis of Year 2040 background conditions and an
alternative which includes the SR-23 Bypass Route could and should have been
included in the EIR.
City of Moorpark Significant Impact Thresholds
As part of this peer review effort, LLG reviewed the Traffic Study for the Grimes
Canyon Quarries in the County of Ventura,prepared by KOA, August 16, 2007. In
addition, LLG has also conducted a review of the City of Moorpark General Plan
Circulation Element. Based on the review of these two documents, there appears to
be inconsistencies with the significant impact thresholds utilized to evaluate potential
traffic impacts for City of Moorpark study intersections. According to the Project
Study Methodology section (page 13) of the Grimes Canyon Quarries Traffic Study
(which is also summarized in Section 4.1 [Traffic/Circulation], page 4.1-37 of the
Final EIR),
"The City of Moorpark has adopted Level of Service C as the peak hour
operating standard for intersection locations. Any project that increases an
intersection ICU across this threshold is considered to have a significant
impact. If the Level of Service C standard is already not achieved under the
"no-project" scenarios (i.e., Scenarios 2 and 5), then a project would have a
significant effect if the with-project ICU increases by 0.02 or greater
compared with the no-project ICU."
However, under Section 3.0 (Goals and Policies), Level of Service Policy 2.1 of the
City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element,it is stated that,
"Level of service "C" shall be the system performance objective for traffic
volumes on the circulation system. For roadways and interchanges already
operating at less than level of service "C", the system performance objective
shall be to maintain or improve the current level of service."
Using the Grimes Canyon Quarries traffic study thresholds, for example, a project
ICU increase of 0.02 or greater at an intersection operating at LOS D, E, or F
condition would result in a significant impact. However,using the City of Moorpark
General Plan Circulation Element level of service policy,the current operations shall
be maintained or improved at an intersection operating at LOS D, E, or F condition.
O_VOB_PIl.E44026\Cortec\Grim.,Rock FM Traffic Study-LLG Peer Review(Foal 6-25-13).dx
344
EXHIBIT C
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
Dave Bobardt LI SCCTT
June 25,2013 LAW &
Page 5
GRLENSPAN
Thus, based on these inconsistencies, if the same level of service standards per the
City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element were applied to the Grimes
Canyon Quarries Traffic Study,there would likely be additional significant impacts in
the City of Moorpark which have not been identified previously as part of the Draft
ER,Recirculated Draft EIR,or Final ER.
Study Area
LLG confirmed that the five specific locations requested for analysis by the City of
Moorpark were included in the traffic analyses. A total of 15 study intersections and
three street segments were included in the traffic analysis study area. For the 15
intersections, eight locations were within the County, two were within the City of
Fillmore and five were within the City of Moorpark.
Baseline Conditions
The 2007 study used peak hour traffic data collected in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006
(note: While the actual copies of the traffic counts were not included in the 2007
traffic study,they were included as part of the 2013 supplemental traffic analysis and
June 2013 Final ER). In reviewing the 2013 supplemental technical memorandum,it
is recognized that KOA conducted updated weekday AM and PM peak period traffic
counts at a total of five of the 15 study intersections in order to validate continued use
of the prior baseline conditions. It was concluded by KOA that since the 2013 peak
hour traffic counts were generally lower for these five locations,no further analysis or
update of existing traffic counts was necessary. While this is typically accepted
within the industry,several key locations were not counted as part of the 2013 update.
LLG believes that the following two intersections should also have been recounted
given the changes in configurations and intersection operation that have occurred
since 2007:
• Grimes Canyon Road/River Street — In 2007 this intersection was
unsignalized with stop signs facing the eastbound and westbound River
Street approaches. The intersection has since been signalized which has
resulted in additional capacity. Therefore,LLG believes it should have been
recounted as part of the 2013 update to confirm current volumes.
• Walnut Canyon Road/Broadway Road— In 2007 this intersection was under
stop-sign control. Since the intersection was revised by the County to
remove the stop sign control for Walnut Canyon Road, it too should have
been recounted in order to confirm current volumes.
For example, with the stop-signs removed for portions of the Walnut Canyon
Road/Broadway Road intersection (i.e., only the westbound Broadway Road
approach is now stop sign controlled with the revised intersection configuration),
absent updated traffic counts it cannot be determined if this resulted in increased
traffic volumes along the Walnut Canyon Road corridor. The 2007 Level of Service
(LOS) at this intersection was based on the reported worst-case approach delay.
O_UOB_FI1.E:1 O26\Cortes\Grimes Rol FEIR TrvEo S,,t.,-LLG Peer Review(Foal 6-25-13).do<
345
EXHIBIT C
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FE:IR
Dave Bobardt L"JSCRTT
June 25,2013 L &
Page 6
eri,LENYA%
Therefore, it is possible that had the intersection been reanalyzed by KOA with the
new intersection configuration and updated traffic counts, the reported delay for the
westbound Broadway Road approach could be greater than delays previously reported
for the intersection. Without this analysis,conclusions regarding potential significant
traffic impacts cannot be made.
Traffic Study Analysis Conditions(No Analysis of Future Year 2040 Conditions)
The Final EIR traffic impact analysis was based on the 2007 traffic study which
assumed Year 2025 as the buildout year. With respect to the analysis conditions LLG
notes the following:
• In the 2007 traffic study,KOA acknowledges that they obtained and reviewed
the County's travel demand model forecast traffic volumes for the Year 2020.
It is further noted that the 2007 traffic study was based on the Ventura County
Regional Traffic Model (RTM)results which were prepared in January 2004
and incorporated Year 2020 forecasts. It was then concluded that the five year
difference between Years 2020 and 2025 (the horizon year)was minimal and
therefore used the 2020 volumes for analysis of the 2025 conditions.
• In 2011,the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG)revised
their population, housing and employment forecasts using local input and
latest data from the 2010 Census. SCAG's forecasts are available to Year
2035. Therefore, analysis of a 2035 conditions could have been prepared and
extrapolated to Year 2040 conditions.
• Section 1.5 (Project Description),page 1-4 of the Final EIR(dated June 2013)
specifically notes that the Applicant is requesting approval of Modification
No. 2 of CUP-4874 to authorize, "An extension of the effective term of the
CUP from 2013 to an estimated end date of surface mining operations in
2040." As such,a full analysis of Year 2040 conditions is required in order to
determine potential significant traffic impacts to the surrounding street
system.
• When issue of Year 2040 conditions was also raised by the City of Fillmore,
KOA responded with the following three points as to why a 2040 analysis was
not necessary:
"First, project traffic is not expected or currently permitted to
increase over time. There are no subsequent phases or changes to the
project that would cause project-related traffic impacts to be different
in 2025 than in 2040.
Second,project traffic volumes in the affected project area will be a
progressively smaller proportion of overall area traffic volumes over
time due to anticipated increase in regional traffic volume.
O:UOB_PILEU0261Cu.r\Groan Ruck FEIR Traffic Study-LLG Pear Review(Final 6-2S-Li).doc
346
EXHIBIT C
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
DaveBobardt L:NScoiT
June 25,2013 L,.; &
Page 7 GREENSPAN
el: gineerc
Third, based upon current data, the 2007 traffic study incorporated
into the RDEIR overestimated the projected 2013 traffic conditions.
Based on January 2013 counts of actual traffic volumes, the
projected area traffic volume for 2025 is overstated in the RDEIR.
Thus, the 2025 figures are adequate to disclose long-term impacts of
the extended 2040 project."
While LLG acknowledges that the increment of traffic due to the expanded
Project operations will be the same in 2040 as in 2025, the future background
traffic volumes will increase over time. KOA also acknowledges this point.
As such, operations in 2040 will likely be degraded when compared to 2025,
absent future capacity enhancements and/or major system-wide trip
reductions. In the 2007 study, KOA also acknowledges that the City of
Moorpark maintains Level of Service (LOS) C as the peak hour operating
performance standard. Therefore, under LOS D, E, or F conditions, an
increase in the volume to capacity ratio of equal to or greater than 0.02 due to
a project is considered significant. Absent a detailed forecast of Year 2040
conditions, the conclusion made by KOA (i.e., "...In any case, the projected
2025 conditions in the traffic study reflect greater traffic volumes than would
be projected with current data and, therefore, given that the project traffic
must remain constant per the CUP conditions, are adequate to describe the
long-term (2040) traffic effects of the proposed project.") cannot be
substantiated. As no 2040 analysis is provided, the cumulative traffic
conditions cannot be confirmed and the reported future condition operations
are likely understated. Updated socioeconomic data is available and LLG
believes that the Year 2040 future cumulative conditions analysis should have
been provided. LLG simply cannot agree with the finding that the reported
2025 conditions are the same or better than what can be expected in Year
2040.
Current Grimes Rock CUP-4874 Conditions of Approval
As previously stated, the Grimes Rock CUP-4874 contains several Conditions of
Approval relating to the designated haul routes, travel time restrictions, identification
of trucks, etc. Condition No. 87 specifically identifies the approved Southern Haul
Route as:
"...defined herein as beginning at the project's point of egress onto State
Route 23, traveling south to Broadway, then westerly on Broadway to
Grimes Canyon Road, then southerly on Grimes Canyon Road (County
road) to State Route 118, then westerly on State Route 118 to the State
Ready Mix facility."
O:UOB_FQ.1i14026\Cones\Grimes Rock FEIR Traffic Sn iv-I1.G Peer Review(Final 6-25-13)din
347
EXHIBIT C
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
DaveBobardt LIWSCCIT
June 25, 2013 L;t; &
Page 8
GRE[NcPAw
e li If i;7 a C!s
Under the peak mine production rate, up to 32 heavy trucks (64 one-way truck trips)
are permitted to enter and exit the project site and travel along the Southern Haul
Route. In order to determine if this Condition of Approval is being strictly followed,
LLG independently conducted heavy vehicle (truck) license plate surveys at two key
locations on Friday,June 21, 2013 between the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM. One
survey person was stationed at the Grimes Rock entry/exit driveway and one person
was stationed on Moorpark Avenue near City Hall. The last four digits of every
heavy vehicle license plate were observed and noted along with the time. Based on
documented license plate matches between the two observation points, it was
determined that a total of eight inbound truck violations and five outbound truck
violations occurred between the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and that the Walnut
Canyon Road/Moorpark Avenue route is being used by existing Grimes Rock, Inc.
related heavy vehicles. The required use of the Southern Haul Route is thus not being
enforced.
CUP Condition of Approval No. 86 also requires very specific specifications for truck
identification for both trucks owned and leased by Grimes Rock, Inc., and those
operated by independent operators. Based on the observations of the LLG survey
personnel,proper truck identification protocols are not being followed and enforced.
LLG therefore agrees with the previous City of Moorpark request that the CUP
language be revised to reflect mechanisms for on-going monitoring and enforcement,
as well as a means for penalty and revocation if violations occur, since violations
have now been documented and confirmed. It is apparent based on LLG's review of
the Traffic Study for the Grimes Canyon Quarries in the County of Ventura that
several potential traffic monitoring elements and enforcement mechanisms were
presented for consideration.
Please feel free to call us with any questions or comments at 626.796.2322. We look
forward to a successful resolution of this matter.
« File
O:UOB_FQE440Z6lCo,1Gnnms Rock FEIP Traffic Studs-LW Peer ■ew(Final 6-15-13).doc
343
EXHIBIT D 349
Biography
Ms. Look-Jaeger has over 25 years of experience in the preparation of transportation planning
analyses, with particular emphasis on the preparation of environmental review analyses for
various developments pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Ms. Look-Jaeger specializes in
entitlement processing efforts, particularly on highly controversial projects which involve
litigation. Ms.Look-Jaeger is a Principal of Team Pasadena and a licensed Traffic Engineer in the
State of California. Ms. Look-Jaeger holds a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (BSCE)
degree from Marquette University with an emphasis in Transportation studies,
Years of Experience:
• Areas of Expertise
Years with LLG Engineers: - Traffic Impact Studies/Analyses for Environmental - Parking Studies/Shared Parking Demand
years Review Analyses
- Transportation Master Planning/Site Feasibilty - Conceptual Mitigation Planning/Improvement
Planning Packages
Education: - Access and Ciadation Planning for Various - Regional Fad'
�' hty Operations and Analysis
S Ci:il Engi;,a=rnc Modes
-iart_;att '_%,;nor i y !:';rtr•t; -. L'V1
Relevant Project Experience
Registrations:
Profess'enal Errcineer NBC/Universal Prior Masterplan and Vision Plan,Universal City,California
CA ✓eps!rat n 1878 Ms.Look-Jaeger served as Principal-In-Charge for the preparation of the traffic impact study for
inclusion into the EIR for the prior Universal City Master Plan (1992 through 1998)and Vision
Plan formulation (through 2005). Consultation involved circulation master planning to include
freeway connections, connections to a Metro Rail Red Line station, and major highway
improvements. In its consultation with Universal, Metro and Caltrans representatives regarding
the design of the Metro Rail Red Line station at Universal City, issues such as access, parking,
pedestrian connectivity, integration of shuttles and a transit bus center, etc. were carefully
reviewed and evaluated for feasibility. LLG worked with Caltrans to enhance connections
between both the Universal City project site,which encompasses over 450-acres,and the Route
101 Hollywood Freeway. Due to physical constraints(i.e., the Los Angeles River Channel, the
Route 101 Hollywood Freeway, adjacent mountains, etc.) both opportunities and limitations
were also evaluated as part of the Specific Plan. Recommendations were also provided for
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. LLG identified specific mitigation
measures, provided representation throughout the prior public review process and assisted in
Li N S C O T T the preparation of the Final EIR. LLG prepared a comprehensive wayfinding program which was
integrated with the adjacent freeway system and arterial street system through coordination
LAW & with Caltrans and the Gty of Los Angeles. The project was delivered on a time sensitive basis
and within budget.
GR E E N S PA N New Century Plan Project,Century City area of Los Angeles,California
Ms. Look-Jaeger served as Principal-in-Charge for the preparation of the traffic and parking
) analyses included as part of the Draft and Final EIRs for the project proposed by Westfield, LLC
which included the development of approximately 358,000 net new square feet of retail-
e n g i n e e r s commercial space at the existing Westfield Shopping Center and up to 262 residential units. LLG
closely worked with the architect and surrounding agencies in the review and approval of a
future connection to a planned subway system with a portal at the site. The firm provided
consultation in terms of pedestrian, vehicular, transit and bicycle connectivity. The firm was
integral in providing support throughout the challenging environmental review process,
including pre-litigation support and prepared hundreds of responses to comments in support of
the Final EIR. The traffic analysis reviewed existing and future operations for over 60 locations
and a comprehensive mitigation program was developed. Community meeting and public
hearing representation was provided. LLG also worked closely with the Council office and
various homeowner association representatives.
350
Biography
Mr.Ying holds over 21 years of traffic engineering and transportation planning experience,with
particular emphasis on the preparation of traffic impact studies and parking studies for various
development projects. He is a graduate of the University of California,Los Angeles in 1992. Mr.
Ying has a background in complex operational analyses for intersections and roadway corridors
and specializes in 2D and 3D simulation of traffic flows. He has prepared Caltrans Permit
Engineering Evaluation Reports (PEER) for the processing of highway improvements and has
performed numerous traffic signal timing,signal progression,and signal warrant analyses. Mr.
Ying is a licensed Traffic Engineer in the State of California and a certified Professional
Years of Experience: Transportation Planner.
1 e rs
Areas of Expertise
Years with LLG Engineers:
l` c - Traffic Impact Studies for Environmental Evaluation - Caltrans Permit Engineering Evaluation Report
years (PEER)Parking Studies/Shared Parking Analyses ( )Pre Pa ration
Operational Analyses for Intersecions and Corridors - Site Access and Internal Circulation Study and
Education: Design
B.S.Mechanical Engineering
University of California.Los Angeles.CA Relevant Project Experience
Registrations: East Los Angeles College Firestone Education Center Project,City of South Gate,California
Professional Engineer Mr.Ying served as Project Manager for the preparation of the traffic impact study included as
CA Registration TR 1944 part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR) and Final EIR. Consultation included the
oversight of all existing and future intersection operations at over 30 local and regional study
Professional Transportation Planner locations and the development of a comprehensive transportation mitigation program for the
Certificate No.154 proposed 12,000-student satellite campus. Mr. Ying prepared all supplemental analyses in
support of transportation-related Draft EIR responses to comments and provided public hearing
representation in support of the environmental review and public review processes. Mr.Ying
was also part of the project's Master Planning team and provided traffic/transportation
consultation during the Master Plan preparation process.
Tentative Tract 46018 Plum Canyon Residential Project,County of Los Angeles,California
Mr.Ying acted as Project Manager for the preparation of the traffic impact studies associated
with the proposed multi-phase,2,500 residential dwelling unit project. The firm was integral in
LI N S C 0 T T the successful project approval and entitlement associated with the first 1,700 residential
& dwelling units,many of which have been constructed and occupied. Mr.Ying will also oversee
&LAW the preparation and processing of the traffic impact study associated with the remaining 800
residential dwelling units.
GR E E N S PA N Independent Third Party Technical Peer Reviews,Various Agencies,California
Mr. Ying has provided independent, third party technical peer reviews for various public
agencies on traffic and parking analyses prepared by other transportation consultants. Recent
peer reviews include: Willow Springs II Project(for City of Goleta), Westar Mixed-Use Village
engineers Project (for City of Goleta), Equinox Project (for City of Beverly Hills), Aliso Canyon Turbine
Replacement Project (for the California Public Utilities Commission), Citadel Outlets Phase IV
(for City of Commerce),among others.
Caltrans Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) Preparation, Various Agencies,
California
Mr. Ying has prepared or assisted in numerous PEER for Caltrans District 7 submittal. Such
projects include: I-S Southbound and Northbound Ramps at Roxford Street in the City of Los
Angeles,1-10 Westbound Ramps at Soto Street in the City of Los Angeles,SR-118 Ronald Reagan
Freeway Westbound Ramps at SR-27 Topanga Canyon Boulevard in the unincorporated County
of Los Angeles, SR-118/SR-23 New Los Angeles Avenue at Miller Parkway in the City of
Moorpark,SR-72 Whittier Boulevard at Pacific Place in the City of Whither,and SR-23 Westlake
Boulevard at US-101 Ramps in the Gty of Thousand Oaks.
351
EXHIBIT E 352
RECIPROCAL TRAFFIC MITIGATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT("Agreement")is made and entered into by and between the
City of Moorpark, a municipal corporation C' and the County of Ventura,a political
tY P P rP ("City), Y P
subdivision of the State of California ("County"). City and County are from time to time
referred to herein individually as"Party"and collectively as the"Parties".
RECITALS
A. City and unincorporated portions of County share common jurisdictional borders.
B. Traffic District #4 is identified in the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program,
Engineering Report, dated October 2001, prepared by the County of Ventura,
Transportation Department,copies of which are on file at the Public Works Agency and the
Public Works Department,City of Moorpark. The boundaries of this District extend beyond
the established City limits and into portions of unincorporated areas of County. Traffic
District#4 is shown on Exhibit A,which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
C. The City Council of City and the Board of Supervisors of County jointly find as
follows:
1. Future development or intensification of existing development (hereafter
collectively"Development")of property within City or unincorporated areas of
1
pw\co trar agre_0602
353
County will result in an increase in traffic volumes that will cause the level of
service ("LOS") of certain intersections or road segments in the
unincorporated areas of County, as well as within the City,to fall below the
minimum acceptable LOS specified in the respective General Plans of City
and County, unless those intersections and road segments are improved so
as to accommodate such increase in traffic volumes; and
2. Such increase in traffic volumes will also cause additional air pollution,noise,
and restrictions on access for emergency vehicles within City and
unincorporated areas of County, unless such improvements to the
intersections and road segments are made;and
3. In the absence of an agreement to establish a method of reciprocal traffic
impact mitigation to be used in connection with future development within
City and County,existing and future sources of revenue will be inadequate to
fund such improvements to the intersections and road segments.
D. The Parties bear responsibility under the Congestion Management Law(Gov.Code
§65088,et seq.),and under the Ventura County Congestion Management Program
("CMP")approved by the Ventura County Transportation Commission pursuant to
that law,to analyze and mitigate the regional traffic impacts of their respective land
• use decisions. This Agreement fulfills, in part,that CMP mandate.
2
pw\co_traf agre_0602
354
E. This Agreement also promotes the goals of the Regional Transportation Plan
adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG Resolution
#98-385-3).
F. Each party has a legal responsibility pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act(Pub. Res. Code§21000,et seq.)and the State CEQA Guidelines(Cal.
Code of Regs., title 4, §15000, et seq.) to analyze the regional environmental
impacts of development approved by each Party, and to identify and implement
feasible mitigation measures. This Agreement addresses that responsibility with
respect to impacts attributable to additional traffic volumes on both County and City
• roads resulting from development approved by either Party.
G. Neither the provisions herein nor any performance hereunder shall in any way limit
either party's ability to legally challenge any project or development within the other
party's jurisdictional boundaries based upon any grounds,including,but not limited
to,traffic impacts and the adequacy of mitigation therefore.
H. The Parties hereto wish to cooperate with each other in order to more effectively
respond to the legal obligations described above.
3
pw.co_traf afire 0602
355
NOW.THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
Section I. Payment of Traffic Fee by City to County
A. For all development approved by City,a fee shalt be imposed to reimburse County
for the project's pro-rata share of the cost of improvements to intersections and road
segments in the unincorporated area needed to accommodate additional traffic
generated by the development.
B. The amount of the Fee to be transferred to County with respect to any given
development project (as described in paragraph A above) shall be computed in
accordance with the following formula:
Fee=X`Y*Z
where:
X= $7.07 which is the cost per additional average daily trip of improvements to
intersections and road segments in the unincorporated area generated by
development projects. The list of intersections and road segment improvements
and the fee calculations for Traffic District#4(District), are identified in the report
entitled Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program,Engineering Report,dated October
2001,prepared by the County of Ventura,Transportation Department and modified
by Board approval of General Plan Amendment GPA 05-03.
Y= An inflation adjustment factor, based upon the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles area,to account for inflation from the
date of this agreement to the date the fee is computed. The County shall
4
pw\co_traf agre_0602
356
recalculate in January of each year and send a copy of all calculations to the City by
the first day of February each year. City will apply and use the new factor no later
than the first day of March of the same year, provided County has timely sent the
calculations to the City.
Z= The estimated number of average daily trips that the project will generate
determined by either:
1) A traffic study approved by the City Public Works Director, or
2) The total average daily trips for projects as determined by the current
version of Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Traffic
Engineers or other such published data as routinely used by City to
determine traffic generation volumes.
C. The City shall collect the Fee at the same time and in the same manner as City
collects other traffic mitigation fees imposed on the project. City shall transfer the
Fees to County within 30 business days after collection.
D. County may use the Fees transferred to improve the intersections and road
segments listed in the report entitled Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program,
Engineering Report, dated October 2001, prepared by the County of Ventura,
Transportation Department. County intends to make such improvements in such a
manner as to prevent the volume-to-capacity ratio of the intersections and road
segments from exceeding 0.84,but nothing herein creates a binding obligation upon
County to do so. County agrees to meet and confer with City at least annually on
5
pw\co_traf_agre_0602
357
the prioritization of projects and expenditure of funds collected or transferred to the
County under this agreement.
E. County shall comply with all requirements of all applicable laws, including,without
limitation, Government Code §66000, et seq. with respect to the Fees that are
transferred to County and provide an annual report accounting for said funds to the
City. ,
F. County shall defend,indemnify,and hold City and its elected and appointed officers,
agents and employees free and harmless from any claim, demand, loss, cost,
expense,lien or judgment("Claim")against City relating to the collection,attempted
collection, accounting for, expenditure, or legality of Fees designated for County
intersections and road segments. This indemnity shall also include, without
limitation,any Claim arising out of County's failure or alleged failure to comply with
any applicable law,including,but not limited to,Government Code§66000, et seq.
relating to the use of or accounting for Fees transferred to County.
Section II. Payment of Traffic Fee by County to City
A. For all development projects receiving discretionary approval by the County,which
are subject to the Ventura County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance(Ventura
County Ordinance Code §8601-0 et seq.), and which are located within the
unincorporated portion of Traffic District#4, an additional traffic impact mitigation
fee(the"Fee")shall be imposed to reimburse City for the project's pro-rata share of
6
pwko_trar_agre_0602
358
the cost of improvements to City intersections and road segments needed to
accommodate additional traffic generated by the project.
B. The amount of the said Fee shall be that amount determined by the City's Traffic
Mitigation Fee Program, based upon the traffic anticipated to be generated by the
project. In the event the City has no Traffic Mitigation Fee Program in place, the
amount of the Fee shall be determined by the City Public Works Director, in
accordance with normal procedures utilized by the City to calculate traffic mitigation
fee amounts for like projects within the City,adjusted for inflation.
C. County shall collect the Fee at the same time and in the same manner as other
traffic mitigation fees imposed on the project. County shall transfer the Fees to City
within 30 business days after collection.
D. City may use the Fees transferred to City to improve City intersections and road
segments identified in the Fee Calculation. City agrees to meet and confer with
County at least annually on the prioritization of projects and expenditure of funds
collected or transferred to the City under this agreement.
E. City shall comply with all requirements of applicable laws, including, without
limitation, Government Code §66000 et seq., with respect to the Fees that are
transferred to City.
F. City shall defend, indemnify,and hold County and its elected and appointed officers,
agents and employees free and harmless from any claim, demand, loss, cost,
7
pw'co_traf agre_0602
359
li
expense, lien or judgment ("Claim") against County relating to the collection,
attempted collection,accounting for,expenditure,or legality of Fees designated for
City intersections and road segments. This indemnity shall also include, without
limitation,any Claim arising out of City's failure or alleged failure to comply with any
applicable law, including, but not limited to, Government Code §66000 et seq.,
relating to the use of or accounting for Fees transferred to City.
Section Hi. State Routes
The Parties agree that the responsibility for programming, budgeting, funding, and
accomplishing work on state highways rests with the California Department of
Transportation. The Parties recognize that the incremental and cumulative impact of
projects approved by the local jurisdictions may have an impact on state highways. City
and County agree to cooperate with each other and other agencies or entities as
appropriate and as required by State law in coordinating needed future improvements.
Such cooperation may include arranging local fair share funding for such improvements as
may be required by State law.
Section IV. Changes to Agreement
This Agreement may be modified from time to time by mutual written agreement of both
Parties.
Section V. Notices
Whenever notices are required to be given pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement,
8
pw‘co traf acre 0602
360
•
such notices shall be in writing and shall be served upon the Party to whom addressed b
Y
personal service as required in judicial proceedings, or by deposit of the same in the
custody of the United States Postal Service or its lawful successor in interest, postage
prepaid, addressed to the Parties as follows:
CITY: Office of the City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
COUNTY: County of Ventura
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura,CA 93009-1600
Attn: Director of Public Works
Notices shall be deemed, for all purposes, to have been given on the date of personal
service or three consecutive calendar days following the deposit of the same in the United
•
States mail, postage prepaid.
Section VI. Arbitration
A. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein,.the Parties hereto agree that any
claim or dispute between them, arising out of or relating to the terms of this
Agreement, shall be resolved by compulsory binding arbitration conducted by a
retired Superior Court Judge of the State of California or other qualified person the
Parties mutually agree upon. The claim or dispute being arbitrated shall be
resolved in accordance with California law.
B. The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the laws and procedures
governing civil judicial proceedings in this State. Each party shall comply with all
9
pw\co vaf agre_0602
361
applicable laws relating to binding and compulsory arbitration,the directions given
by the Arbitrator and the provisions of this Agreement. The determinations made by
the Arbitrator,if within the scope of the Arbitration and the Arbitrators function,shall
be binding and conclusive on the Parties and shall be enforceable in the manner
provided by law.
C. The Arbitrator shall be selected in the following manner:
1. The Party initiating the Arbitration(`Initiating Party")shall prepare and submit
to the other Party a list("List")containing the names of not to exceed three
retired Superior Court Judges all of whom the Initiating Party believes are
qualified to serve as Arbitrator. The names of the judges on the List shall be
numbered consecutively.
2. The Party upon whom the List is served, within ten calendar days after
service of the List,shall either:
(a) select one of the named retired judges to act as Arbitrator, in which
case that retired judge shall serve as the Arbitrator, or
(b) strike one name from the List.
3. Upon expiration of said ten-day period,if no selection is made,the Arbitrator
shall be the retired judge on the List with the lowest number next to his or her
name, unless that judge's name was stricken during the ten-day period by
the non-initiating party.
4. If,for any reason,the retired judge designated as the Arbitrator is unwilling or
10
pwlco_traf agre_06O2
362
unable to serve as the Arbitrator, the judge on the List with the next lower
number whose name was not stricken shall be the Arbitrator. In the event
that none of the three retired judges named on a List is willing or able to
serve as the Arbitrator, the Initiating Party shall prepare and submit a new
List,containing the names of not to exceed three different retired judges,and
the above-described procedure shall be followed until an Arbitrator is
selected. By way of illustration,if the List served by the Initiating Party,upon
the other Party,has the name of three retired judges,A,B,and C,numbered
1,2 and 3,respectively,and number 1 is stricken,then B,number 2,shall be
deemed for all purposes to be the selected Arbitrator.
D. Each party hereto hereby agrees to pay one-half of the compensation to be paid to
the Arbitrator,and,except as otherwise expressly provided herein,each party shall
bear its own costs and expenses of arbitration, including, but not limited to,
attorney's fees and related costs.
Section VII. Non-Severability
This Agreement shall not be deemed severable. if any provision or part hereof is judicially
declared invalid,this Agreement shall be void and of no further effect.
Section VIII. Termination
This Agreement may be terminated by either party,with or without cause by the terminating
party with not less than one-year advance written notice to the other party.The rights and
11
pw‘co rar agre_0602
363
I
duties of the parties under Section IE, IF, IIE and t1F shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
Section IX. Exemptions
The following are exempt from paying of Traffic Impact Fees under this Agreement:
1. Any City-owned or County-owned project approved in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended.
2. Projects with a vested tentative map pursuant to Government Code
§66498.1,or a development agreement in force prior to the effective date of
this Agreement.
.
IN WITNESS THEREOF,the Parties hereto have authorized their respective agents
to - er into t is Agreemen as foil' s:
CITY OF MO' PA
-
COUNTY OF VENTURA illiititAillitir
-y: e.4- ' �I.; By:( �.. o'a /- /�y 'ck Hunte
f ayor r„ rids Parks. Cha i r
Board of Supervisors
' r EST: A - - : dolt afln - •
B :T..,F,,,,,..,_!, _// I/�' By' I.._ L_I.0 lir/ .
By:T
Clerk �' aid. befu Clerk of the Boa • y_vie
titeline,A:` /.r r A rl
:#7417... I t '. '
12
pw\co_traf agre 0602
364
-- A .
\
ya . J 1111
,
:
1
1
., 4 , .
•
...,••. .„. .
• • ,
.. _.:•. ..
• .
..
... . __.. . ..._ . .... ,
. ,
1 ,_. .
1
} 110 ORPARK
.. . -- Ai --.. .
•
771 (1 SA_AVI) OA '
TRAFFFIC IMPACT FEE DISTRICT 4 (MOORPARK) .
LacsNn VENTURA COUNTY TRANS. DEPT.
.... MOM DISTRICT BOONM r DRAWING NUMBER TD-04
- °''rus= Dale Prapared• 05-31-01
•
EXHIBIT A
365
EXHIBIT F 366
REGULAR CC Page 1 of 8
r
matilibtfAll
:..,,nitrrikIrweill.N1■1..,..i. •
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING ANNOTATED AGENDA
MAY 21, 2008
7:00 PM
Moorpark Community Center 799 Moorpark Avenue
1. CALL TO ORDER;
7:14 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
BARRY HOGAN, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, LED THE PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE.
3. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBER MIKOS,COUNCILMEMBER
MILLHOUSE, COUNCILMEMBER PARVIN,
COUNCILMEMBER VAN DAM,and MAYOR HUNTER.
4. PROCLAMATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS:
A. Recognition of Outgoing Teen Council Members.
MAYOR HUNTER AND RICHARD LEMMO, RECREATION
LEADER, PRESENTED OUTGOING TEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS
ALYSSA DERSAHAGIAN,CAITLIN DIMMITT,CAITLIN JOHNSON,
DEVYN JOHNSON,TIFFANY JOHNSON,GUNNAR MAZUR,
KATIE OTOUSA, PAUL PATTERSON,AMANDA SCHAIBLE,AND
JUSTIN TUNG WITH CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION FOR
THEIR SERVICE DURING 2007/2008.
http://moorpark.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view id=11&clip_id=505 6/20/2013
367
REGULAR CC Page 2 of 8
5. PUBLIC COMMENT:
TWO SPEAKERS.
6. REORDERING OF,AND ADDITIONS TO,THE AGENDA:
CONSENSUS TO PULL ITEM 10.D. FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION UPON THE REQUEST OF MAYOR
HUNTER.
CONSENSUS TO HEAR ITEM 9.C. PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARINGS
UPON THE REQUEST OF MAYOR HUNTER.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.AND REPORTS ON
MEETINGS/CONFERENCES ATTENDED BY COUNCILMEMBERS AND
MAYOR:
COUNCILMEMBER VAN DAM ANNOUNCED THE FREE HIGH STREET
BROADCAST WILL BE AT 7:00 P.M.ON SUNDAY,MAY 24TH AT THE
HIGH STREET ARTS CENTER.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN DAM ANNOUNCED THAT AT 7:00 P.M.ON
THURSDAY, MAY 22ND, THE MOORPARK HIGH SCHOOL BAND
GRAND FINALE CONCERT WILL BE HELD AT THE HIGH SCHOOL.
COUNCILMEMBER MIKOS REPORTED ON MAY 15TH,SHE AND MR.
HOGAN ATTENDED A CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE WORKSHOP IN
LOS ANGELES PRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMISSION AND THE CALIFORNIA OFFICEOF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL SHE PROVIDED A HANDOUT TO COUNCIL
AND RECOMMENDED THE CITY DEVELOP A PROGRAM FOR GREEN
BUILDING IN MOORPARK.
COUNCILMEMBER MIKOS ANNOUNCED THE 2ND ANNUAL BIO
BLITZ, SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE AND
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC WILL BE HELD FROM 10:00 A.M. MAY 30TH
UNTIL NOON MAY 31ST AT THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS TO
COUNT THE DIVERSE PLANT LIFE IN THIS LOCATION. ANYONE
INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING SHOULD CALL NATIONAL
GEOGRAPHIC AT 202-457-8496. THIS EVENT WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY A FESTIVAL AT PARAMOUNT RANCH.
COUNCILMEMBER MIKOS ANNOUNCED THE RELAY FOR LIFE WILL
BEGIN AT 10:00 A.M.AT THE MOORPARK HIGH SCHOOL TRACK
ON MAY 31ST.
http://moorpark.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=11&clip id=505 6/20/2013
368
REGULAR CC Page 3 of 8
COUNCILMEMBER MIKOS ANNOUNCED ON MAY 31ST LOCAL
AWARD WINNING PUBLIC RADIO STATION KCLU WILL BENEFIT
FROM THE PROCEEDS OF A SPECIAL DAY AT THE HOME OF LARRY
HAGMAN IN OJAI. GO TO kclu.org FOR MORE INFORMATION.
COUNCILMEMBER MILLHOUSE REPORTED ON HIS RECENT
ATTENDANCE AT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS WHERE THE
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN WAS ADOPTED.
COUNCILMEMBER MILLHOUSE ANNOUNCED THE U.S.MEN'S
OLYMPIC WATER POLO TEAM WILL BE TRAINING DURING THE
SUMMER AT CAL LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY AND OAKS CHRISTIAN
HIGH SCHOOL A FUND RAISER FOR THE TEAM WILL BE HELD
SATURDAY, MAY 24TH FROM 7:30-9:30 P.M.AT THE COLD STONE
CREAMERY IN MOORPARK.ALSO 25 LOCAL RESTAURANTS HAVE
COMMITTED TO DONATING A PORTION OF THEIR SALES TO TEAM
U.S.A. FLYERS FOR DISCOUNTS AND INFORMATION ON MAKING
DONATIONS ARE AVAILABLE AT COLD STONE CREAMERY AND AT
SOME LOCAL GROCERY STORES.
COUNCILMEMBER PARVIN CONGRATULATED THE MOORPARK
ROTARY CLUB,WHICH HAS INCREASED IN MEMBERSHIP ENOUGH
TO EXPAND TO FORM A BREAKFAST CLUB.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN DAM CONGRATULATED COUNCILMEMBER
PARVIN ON HER RECENT AWARD FROM THE MOORPARK
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AS'WOMAN OF THE YEAR".
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Consider Resolution for Commercial Planned Development (CPD)
No. 2007-02 to Allow the Construction of a Human Services Center
within Two(2) Buildings,Totaling Approximately 25,000 Square Feet,
for Non-Emergency Medical/Dental Services, Educational Uses, and
Charitable Services. Located on 2.05 Acres at 612 Spring Road on
the Application of the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. Staff
Recommendation: 1)Open the public hearing. accept public
testimony, and close the public hearing:and 2)Adopt Resolution No.
2008-2712,approving CPD No.2007-02 with conditions. (Staff:
David Bobardt)
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 08a
http://moorpark.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=11&clip_id=505 6/20/2013
369
REGULAR CC Page 4 of 8
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING ADOPTION
OF RESOLUTION NO. 2008-2712,AS AMENDED. (VOICE VOTE:
UNANIMOUS)
9. PRESENTATION/ACTION/DISCUSSION:
A. Consider Alignment Study for Proposed Northerly Extension of State
Route 23(SR 23)(Project 8045). Staff Recommendation: 1) Find SR
23 North alignment as described in Alternate 2 of the agenda report to
be consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan; 2)
Direct staff to work with the developers of properties within and
outside the boundaries of the City on efforts to fund,design,and
construct future projects to implement the subject proposed highway
realignment 3)Direct that any street design shall incorporate trails
consistent with the Circulation Element and maintain existing trail
connections: and 4)Further direct staff as deemed appropriate.
(Staff: Yugal LaII)
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 09a
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION. DIRECTED STAFF TO
MAKE SURE ANY ALIGNMENT OF THE BROADWAY EXTENSION
IS ON TOP OF THE BLUFF AND NOT ON THE SLOPE OF HAPPY
CAMP CANYON REGIONAL PARK OR WITHIN THE PARK SITE
AND TO WORK WITH CALTRANS TO ADDRESS ELEVATION
AND GRADING ISSUES.
B. Consider Conceptual Design for the North Hills Parkway Project
(Project 8061). Staff Recommendation: 1)Receive and file the
feasibility study for the North Hills Parkway:2) Find the highway
alignment and preferred alternate set forth in said study for the design
of the intersection of North Hills Parkway and Gabbert Road to be
consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan;3)Direct
that any street design incorporate trails consistent with the Circulation
Element and maintain existing trail connections; and 4) Further direct
staff as deemed appropriate. (Staff: Yucial Lall)
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 09b
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
C. Consider Noise Study for State Route 23 Freeway Soundwalls
Adiacent to Tract 4975(Toscana Neighborhood). Staff
Recommendation: Direct staff to proceed with soundwall design and
permitting. (Staff: David Bobardt)
httn://mooroark.eranicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=11&clip_id=505 6/20/2013
370
REGULAR CC Page 5 of 8
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 09c
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION. DIRECTED STAFF TO
CONSIDER GRAFFITI ABATEMENT FOR THE SOUND WALL.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED)
APPROVED THE CONSENT CALENDAR,WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
ITEMS 10.D,WHICH WAS PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL
CONSIDERATION. (ROLL CALL VOTE: UNANIMOUS)
A. Consider Warrant Register for Fiscal Year 2007-2008-May 21,
2008. Staff Recommendation:Approve the wan-ant register.
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 10a
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
B. Consider Revised Design Modifications for Signing and Striping at the
Intersection of Campus Park Drive and Princeton Avenue. Staff
Recommendation: Approve the subject project. (Staff: Yugal Lan)
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 10b
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
C. Consider Establishing a Non-Competitive (Management)Employee
First Time Home Buyer Program. Staff Recommendation: Authorize
staff to proceed with a Non-Competitive Employee First Time Home
Buyer Program and authorize the City Manager to approve other
program requirements and procedures. (Staff: David Moe)
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 10c
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
D.
Consider Proposed Amendment to the Implementation Plan for
Improvements Associated with Tract Nos. 5187-182 and 5405, the
Meridian Hills Residential Development Project,on the Application of
William Lyon Homes(Upon Transfer of Ownership of the Meridian
Hills Development Project from William Lyon Homes to Resmark
Equity Partners, LLC, (ORA Ashford 94, LLC)1. Staff
Recommendation: Approve the Amended Implementation Plan for
improvements to Tract Nos. 5187-1&2 and 5405. subject to review of
http://moorpark.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=11&clip_id=505 6/20/2013
371
REGULAR CC Page 6 of 8
final language and determination of satisfactory financial capacity by
the City Manager and City Attorney. (Staff: David Bobardt)
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 10d
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION. DIRECTED STAFF TO
PROVIDE A STATUS REPORT ON JUNE 18, 2008.
E. Consider the 2008 General Plan Update Program. Staff
Recommendation: Receive and file. (Staff: David Bobardt)
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 10e
RECEIVED AND FILED REPORT.
F. Consider Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Grant Applications to
the California Integrated Waste Management Board for Use of
Rubberized Asphalt Concrete. Staff Recommendation: Adopt
Resolution No. 2008-2713. (Staff: Yugal LaII)
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 10f
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION,INCLUDING ADOPTION
OF RESOLUTION NO.2008-2713. (ROLL CALL VOTE:
UNANIMOUS)
G. Consider Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2007/08 Budget for
Mid-Year Budget Adjustment Corrections for Public Transit Division.
Staff Recommendation:•Adopt Resolution No.2008-2714. ROLL
CALL VOTE REQUIRED (Staff: Yugal Lail)
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 1 Og
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING ADOPTION
OF RESOLUTION NO.2008-2714. (ROLL CALL VOTE:
UNANIMOUS)
H. Consider Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute all
Documents for the California Transit Security Grant Program-
California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF) Program with the
Governor's Office of Homeland Security. Staff Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 2008-2715. (Staff; Yugal Lall)
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 10h
http://moorpark.granicus.com/MinutesV iewer.php?view_id=11&clip_id=505 6/20/2013
372
REGULAR CC Page 7 of 8
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING ADOPTION
OF RESOLUTION NO.2008-2715. (ROLL CALL VOTE:
UNANIMOUS)
I. Consider Fiscal Agent Contract for Management, Funding,and Cost
Sharing Implementation of the Calleguas Creek Watershed Total
Maximum Daily Load Program. Staff Recommendation: 1)Authorize
the Mayor to sign the Fiscal Agent Contract: and 2) Authorize the City.
Manager to execute any necessary subsequent amendments to the
Fiscal Agent Contract that are consistent with the terms of the
Memorandum of Agreement. ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED (Staff:
Yugal Lail)
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 10i
APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION. (ROLL CALL VOTE:
UNANIMOUS)
J. Consider Amendment No.2 Revising the Scope of Services and
Compensation Plan for Fiscal Year 2008-09 of the Agreement with
Library Systems&Services, LLC(LSSI. Staff Recommendation:
Approve Amendment No. 2 to LSSI Agreement for operation or the
Moorpark City Library.which includes a revised Scope of Services
and Compensation Plan for Fiscal Year 2008/09. subject to final
language approval by the City Manager. (Staff: Jennifer Mellon)
agenda report 2008 05 21 cc 10j
• APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
11. ORDINANCES: (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED)
NONE.
12. CLOSED SESSION:
THE COUNCIL RECESSED AT 9:29 P.M.FOR CLOSED SESSION
DISCUSSION OF ITEMS 12.D.AND 12.E. ON THE AGENDA.
D. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR(Pursuantto Section
54957.6 of the Government Code)Agency Designated
Representative: Steven Kueny Employee Organization: Service
Employees International Union,AFL-CIO, CLC, Local 721
E. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR(Pursuant to Section
http://moorpark.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view id=11&clip_id=505 6/20/2013
373
REGULAR CC Page 8 of 8
54957.6 of the Government Code)Agency Designated
Representative: Steven Kueny Unrepresented employees:
Accountant I:Active Adult Center Supervisor;Administrative Services
Director/City Clerk;Assistant City Clerk;Assistant City Engineer;
Assistant City Manager;Assistant Engineers City Engineer/Public
Works Director; Community Development Director; Deputy City
Manager:Finance and Accounting Manager: Finance Director.,
Human Resources Analyst: Information Systems Analyst:information
Systems Manager; Landscape/Parks Maintenance Superintendent;
Management Analyst; Parks and Landscape Manager; Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Director. Planning Director;
Principal Planner; Public Works Superintendent;
Recreation/Community Services Manager; Redevelopment Manager;
and Senior Management Analyst
13. ADJOURNMENT:
9:55 P.M.
•
http://moorpark.granicus.corn/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=11&clip_id=505 6/20/2013
374
ITEM °I A.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council \?)(1)
FROM: Yugal K.Lail, City Engineer/Public Works Director
DATE: May 9,2008 (CC Meeting of 05/21/08)
SUBJECT: Consider Alignment Study for Proposed Northerly Extension of State
Route 23 (SR 23)(Project 8045)
DISCUSSION,
A. Background
In December of 2005 the Parsons Group was selected to prepare a
feasibility/alignment study for the proposed realignment of State Route 23. The
project scope is described below.
B. Alignment Study Maps
A set of maps and charts for this project has been distributed to the City Council by
separate Memo.
C. Proposed Highway Alignment
The proposed realignment of SR 23 (Attachment 1)would extend Broadway to the
east, turn south, and proceed in a southerly direction along the east side of
Moorpark Highlands (Pardee), and then connect to the freeway in the vicinity of the
existing Princeton interchange.
D. Design Alternatives
1. Alternative 1: This is a"no build" alternative.
2. Alternative 2: This "preferred alternative includes construction of bridge
connections to the freeway for northbound 23 and eastbound 23 to 118. An "at
grade" on ramp would serve southbound 23. The North Hills Parkway would be
5:4'u01ic WorkstEvuyonelStaR Rbpu1sY10081MaytSR23 a6gnmenldac
XI(JO024
375
Honorable City Council
May 21,2008
Page 2
extended easterly to intersect Princeton Avenue just north of the freeway.
Northbound traffic from the 118 to 23, would exit the freeway at Princeton and
proceed westerly along North Hills Parkway to a four-way intersection with the
new SR 23 just north of the freeway. The map attached as Attachment 1 shows
these proposed traffic patterns.
3. Alternative 3: This option shows the new SR 23 extending south to Princeton
Avenue through Crawford Canyon. Southbound 23 bdlfc would access the
freeway via an on-ramp from eastbound North Hills Parkway. All other traffic
would be required to use Princeton Avenue and the Princeton Avenue freeway
ramps.
4. Alternative 4: This option is similar to Alternative 3. The only difference is the
addition of a"flyover"bridge on-ramp from the new SR 23.
GENERAL PLAN
The Circulation Element of the General Plan calls for an east extension of the SR 23
from the SR 118/SR 23 Freeway to Broadway, along the east side of the Moorpark
Highlands Specific Plan area. The proposed alignment of the SR 23 extension in this
study is consistent with this plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Planning Director has determined that the action of the City Council to find the
conceptual design/alignment to be consistent with the Circulation Element of the
General Plan is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
in that this action is not an approval of a project.
FISCAL IMPACT
1. Estimated Project Cost Summary. An estimate of total project costs is as
follows:
Project 8045:SR 23 Realignment Estimated
Description Cost($)
Environmental 1,500,000
Design 4,730,000
Right-of-Way 11,065,000
Construction 60,445,000
Inspection 7,000,000
Total 84,740,000
2. Project Design Cost Summary. An estimate of total project costs is as
follows:
S.%Pubfic WorkslEveryo oe S f Reports1200(WMy1SR 23 alignment.doc i 1 U 0 02 5
376
Honorable City Council
May 21, 2008
Page 3
Total Est Approved Future
Description Cost($) to Date($) Costs($)
Conceptual Design 132,264 132,264 0
Preliminary Design 2,730,000 0 2,730,000
Environmental 1,500,000 0 1,500,000
Final PS&E 2,000,000 0 2,000,000
Total 6,362,264 132,264 6,230,000
3. Feasibility Study Costs Summary A summary of feasibility design costs
incurred to date, is as follows:
Contract Expense
Description Amount($) to Date($) Unexpended($)
Alignment Study 132,264 84,413 47,851
4. FY 07/08 Budget A re-cap of the FY 2007/08 Budget for this project is as
follows:
Project 8045:SR 23 Realignment Current
Prior Years FY 07108 Total
Description Expenses($) Budget(3) Appropriations($)
Design 71,919 78,081 150,000
Relocation 0 0 0
Right-of-Way 0 0 0
Construction 0 0 0
inspection 0 0 0
Total 71,919 78.081 150,000
5. Current Funding Source: Project 8045 is funded by Fund 2002: Traffic
Mitigation Fund. •
6. Proposed Future Project Funding. It is anticipated that future project funding
will require participation from the private sector with possible assistance from
State and Federal highway improvement grants.
E. Next Steps
Parsons' study listed possible"Next Steps" as follows:
1. Meet with Caltrans for informational discussions.
2. Discuss with Caltrans appropriate project initiation documents.
3. Develop Project Study Report(PSR). Seek conceptual approval.
4. Conduct environmental review.
5. Design.
6. Construction.
A major prerequisite to proceeding with the project would be securing a project
funding source.
81Pubtic Wotks1 Everyune\Stat<RepaRSt20081May∎SR 23 argument hoc i•i 00 I26
377
Honorable City Council
May 21,2008
Page 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Find SR 23 North alignment as that described in Alternate 2 of the staff report to be
consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
2. Direct staff to work with the developers of properties within and outside the
boundaries of the City on efforts to fund, design, and construct future projects to
implement the subject proposed highway realignment.
3. Direct that any street design shall incorporate trails consistent with the Circulation
Element and maintain existing trail connections.
4. Further direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Attachment
1. Location Map and Traffic Patterns
s1Pubhc Works%Eve oneiSbff Rep046120081Mey1SR 23 arpnmentaoc 0 V 027
378
. ....,.........„.... . _
. .
.. .. .., . .
7..
, .. .., . . .
..:-...; ,- - - • • . "'. ' — .
.'.'..'1
'....z. I
:-:'.' • . - . .-'it.k ::-.-:. i':*.::.• '...:...!`'.%...3 1' I
• . .: : -4 ••:` ....>if g--.E.,Vir. ..::;:zi:iik-i; '. ..... .\,„.t. • ' I
...-....I,•
' . .
•
-.-• ..' -•''.. "'r -' • ' -. 1.-; '• IN. ''.....'10; : '- 1'-' .' 1
'''
:'-::-T.' - . • - .t• - • 1 . -, •• 1
-. .. .... • i
• ....' 1
. .
• ..•,...,
' '''''•'.'.' •'• •% . . . ,..,. ,.
, , • .
. 1
; • r; :, . . •.......,. , ' ... ...,. $
1 ...1.•,
...., • •.....
I '.''''!‘.:1 ..,.. , • ■
• . ,,,••. 1
1 •'..,'-..
• . 1
. • . d.... .. I
I
4,...... i. i
l'.4...
?-4%.“. • I
-• '
. .•,.-
1
--•"g• ,--•, -.----••... - . , '.I. -; ..-
--
It
..-,
,_ •
• .-.-:-Z..2,,'t.':::. ' -`.44':. i
"-•---,"e'.7.-, !
-:49.::.::::'.,''''• t- -. ''''..- ....- .
, -
• .
I :
'?...'``ra . .•-9:. ". _...v."
g •. ti.'":40. , ..,. . . !• . - . . • i
i ,-.-•
II -,-.- r•.;
Le
F..4...W3 1
• -.:.,:,.--.--,4:-...„ ;.••-,-.,--."
- E
. . - ..,..P.;:.--;-...-..7.-..-...,...........- _..,... I
- -.---,....::-.....4......-...-........•-•:.4..,.. 1
•
; . ....-:-..„ -..• -
- - r• . . , .,••. .
.• - •-•'.' ,.,.,-...,, .,dah• . ., .
- • - I
4.-....., ...---.:.- • ...::.• kir,,. • .
• :.:.,_•.
--, •,,,,,,,,4,,......7,.. t - ,1..... , •--- tit-w,' .. ••
a.-7. .,174 •v,,,-- .
,
•
:
. 1,-...,,,, ••=7.! .40.5, - ' 4,: 0.4
x -•-••
,4,'"*.-r.--1 . "' -7'.•-
' -,..• - ' -, - - . . -„,..-
•t,-,,,_ 47",::-.:, •. ,,'....,..-..„:- . ...„. ='•-• • .. 1, . - -,._-„. , ,..
1 . -;.i-•;:.. `.--7. 0
. ..:„._•. ......
.A.: .,. ,-. ..,.... ..-.- . ' -,-,......: . ., -
.-..,.-_,0, %- --• , . --.. , • ....: ,
. , ... ... . ...
..... .. . -
. • ...
. • ._,.....1..,........„‘••• . ..._
k 7.;,.: t., . t _ •-•..xl,,.', ., LNIIIV . . . • i
4- ...,.,.. f•da., •71.
g :i',,' r-',._,,,.■ 4,..4 t„,„,3_30.--EA- -0---,...,t,'10.:::.. - . - . - • .. ..
. ,
f ., c,...;,. vi., .c•-■mr,.r
. *E0-7
I .. 'Ve.....-1. . .,,,...•.,,,,,4.,2, .,
i--fiki*. ----." A„-,,A,i•-.--- -.1. --...---?!wr:1.. ..: :-Ii..-1,:...,.! ••••
l'... I 6-46'
'"Y•ne,..., ,Few ,tem.,..,.... .E
- Cm") ' rCit • -..r...7. .„,..
• I,rel- 5ig"- - -.: ...
-
1• t-,--,' 4 fiR
..* :-.------ . . ..•-., ' 1
.' '4...4 t le 0 •■••• .--...-.. .
''.. . . I .•. - -. -
"-■ ;
k,. •.,-rrnifer:t.
C % ii. -,rAt:.:.- •--------- .i ,.-..4
..i.7.-....•----: '-c-_-.1-_-,--..• .- ,.....,•:::•:.:.:-..i-_,,,... .::-•••,,..,- ..: P .
- - . ...., • . s.-' '1 :-'....—.:--...4..:i ..T 14-.),,,,;•-•,.'.74.,,L,::. • ,.,...
....#.3 I
■
I . •""":*'''".;715....:,... .:. ..' - ''t,'...,.1•7-4-7,-.-•:-.. . if,.1.-14;.4.,... .....,..A.,,..,:„..
t,„.1... i ,v .,.. '.. . , •,-,•:.4.,;i...--. , .!.....''''.. ....1;'..:S .:*• . C",..,") I
1 .
,.. ',..7 •:*.',.•
. .
- •r
... ,
! :..-7--t-.:. a -, --1-F, -:.;,.. :•.---1....;,-.--i-.44 - . -
-1- 1'-,P.10-4-- t.. 7,6t,. , •
l• 1 .""4 ',
.. • ,•.--t
.•'4 5 ' !,.
: e001,400„.• -
..... ‘......
II f.,„ *" 1 r
. .._. rl
, <
-6■
I . .
379
ITEM 1*5.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
•
TO: Honorable City Council 1
FROM: Yugal K. Lall, City Engineer/Public Works Director
DATE: May 8,2008 (CC Meeting of 05/21/08)
SUBJECT: Consider Conceptual Design for the North Hills Parkway Project
(Project 8061)
DISCUSSION
A. Background
In July of 2004, the City Council approved the selection of the Parsons Group to
prepare a feasibility study to investigate the conceptual alignment/feasibility of North
Hills Parkway(the project scope is described below).
B. Feasibility Study Maps&Charts
A set of maps and charts for this project has been distributed to the City Council by
separate Memo.
C. Feasibility Study
The Parsons Group has completed an alignment/feasibility study for this project.
Key points in that study are summarized as follows:
1. Executive Summary Attachment 1 is a copy of the Executive summary from the
study. This brief summary addresses all of the findings and recommendations
set forth in the full study.
2. Project Segments: Three segments are discussed in the study, described as
follows: 1)the north-south segment extending north from Los Angeles Avenue;2)
the main east-west component of the project,extending east to Spring Road;and
3) the Gabbert Road realignment component of the project. A map attached as
Attachment 2 shows the entire project.
SAPublie Works\Everyone■StelReport.\20061MayWorth Mtts PkwyConcepldoc I UU 029
380
Honorable City Council
May 21,2008
Page 2
3. Highway Width: The recommended right-way corridor for the project varies with
a minimum width of 200 feet The proposed Phase 1 improvements provide for
only one lane in each direction. Phase 2, or ultimate, improvements provide for
construction of a four-lane highway. The diagram attached as Attachment 3
shows the cross sections for these phases of construction.
4. Los Angeles Avenue Intersection: The north-south segment (at the west end
of the project) is proposed to intersect Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) at a point
west of Butter Creek Road.
5. Railway Grade Separation: The north-south segment will include construction of
an underpass to allow the street to pass under the railroad.
6. Tee Intersection: The north-south segment is proposed to intersect the east-
west segment at an intersection designed to accommodate a possible future
westerly extension of the east-west segment of the North Hills Parkway.
7. Gabbert Road Intersection: The preferred alternative provides for a four-way
intersection at Gabbert Road. An alternative (not recommended) was studied to
provide for a predominant traffic flow between the east leg and the south leg of
this intersection.
8. Gabbert Road Rail Crossing The project includes construction of
improvements to complement the proposed improvements, as conditioned for
Tract 5147 at the Gabbert Road rail crossing. These improvements have been
included in order to better handle the anticipated increased traffic volume on
Gabbert Road north of the rail crossing. This rail crossing will remain an "at-
grade"crossing.
9. Right-of-Way Acquisition: Approximately 93 acres of right-of-way will be
required for the project, however, most of the required right-of-way will be
dedicated to the City as part of development projects (Hitch Ranch, SunCal, AB
Properties, Pardee, and Tentative Tract 5505). Construction of a bridge over
Walnut Canyon Road will require the acquisition of four residential properties.
10_Project Cost Estimate: The project cost estimate is discussed on page 5 of the
Executive Summary and in this report under Fiscal Impact.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Circulation Element of the General Plan calls for an east/west six-lane arterial to
extend from the SR 118 Freeway at Princeton Avenue west to Gabbert Road. West of
SAPublic Werks1EveryonelShat/Repods120081MayWorth Hills Pkwy_Canceptdoc t)00 03 0
381
Honorable City Council
May 21,2008
Page 3
Gabbert Road, this arterial is planned as a four-lane arterial, ultimately connecting with
Los Angeles Avenue on the west side of the City. Gabbert Road is planned as a four-
lane arterial from this east/west arterial south to Los Angeles Avenue. The Proposed
conceptual design of the North Hill Parkway project is consistent with this plan_ The
Circulation Element also has an equestrian trail network plan. Any improvements to the
road network would have to include improvements consistent with this trail plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Planning Director has determined that the action of the City Council to find the
conceptual design/alignment to be consistent with the Circulation Element of the
General Plan is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
in that this action is not an approval of a project.
FISCAL IMPACT
1. Estimated Project Cost Summary. An estimate of total project costs is as
follows:
Estimated
Description Cost($)
Environmental 1,559,000
Design 6,823,000
Right-of-Way 2,000,000
Construction 66,220,000
Inspection 8,187,000 •
Total 84,789,000
2. Project Design Cost Summary. An estimate of total project costs is as
follows:
Estimated Approved Future
Description Cost($) to Date($) Costs($)
Conceptual Design 270,548 270,548 0
Preliminary Design 4,000,000 0 4,000,000
Environmental 1,559,000 0 1,559,000
Final PS&E 2,823,000 0 2,823,000
Total 8,652,548 270,548 8,382,000
3. Feasibility Study Costs Summary. A summary of feasibility design costs
incurred to date, is as follows:
Contract Expence
Description Amount($) to Date($) Unexpended($)
Feasibility Study 270,548 256,842 13,706
S:wudic Waks1Everyone\Staf Reports\20081MayWoAh HMIs Pkvry_Conceptdoc 000031
382
Honorable City Council
May 21, 2008
Page 4
4. FY 07/08 Budget A re-cap of the FY 2007/08 Budget for this project is as
follows:
Project 8061:North Hills Parkway Current
Prior Years FY 07/08 Total
Description Expenses($) Budget($) Appropriations($)
Design • 256,842 43,158 300,000
Relocation 0 0 0
Right-of-Way 100,000 100,000
Construction 0 0 0
Inspection 0 0 0
Total 256,842 143,158 400,000 •
5. Current Funding Source: Project 8061 is funded by Fund 2002: Traffic
Mitigation Fund.
•
6. Proposed Future Project Funding: It is anticipated that future project funding
will require participation from the private sector with possible assistance from
State and Federal highway improvement grants. It is likely that major portions
of the improvements would be constructed as part of development approvals.
The City previously conducted a preliminary review of the potential use of an
assessment district for this route.
D. Next Steps
Parsons'study listed possible"Next Steps"as follows:
1. Meet with Caltrans for informational discussions.
2. Discuss with Caltrans appropriate project initiation documents.
3. Develop Project Study Report(PSR). Seek conceptual approval.
4. Conduct environmental review:
5. Design.
6. Construction.
A major prerequisite to proceeding with the project would be securing a project
funding source.
. i
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Receive and file the feasibility study for the North Hills Parkway.
2. Find the highway alignment and preferred alternate set forth in said study for the
design of the intersection of North Hills Parkway and Gabbed Road to be consistent
with the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
3. Direct that any street design incorporate trails consistent with the Circulation
Element and maintain existing trail connections.
4. Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
SAPuWicWorks\Everyone1Staf Reports120084May\No th E Is Pkwy_Conceptdac 00 032
383
Honorable City Council
May 21, 2008
Page 5
Attachments:
1 Executive Summary
2 Location Map
3 Roadway cross sections
SVublic works‘EverYonetste RepedeaDossmayvkiolth Hilt Pkwy_Concept.doc i 00033
384
Attachment 1
North Hills Parkway
Final Feasibility Study
Executive Summary
Overview
This report assesses the feasibility of constructing the following three roadway
segments to improve the traffic circulation within the City of Moorpark:
1. North Hills Parkway Norfh/South (N/S)
2. North Hills Parkway
3. Gabbert Road Realignment
Exhibit E-1 illustrates the site overview and conceptual alignments of this project.
The primary objective of this feasibility study is to develop engineering alternatives
as a means of establishing the basis of horizontal alignments and vertical profiles.
This report also assesses the feasibility of each alternative in terms of the
constraints and impacts,as well as the costs associated with project development
and construction.The feasibility of each proposed alternative is evaluated based
on the current and future operational needs for the City in order to expand the
vehicular traffic handling capacity within the project limits.
Conceptual Design and Analysis
To improve traffic circulation and safety, two build alternatives were evaluated as
part of this study.The major features of two build alternatives differ slightly. Based
on the preliminary study and analysis, both alternatives will enhance traffic
capacity and are expected to relieve future congestion in this area.
Preferred Alternative
North Hills Parkway N/S •
North Hills Parkway N/S is a four-lane arterial and provides a connection
southward to Los Angeles Avenue(SR-118).This arterial crosses the Union
Pacific Railroad(UPRR)and the SCE high-voltage overhead power lines
immediately north of the railroad tracks in a grade-separated underpass (UP)
structure.The intersection at North Hills Parkway N/S and Los Angeles Avenue
(SR-118)is proposed as a signalized intersection.
North Hills Parkway N/S is designed to increase traffic capacity,enhance the
circulation in the city,and relieve traffic impacts to Los Angeles Avenue
(SR-118).The proposed UP structure eliminates the train and vehicular traffic
conflicts, enhances safety,and minimizes the delay.
North Hills Parkway
North Hills Parkway is proposed as an approximately 4-mi-long arterial with two
12-ft-wide lanes and a 12-ft outside shoulder in each direction to accommodate
the expected demand from proposed developments. North Hills Parkway starts
near the west side of the city boundary approximately%mi north of the existing
Los Angeles Avenue(SR-118)and intersects the proposed North Hills
February 2008 1 PARSONS
page 2 II-tank i'30034
385
North Hills Parkway
Final Feasibility Study
Parkway N/S at this location. One-half mile east of the North Hills Parkway and
North Hills Parkway N/S intersection, North Hills Parkway extends to the east
and intersects the realigned Gabbert Road at an approximate right angle.This
intersection is anticipated to be signalized with the predominant movement
along the east—west direction on North Hills Parkway.
An overcrossing(OC)structure is proposed where the proposed North Hills
Parkway crosses over the existing Walnut Canyon Road (SR-23). Because of
the hilly terrain,the OC structure is 65 ft above the area along SR-23. Four
residential properties adjacent to SR-23 would be impacted by the proposed
North Hills Parkway OC and would have to be relocated.
Phase 1 of North Hills Parkway initially provides for a two-lane highway with a
raised median for left-turn lanes or landscaping.At this stage,North Hills
Parkway will primarily accommodate the traffic volumes generated by the
current housing developments in the city. Ultimately, Phase 2 of North Hills
Parkway will be required to be built out when all residential developments
along its reach are completed.For this study, the right-of-way needed for the
full buildout is included in Phase 1.
Gabbert Road Realignment
South of North Hills Parkway,Gabbert Road is'realigned and upgraded to four
lanes and joins the existing intersection of Gabbert Road and Poindexter
Avenue.The railroad crossing on the realigned Gabbert Road remains at
grade; no grade separation is proposed for this crossing. However,the railroad
quad gates system on the grade crossing is upgraded to enhance safety.
The realigned Gabbert Road links North Hills Parkway and Tierra Rejada
Road, and forms a loop route through the city while improving the traffic
circulation.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 is a variation of the Preferred Alternative. In this alternative,the
intersection of North Hills Parkway and realigned Gabbert Road is configured as a
Y-shaped intersection instead of the cross-shaped intersection described in the
Preferred Alternative to accommodate traffic movements between North Hills
Parkway and Gabbert Road.This alternative makes the westbound movement on
North Hills Parkway the predominant movement through the intersection. In order
for this intersection to operate effectively,a separate signal phase would be
necessary for the eastbound traffic on North Hills Parkway going through the
intersection.
Investigation and Findings
Environmental
According to the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report(PEAR)
developed as part of the Feasibility Study,no significant impacts are identified and
no special permits are required. An Initial Study(IS)leading to a Mitigated
February 2008 3 PARSONS
00035
386
North Hills Parkway
Final Feasibility Study
Negative Declaration (MND)is therefore recommended as the appropriate
environmental document under California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)
guidelines.
Right-of-Way
Approximately 93 acres of right-of-way(RAN)are required for this project, and four
residential properties are impacted by the proposed alignment.
A portion of the R/W has already been dedicated on the west end of the parkway.
Developers of the land adjacent to North Hills Parkway would be required to
dedicate the remaining R/W.This study assumes that those RANs would be
contributed by the developers at no cost. Right-of-way acquisition of the four
residential properties would require the standard acquisition process, including an
approved Environmental Document and the possibility of going through the
condemnation process if the properties could not be obtained cooperatively.
Railroad
Two railroad crossings and their pertinent improvements are proposed and
identified below:
1. Construct an underpass structure(UP)where North Hills Parkway N/S
crosses Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR)/Metrolink(SCRRA) track.
2. Modify the existing at-grade crossing where the realigned Gabbert Road
crosses UPRR/Metrolink(SCRRA)track.
Utilities
Most of the project area encompasses undeveloped land;therefore, minimal
underground utility conflicts are anticipated. However,overhead high-voltage
power lines are found in the project area.As part of the underpass, retaining walls
are required to protect an existing SCE electrical tower located on the side slope
of North Hills Parkway N/S and to provide access for maintenance.
Existing utilities lines along the rail road property will have to be accommodated in
the new underpass.
Hydraulics
The profile of North Hills Parkway N/S at the railroad crossing is approximately 22
ft below the existing ground.A pumping system is needed for the sag locations
underneath the UP structure.
_ The footprint of the North Hills Parkway impacts some natural channels within the
project limits and would encroach on some detention basins proposed by the
developers.A post-development hydrology analysis is recommended in the next
design phase to verify the adequacy of the capacity of those basins and
associated storm drain systems to properly determine the proposed culvert types
and sizes to satisfy the City's requirement to contain all stormwater runoff on site.
February 2008 4 PARSONS
)00 036
387
North Hills Parkway
Final Feasibility Study
Traffic
A detailed traffic study would be required for the next phase of design to analyze
how the intersections along North Hills Parkway and SR-118 would operate in a
20-year horizon period.
Geotechnical
The soil along the alignment of the North Hills Parkway is mainly sandy alluvium;
to prevent settlement, it requires 3 to 10 ft of overexcavation for most of the project
area.The overexcavated soil should be recompacted and reused as embankment
material in order to balance earthwork on site. The existing soil condition also
requires deep pile foundations for the North Hills Parkway N/S underpass
structure. However, the abutments of the North Hills Parkway OC at SR-23 are
located on bedrock, and spread footings can be used there.
Cost Estimate
The total cost for construction,engineering support, and R/W for the project is
approximately$84,9 million.Because of the high degree of similarity between the
two build alternatives presented in this report,the costs differences between the
Preferred Alternative and Alternative 1 are considered negligible.The details of the •
cost estimates are listed in Attachment I.
Tabulated below is the cost summary of construction(R/W cost included)and
engineering support for each roadway segment and construction phase.Phase 1
costs are for the immediate roadway improvements and Phase 2 costs are the
additional costs to improve the roadway for the ultimate buildout.
Phase 1 Phase 2
North Hills North Hills Gabbert North Hills North Hills Gabbert
Parkway NIS Parkway Road Parkway NIS Parkway Road
Roadway $8,286,000 $33,307,000 $3,292,000 $1,208,000 $5,280,000 $691,000
c Structure $1,430,000 $10,660,000 $0 $0 $0 _ $0
Z Right-CM-Way $0 $2,000,000 $0 T $0 $0 $0
2
v RR Shoofly $2,066,000 $0 $0 SO $0 $0
Subtotal $11,782,000 _ $45,967,000 $3,292,000 $1,208,000 $5,280,000 $691,000
Subtotal $61,041,000 $7,179,000
o, Environmental $1,200,000 $359,000
c
d n Design $6,105,000 $718,000
mN CM $7,325,000 $862,000
`u Subtotal $14,630,000 $1,939,000
Phase Total $75,671,000 $9,118,000
Use $75,700,000 $9,200,000
Grand Total $84,900,000
February 2008 5 PARSONS
:'O0037
388
North Hills Parkway
Final Feasibility Study
Conclusions and Recommendations
• Based on the engineering analyses and environmental evaluations while
preparing this report, no fatal flaws were identified for any alternative.
• At locations where the proposed alignments intersect or approach a state
facility,such as over the existing SR-23 and where it connects to the existing
SR-118(Los Angeles Avenue), coordination with Caltrans is required to obtain
formal conceptual approval and to determine the pertinent type of document to
prepare for the next design phase, which could be a project study report(PSR),
project report(PR), or encroachment permit,depending on the nature and cost
of the improvements.
Next Steps
• Conduct an informal meeting with Caltrans to discuss the proposed
alternatives.
• Develop a project study report(PSR)to obtain conceptual approval and seek
project funding for improvements within and outside of state right-of-way.
• After conceptual approval is obtained, proceed with the formal environmental
clearance and the final design of the parkway.
• Work with developers to reserve the necessary right-of-way to complete
Phases 1 and 2 of the North Hills Parkway as detailed in this Feasibility Study.
February 2008 6 PARSONS
389
p', I-t! s 441
4'— L ~-' __
t
-215'49 --
O -
`n� il.1
g
el:
, Lr
kt hi
x *;'
.
J
�v v) , >
1 _ a
_ ry.
i - i.)8 aagge°
i am
0 . cu
. V0
'•-_k-- _!'.'r.-+---• f,fr d O
.. _i G
N
M- ____,ice 1 , J - — -- -L"' ��--17Y�;0--
1t ,�
���� Q
390
EXHIBIT F
to Moorpark's June 26, 2013 Comment Letter on the Grimes Rock FEIR
ATTACHMEN 3
4 w le
+ 4
,, 8 8 i., 8- 8
a 4 _ *1
x 1
i at ±•—
2
• • la N Z X in N
¢W .1
as m
n _ 1
W I
- Y J
m
ve Y ice[ 4°1
n la CIL)
Co,J..--g — Fv a— --- — — cr' •
— — gip— — — — — `�
OA
1
cc
-- i ul z Z W
J J
N-
a 0
X egg h
Y
.`8-11
Y `yw = a OJ
VIZ
1_
1
1 J
N
T— -1^ f
.:,win 8 8 g g 1
..iiffia :S
391
CC ATTACHMENT 4
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Planning Commission
From: Brian R. Baca, Planning Manager
PG 4571, CEG 1922, CHG 398
Commercial and Industrial Permits Section
Ventura County Planning Division
Date: June 27, 2013
Re: Grimes Rock Mining Expansion Project:
Response to 6-26-13 letter from Margaret M. Sohagi
Case No. CUP 4874-2; Reclamation Plan RP12-0001
File No. PL13-0159
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum is provided to your Commission to document Planning staffs
analysis of the letter submitted by attorney Margaret M. Sohagi on behalf of the City of
Moorpark at 4:16 pm on June 26, 2013. This letter(hereinafter the "Moorpark" letter)
comments on the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared
for the Grimes Rock project to be considered at the June 27, 2013 meeting of the
Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
Each of the issues raised in the Moorpark letter are addressed in the following table.
The table is numbered in correspondence with the arrangement of comments in the
Moorpark letter.
Section Sub- Moorpark comment Staff comment
sec.
A The FEIR fails to The KOA Traffic Study(Appendix B, Volume 2
analyze the impacts of the FEIR describes the proposed change
of 600 Saturday truck from a 5-day per week to a 6-day per week
trips. hauling schedule (Table 2, page 4). This
change is also described in Table 2-4 on page
2-19 of the FEIR. KOA Traffic Engineers
specifically selected weekday peak hour
periods for analysis as these represent the
worst case traffic circulation periods. Also,
traffic impacts are assessed by changes in
peak hour traffic. There are no peak hours on
Saturday. Thus, any impacts described in the
CO l)()PI nns n�j �t, 55 k-o n 1--k-uri
E ' Cuue I `t- 2- 392
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 2 of 16
FEIR for a weekday will be less on Saturday.
Also refer to pages 4.1-3 to 4.1-8 in Volume 1
of the FEIR. This comment does not include
any evidence or analysis of a significant traffic
impact due to Saturday operations. Similarly,
the 6-25-13 Memorandum by Linscott, Law, &
Greenspan Engineers(Exhibit C of the
Moorparl letter) provides no evidence of a
potentially significant traffic impact due to
Saturday operations. Refer also to Response
to Comment B.27 (Section B, FEIR Volume 3).
Thus, no change in the FEIR is required.
B The FEIR fails to This issue is adequately addressed in
include the SR 23 Response to Comment A.3.a (Section B, FEIR
Bypass as an Volume 3). The "SR 23 Bypass" is a
alternative or speculative project with no firm timelines or
Mitigation Measure in established funding source or mechanism. It
Violation of CEQA. does not constitute feasible mitigation under
CEQA.
C The Significance In this comment, the Moorpark letter(i.e. the
Thresholds Utilized Linscott, Law, & Greenspan Engineers
in the Analysis of memorandun; Exhibit C) incorrectly compares
City Traffic Impacts the CEQA Threshold utilized for determining
are Inconsistent with project impacts in the FEIR with a City of
CEQA's Moorpark General Plan policy. The City "Level
requirements. of Service Policy 2.1" sets a performance
objective for the maintenance of levels of
service on City roadways. This "performance
objective" is not a CEQA Threshold for
determining the level of significance of a
proposed increase in traffic volume. The
Moorpark letter appears to assert that any
increase in traffic volume is significant no
matter how small. In any case, the CEQA
Threshold utilized by the County in the FEIR is
the appropriate and adequate standard to
assess impacts.
D The County's failure Refer to Responses to comment D.22 and
to enforce the D.24 (Section B, FEIR Volume 3). The haul
southern haul route route restrictions in the current permit for the
restrictions leads to Grimes Rock facility have not been
an significant enforceable and do not reflect the actual
understatement of physical baseline. Based on the 2013 updated
traffic impacts. traffic counts alone, impacts in the FEIR are
overestimated rather than understated. Refer
393
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 3 of 16
to Response to Comment D.14.
Recent events have resulted in the traffic
volumes disclosed in the FEIR to be further
overstated. On June 20, 2013, the permit for
the Best Rock Products mining facility was
revoked by the Ventura County Planning
Commission. This action terminated the Best
Rock mining operation and the associated
mine expansion application. Thus, an existing
460 ADT and proposed 656 ADT of truck traffic
volume has been eliminated from area
roadways. In addition, the Wayne J Sand and
Gravel application for a mine expansion has
been clarified by the applicant to involve a
proposed increase in truck trips to 240 ADT
rather that the previous 460 ADT. With these
actions, the proposed total traffic volume for
the three mines under review (plus CEMEX) is
now 1,680 ADT rather that the 2,556 ADT cited
in the FEIR. Thus, the FEIR substantially
overestimates traffic in all time frames and in
all directions leading from the Grimes Canyon
mining facilities.
Furthermore, Vehicle Code Section 21 states
that Cities and Counties have very limited
authority over vehicle traffic control on State
highways.
E The FEIR's traffic The FEIR does include new traffic counts and
baseline is recognizes the new configuration of the
inaccurate. Broadway/Walnut Canyon Road intersection.
Refer to the KOA Traffic Memorandum in
Section C of FEIR Volume 3. This new traffic
study verified the adequacy of the 2007 KOA
Traffic Study for use in the FEIR. Refer to
Response to Comment D.14 (Section B, FEIR
Volume 3). This comment does not provide
evidence of any new potentially significant
impact. Thus, no change in the FEIR is
required.
F The FEIR's analysis Based on the 2013 updated traffic counts
of cumulative alone, cumulative impacts in the FEIR are
• impacts is legally overestimated rather than understated. Refer
inadequate. to Response to Comment D.14 (Section B,
394
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 4 of 16
I FEIR Volume 3).
Recent events have resulted in the traffic
volumes disclosed in the FEIR to be further
, overstated. On June 20, 2013, the permit for
the Best Rock Products mining facility was
revoked by the Ventura County Planning
Commission. This action terminated the Best
Rock mining operation and the associated
mine expansion application. Thus, an existing
460 ADT and proposed 656 ADT of truck traffic
volume has been eliminated from area
roadways. In addition, the Wayne J Sand and
Gravel application for a mine expansion has
been clarified by the applicant to involve a
proposed increase in truck trips to 240 ADT
rather that the previous 460 ADT. With these
actions, the proposed total traffic volume for
the three mines under review (plus CEMEX) is
now 1,680 ADT rather that the 2,556 ADT cited
in the FEIR. Thus, the FEIR substantially
overestimates traffic in all time frames and in
all directions leading from the remaining
Grimes Canyon mining facilities. Refer also to
Responses to Comment B.22 and B.23.
G The FEIR's traffic This issue is adequately addressed in
mitigation measures Responses to Comment B.8 and B.9, and in
are inadequate. Table A-2 on pages i through xi of the FEIR.
The mitigation measures in the FEIR are
feasible and adequate.
H The FEIR does not The responses to traffic-related cited in the
remedy the Moorpark letter adequately respond to the
deficiencies of the comments received on this topic. Refer to the
RDEIR's traffic Topical Responses to Comment and specific
analysis or Responses to Comments A.3.a, A.3.b, A.4,
adequately respond A.5, B.ii, B.8, B.9, B.13, B.14, B.15, B.16, B.18,
to traffic-related B.19, B.22, B.23, B.28, B.31, B.32, B.38, D.24,
comments. D.28, D.31, and D.72. This comment does not
provide any evidence of a deficiency in the
RDEIR or FEIR traffic analysis or the
responses provided to public comment.
II A The FEIR fails to The proposed mine expansion project is not
include a SB 610 subject to the SB 610 requirement fora water
water supply supply assessment. The mining facility does
assessment in fall into any of the categories of discretionary
395
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 5 of 16
violation of the Water projects that require such an assessment. (See
Code and CEQA. Section 10912 of the Water Code.) For
example, an area of excavation does not
constitute a "industrial facility" or"plant" that
encompasses more than 40 acres. The
"processing" equipment currently on the site is
not proposed to be expanded or changed as
part of the project. No new processing facilities
are proposed. Also, the water demand of the
facility would be less than that of a 500-unit
residential development.
Refer to Topical Response to Comment#5.
The Moorpark comment does not identify any
deficiency in the analysis of water demand in
the FEIR.
B The FEIR lacks an The water quality data provided in the FEIR
adequate and (Tables 4.5-12) indicates that surface runoff at
informative the Grimes Rock facility is of high quality with a
description of the very low electrical conductivity value. Total
environmental setting Dissolved Solids for the Grimes Rock runoff
for analysis of water would be less than 250 mg/I. Oil and
impacts to hydrology grease and Total Suspended Solids were also
and water resources. measured to be very low. All of the measured
values are below the RWQCB discharge limits
for the Santa Clara River. Thus, the ambient
surface water that runs off of the Grimes Rock
site does not have the potential to contaminate
downstream runoff in Grimes Canyon Wash.
Thus, additional water quality data for the
downstream reach of Grimes Canyon Wash is
not necessary to reach this conclusion. The
FEIR recognizes and identifies mitigation for
the potential of mining-related surface water
contamination. The Comment in the Moorpark
letter does not provide evidence of any impact
on water quality.
C The analysis of Specific quantitative thresholds are not
impacts to hydrology possible or necessary in some issue areas.
and water resources The discussion of impacts W4 and W5 in the
is inadequate. i FEIR are adequate to identify potentially
significant impacts of the proposed project. In
both cases, adequate mitigation is also
identified. It is unclear how specific thresholds
396
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 6 of 16
for animal waste deposition or erosion would
be structured. In any case, the only change
that specific thresholds could make from the
current analysis would be to reduce the
identified level of impact. The mitigation
measures would remain the same and be
adequate to address these impacts.
D The hydrology and Drainage basins for runoff and sedimentation
water resource i control are routinely constructed engineering
mitigation measures facilities that are effective and feasible.
are inadequate. Mitigation measure WR5-1 serves to refine the
design of a routine engineering work that
feasibly mitigates the identified impact. Studies
to refine the design of a mitigation measure
known to be feasible are allowed under CEQA.
Refer to Response to Comment R.2 and R.3.
E The FEIR does not Response to Comment S.1 adequately
remedy the addresses the issue identified in the Moorpark
deficiencies of the letter. No evidence of a potentially significant
RDEIR or adequately impact is included in the Moorpark comment.
respond to
comments regarding
hydrology and water
resources.
111 ( A The FEIR fails to Chapter 4.3 of the FEIR adequately addresses
disclose and analyze the issue of noise generation by project-related
the significant and truck traffic. Refer also to Response to
unavoidable noise Comment D.43. Vehicle noise on State or
impacts of project- Federal highways, or on roads in the Regional
related truck traffic. Road Network are not subject to the County
Noise Thresholds or Noise policies.
Refer to Topical Response to Comment#3.
B The FEIR's analysis The comment does not identify any new
of operational noise evidence that there will be a potentially
impacts is significant noise impact at the nearest sensitive
inadequate. receptor. No sensitive receptors, other than the
homes located 2,400 feet from the mining site,
are identified in this comment. Thus, no
change in the FEIR is warranted.
Refer to Topical Response to Comment#3.
C The cumulative noise Chapter 4.3 of the FEIR adequately addresses
analysis is deficient. the issue of noise generation by project-related
truck traffic. Refer also to Response to
397
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 7 of 16
Comment D.43. Refer also to Response to
Comment #3. Vehicle noise on State or
Federal highways, or on roads in the Regional
Road Network are not subject to the County
Noise Thresholds or Noise policies.
D The FEIR does not Chapter 4.3 of the FEIR adequately addresses
remedy the the issue of noise generation by project-related
deficiencies of the truck traffic. Refer also to Response to
RDEIR's noise Comment D.43. Vehicle noise on State or
analysis or Federal highways, or on roads in the Regional
adequately respond Road Network are not subject to the County
to noise-related Noise Thresholds or Noise policies.
comments.
The comment does not identify any new
evidence that there will be a potentially
significant noise impact from onsite operations
at the nearest sensitive receptor. No sensitive
receptors, other than the homes located 2,400
feet from the mining site, are identified in this
comment. Thus, no change in the FEIR is
warranted on this issue.
IV A The FEIR is legally As acknowledged in the comment, the FEIR
inadequate for its discloses the air quality standards and health
failure to provide effects of PM2.5 in Tables 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 of
analysis of criteria the FEIR. The non-attainment status of
pollutant PM2.5 Ventura County in regard to this pollutant is
impacts. acknowledged in Table 4.2-3 of the FEIR.
Table 4.2-4 provides an air quality monitoring
summary that lists the levels of PM2.5
measured at the nearest monitoring station to
the project site. As explained on page 4.2-12
of the FEIR, "fugitive dust during aggregate
activities therefore primary can cause a soiling
nuisance, or add to locally elevated PM-10
levels, but typically not to PM-2.5."Thus, the
analysis in the FEIR is focused on PM10
emissions. Refer to Response to Comment
D.49.D of the FEIR (Volume 3).
B The air quality Refer to Response to Comment B.39. The
analysis utilizes VCAPCD has found that the analysis of
outdated air quality emissions in the FEIR is adequate to disclose
models and Year impacts of the project. Note that all of the truck
1991 meteorological traffic-related cumulative impacts are
data. substantially overestimated in the FEIR
because of new information now available.
398
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 8 of 16
(See Response to Comment D.49. The 2013
traffic counts (FEIR, Volume 3) indicate that
the projections of traffic volumes included in
the FEIR are higher than what would be
projected based on the 2013 data. Also, the 6-
20-13 revocation of the permit for the Best
Rock mine has eliminated 656 ADT in potential
future truck traffic in the project area. Finally,
the applicant for the Wayne J Sand and Gravel
project has reduced the requested truck trips
from 460 ADT to 240 ADT. In summary, the
FEIR describes the air quality effects for 2,556
ADT of truck trips when the actual total
proposed truck traffic volume is currently only
1,680 ADT.
The example air quality analysis sheets
included in Appendix C of FEIR Volume 2
reflect the analysis performed for the 2006
Draft EIR. This analysis was updated in 2009
with the current information in the FEIR. In any
case, the commenter does not identify why any
of the data used is inadequate to disclose
impacts.
C The FEIR's health Refer to the response to comment IV.B above.
analysis is
incomplete and does
not include all
receptors.
D The FEIR's This issue is adequately addressed in
statements that Response to Comment D.49.A (FEIR Volume
emission reduction 3). No change in the FEIR is required.
will occur based on
future cleaner diesel-
powered equipment
is speculative.
E The FEIR's baseline The net increase in emissions over existing
discussion and conditions (i.e. from existing mining operations)
impact analysis are is the impact that is analyzed and disclosed in
contradictory. the CEQA document. Project air pollution was
not measured at the Simi Valley station.
F The FEIR does not Response to Comment B.39 adequately
remedy the addresses the issue raised in the Moorpark
deficiencies of the letter. Responses to Comments B.39, D.49.A,
RDEIR or adequately D.49.C, D.49.D, D.49.E, D.49.G, D.49.I,
399
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 9 of 16
respond to 1 D.49.J, D.49.K, D.49.L, D.49.M, D.50.A,
comments regarding I D.50.B and D.50.0 adequately respond to
air quality. public comments on air quality issues.
V A The FEIR's climate Refer to Response to Comment B.39. The
change analysis analysis of climate change was provided by the
utilizes outdated air VCAPCD and utilizes the EMFAC7 computer
quality models and model. VCAPCD has found that the analysis of
1991 meteorological climate change in the FEIR is adequate to
data. disclose impacts of the project. Note that all of
the truck traffic-related cumulative impacts are
substantially overestimated in the FEIR
because of new information now available.
The 2013 traffic counts (FEIR, Volume 3)
indicate that the projections of traffic volumes
included in the FEIR are higher than what
would be projected based on the 2013 data.
Also, the 6-20-13 revocation of the permit for
the Best Rock mine has eliminated 656 ADT in
potential future truck traffic in the project area.
Finally, the applicant for the Wayne J Sand
and Gravel project has reduced the requested
truck trips from 460 ADT to 240 ADT. In
summary, the FEIR describes the air quality
effects for 2,556 ADT of truck trips when the
actual total proposed truck traffic volume is
currently only 1,680 ADT.
•
The example air quality analysis sheets
included in Appendix C of FEIR Volume 2
reflect the analysis performed for the 2006
Draft EIR. This analysis was updated in 2009
with the current information in the FEIR. In any
case, the commenter does not identify why any
of the data used is inadequate to disclose
impacts.
B The FEIR contains The estimate of greenhouse gas emissions is
no substantial derived from the analysis in the air quality
evidence in support section of the FEIR. The VCAPCD considers
of its climate change the Climate Change section of the FEIR
conclusions. adequate to disclose climate change impacts.
Note that the Grimes Rock project involves
only 160 ADT•of new truck trips. This level of
trips will not have a significant impact on
greenhouse gas emission levels.
400
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 10 of 16
VI A I The FEIR relies on Responses to Comments Q.1 through Q.22
outdated studies adequately addressed the issues raised in the
which do not 10-31-12 letter from the California Department
accurately of Fish and Wildlife. Refer also to Responses
characterize the to Comments D.1 through D.13.
project's impacts on
biological resources. A qualified County biologist inspected the
project site to ensure that the description of
biological resources included in the FEIR is
accurate.
B The FEIR does not Responses to Comments Q.1 through Q.22
remedy the adequately addressed the issues raised in the
deficiencies of the 10-31-12 letter from the California Department
RDEIR's analysis of of Fish and Wildlife. Refer also to Responses
biological resources to Comments D.1 through D.13.
or adequately
respond to biological
resources-related
comments.
401
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 11 of 16
VII A The FEIR's The comment appears to imply that there is no
cumulative impact existing setting of development from which
analysis uses flawed impacts are measured. The FEIR lists current
methodology. and reasonable foreseeable future projects but
recognizes an existing setting that does not
contribute to cumulative impacts. It is a
judgment of the Lead Agency as to the
establishment of the baseline (existing setting)
condition. In any case, the primary offsite
concern of the project is truck trips.
I In measuring cumulative impacts, the isolated
nature of the Grime Rock site makes it
reasonable to evaluate some cumulative
impacts by considering just the mining
operations (i.e. Best Rock, Wayne J, Grimes
Rock). In the case of traffic, projects in the
cities of Fillmore and Moorpark are considered
in the cumulative analysis.
Based on the 2013 updated traffic counts
alone, cumulative impacts in the FEIR are
overestimated rather than understated. Refer
to Response to Comment D.14 (Section B,
FEIR Volume 3).
Recent events have resulted in the traffic
volumes disclosed in the FEIR to be further
overstated. On June 20, 2013, the permit for
the Best Rock Products mining facility was
revoked by the Ventura County Planning
Commission. This action terminated the Best
Rock mining operation and the associated
mine expansion application. Thus, an existing
460 ADT and proposed 656 ADT of truck traffic
volume has been eliminated from area
roadways. In addition, the Wayne J Sand and
Gravel application for a mine expansion has
been clarified by the applicant to involve a
proposed increase in truck trips to 240 ADT
rather that the previous 460 ADT. With these
actions, the proposed total traffic volume for
the three mines under review(plus CEMEX) is
now 1,680 ADT rather that the 2,556 ADT cited
in the FEIR. Thus, the FEIR substantially
402
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 12 of 16
overestimates traffic in all time frames and in
all directions leading from the remaining
Grimes Canyon mining facilities. Refer also to
Responses to Comment B.22 and B.23.
B-1 The cumulative Refer to Response to Comment B.39. The
impact analysis for VCAPCD has found that the analysis of
air quality is emissions in the FEIR is adequate to disclose
inadequate. impacts of the project. Note that all of the truck
traffic-related cumulative impacts are
403
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 13 of 16
substantially overestimated in the FEIR
because of new information now available.
The 2013 traffic counts (FEIR, Volume 3)
indicate that the projections of traffic volumes
included in the FEIR are higher than what
would be projected based on the 2013 data.
Also, the 6-20-13 revocation of the permit for
the Best Rock mine has eliminated 656 ADT in
potential future truck traffic in the project area.
Finally, the applicant for the Wayne J Sand
and Gravel project has reduced the requested
truck trips from 460 ADT to 240 ADT. In
summary, the FEIR describes the air quality
effects for 2,556 ADT of truck trips when the
actual total proposed truck traffic volume is
currently only 1,680 ADT.
B-2 The cumulative Refer to responses to comments IL.a, II.B, II.C,
impact analysis for Il.d, and II.E in the Moorpark letter above.
hydrology and water
resources is
inadequate.
B-3 The cumulative Project-specific and cumulative impacts on
impact analysis for visual resources have been determined to be
visual resources is significant and unavoidable (Class I). Given the
inadequate. isolated location of the Grimes Rock facility,
there are no other non-mining projects which
• would contribute to the degradation of the
public view from SR 23. Thus, the visual
resource analysis is adequate.
In any case, the Moorpark letter does not
identify any project that should have been
considered and was not.
B-4 The cumulative Given the isolated location of the Grimes
impact analysis for Canyon mining facilities (Grimes Rock, Best
noise is inadequate. Rock and Wayne J), there are no other non-
mining projects which would contribute to the
onsite noise generated at these facilities. Thus,
the cumulative noise analysis is adequate.
Note that the permit for the Best Rock facility
has been revoked. Thus, this facility will only
generate noise temporarily as part of
reclamation activities.
404
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 14 of 16
Refer to Topical 5.
VIII A The project The County believes that the statement of
description is legally project objectives included in Chapter 5.0 of
inadequate because the FEIR is adequate. The volume of material
it fails to include to be produced and the rate of production are
project objectives as fundamental aspects of a mining facility.
required by CEQA.
B The project Condition of Approval 67 is a standard Public
description is legally Works Agency condition that merely states that
inadequate because non-mining grading activities require a permit.
it fails to include all If it is determined that any grading proposed by
components of a the landowner/mine operator constitutes a
project. changes in the permitted mining facility, a
modification of the conditional use permit and
an amended to the Reclamation Plan will be
required. Condition 67 is a statement of
applicable law.
C The FEIR does not The County believes that the statement of
remedy the project objectives included in Chapter 5.0 of
deficiencies of the the FEIR is adequate. The volume of material
RDEIR's project to be produced and the rate of production are
description or fundamental aspects of a mining facility.
adequately respond
to comments.
IX A The FEIR fails to The County believes that a reasonable range
present a reasonable of alternatives has been evaluated as
range of alternatives. described on page 5.2 of the FEIR_ The
alternatives considered include a range of
operational intensities. The FEIR does not,
however, consider an off-site alternative. In
Section 15126.6(f)(2)(B) of the CEQA
Guidelines specifically identifies mining
projects as an example where there may be no
feasible offsite alternatives. Given the factors
discussed on page 5-2 of the FEIR, it was
determined that there are no feasible off-site
location for an alternative mining site.
A-1 The FEIR fails to The comment is incorrect. Alternative 4 meets
evaluate alternatives most of the project objectives. It was not found
that meet most of the to be the environmentally superior alternative
basic project for the reasons discussed on page 5-10 of the
objectives. FEIR.
A-2 The FEIR ignores County staff disagree that the FEIR ignores
alternatives that alternatives. A reasonable range of
could reduce or alternatives are evaluated.
405
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 15 of 16
avoid the significant
effects of the project.
A-3 The FEIR improperly The County believes that a reasonable range
rejects offsite of alternatives has been evaluated as
alternatives. described on page 5.2 of the FEIR. The
alternatives considered include a range of
operational intensities. The FEIR does not,
however, consider an off-site alternative. In
Section 15126.6(f)(2)(B) of the CEQA
Guidelines specifically identifies mining
projects as an example where there may be no
feasible offsite alternatives. Given the factors
discussed on page 5-2 of the FEIR, it was
determined that there are no feasible off-site
location for an alternative mining site.
A-4 The FEIR fails to This comment is not correct. Alternative 2
include a mine involves continued mining under the existing
reclamation plan approved Reclamation Plan. Alternative 5
alternative. involves mining under a reduced Reclamation
Plan.
B The FEIR does not Refer to response to Comment B.46. There
remedy the was no requirement to look at alternative
deficiencies of the based on traffic considerations. There are no
RDEIR or adequately new peak hour trips (and associated impacts)
respond to included in the project.
comments.
X A The Initial Study fails There is no need to prepare a new I.S. once
to meet the the decision to prepare an EIR is made. An
requirements of Initial Study is not required to prepare an EIR
CEQA. nor does an Initial Study mandate that certain
conclusions be reached in an E1R. Thus, an
Initial Study cannot "fail to meet" the
requirements of CEQA.
B The FEIR's analysis Reclamation activities are part of"surface
of the modified mining activities" as defined by the Surface
reclamation plan is Mining and Reclamation Act. The creation of
legally inadequate. the final reclaimed surface during mining
excavation is a reclamation activity. The
impacts of the creation of this surface, and its
treatment at the end of mining, are addressed
in the FEIR.
See State OMR letter dated 7-13-12 that finds
the Rec. Plan adequate to meet the
requirements of SMARA.
406
Grimes Rock Mine Expansion, 6-27-13
Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Page 16 of 16
I I
With regard to biological resources, the
revegetation provisions of the proposed
Reclamation Plan are incorporated into the
biological mitigation measures for the project.
The comment in the Moorpark letter does not
provide any evidence of an impact associated
with site reclamation. The County believes that
the analysis of the Reclamation Plan is legally
adequate.
C The textual and The changes made to the 2012 RDEIR are
analytical changes presented in stakeout-and underline format in
made to the 2012 the FEIR. This includes Table A-2 in the Table
RDEIR are of Contents section of the FEIR.
impossible to
distinguish and
review.
XI The County has not Condition #30 reflects ordinance requirements
prepared a mitigation that apply to the proposed project independent
monitoring and of CEQA. With this ordinance provisions in
reporting program as place, no specific or additional CEQA
required by CEQA. mitigation measure is required. Condition 33
and Condition 34 involve activities at final
reclamation of the site.
To ensure that all conditions of approval are
monitored, the following will be added to each
• . of the 3 conditions cited in the Moorpark letter:
"Compliance with this condition will be assured
by County staff through review of site
operations and reclamation during the annual
inspection process required by the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act(SMARA)."
XII Conclusion: Request It is up to the County decision-makers to
for recirculation. determine the adequacy of the FEIR and
whether recirculation is required. Based on the
comments reviewed herein, County staff does
not recognize a basis for recirculation of the
FEIR.
SUMMARY
The Moorpark letter does not identify any substantial deficiencies in the FEIR provided
to your Commission for consideration. The staff recommendations included in the Staff
Report for the June 27, 2013 hearing remain unchanged.
407