HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2012 1017 CCSA REG ITEM 09C ITEM 9.C.
City Council Meetinq
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: David A. Bobardt Communi ty Development Director
Prepared By: Joseph R. Vacca, Principal Planner
DATE: October 4, 2012 (CC Meeting of 10/17/2012)
SUBJECT: Consider Response to Ventura County Planning Division on
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Grimes
Rock, Incorporated Mining Facility, a Request for 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. On September 10, 2012, the County of Ventura
issued a notice of public review period for the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact
Report, (RDEIR) for the Grimes Rock, Inc. mining operation expansions. Comments
are due by October 26, 2012.
The RDEIR states that of particular relevance to this project in terms of cumulative
impacts are permit modifications requested for two other mining operations in the
vicinity of the proposed project - the Best Rock and Wayne J Sand &Gravel operations.
Each of these sand and gravel operations are proposing to increase levels of
production, allowing for expansion of excavation boundaries and increases to the
amount of permitted truck trips to each facility. Each of these related projects is also the
subject of a separate EIR. A fourth large sand and gravel mine in the vicinity is the
Cemex mine, which is east of Wayne J Sand and Gravel, and it is currently operating
below its current permitted levels. There is a fifth mining operation that is located
approximately 2,500 feet north of the project site. However, it is a smaller mining
project limited to a total of 5.4 million tons of earthen material over the life of the project.
It is operated sporadically by the Santa Clara Valley Agricultural Corporation, which
mines a landslide of clay deposits used primarily for construction fill projects.
8
Honorable City Council
October 17, 2012
Page 2
Grimes Rock, Inc., the applicant, is requesting a time extension of the permit from 2013
to 2040, an expansion of excavation areas from 48 to 135 acres, an increase from
950,000 tons per year to 1,800,000 tons per year, an increase from 300 maximum one-
way truck trips per day to 460 average and 600 maximum one-way truck trips per day,
an expansion of permitted operating days to include Saturday, and the ability to use
Walnut Canyon Road as a haul route (currently not permitted).
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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency, received a
substantial number of written public comments on this 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 EIR "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 now require the recirculation of the Draft EIR for public review
and comment.
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.
Staff sent the County Planning Division a comment letter on the Notice of Preparation
for this EIR on the Grimes Mining expansion, dated December 17, 2003, a copy of the
letter is provided, (Attachment 1). Also, staff sent the County Planning Division a
comment letter on the Draft EIR, dated August 4, 2006, a copy of the letter is provided,
(Attachment 2). The EIR Consultant, Envicom Corporation, sent staff a letter in
response to our comments which was included in the Final EIR; the response to
comments of the FINAL EIR, which was dated June 2009, is provided, (Attachment 3).
\\DCI\Department Share\Community Development\OTHER AGENCIESWentura County\Grimes Rock Mining\Agenda Reports\CC Agenda Report Grimes RDEIR_121017.doc
9
Honorable City Council
October 17, 2012
Page 3
Staff sent the County Planning Division a comment letter on the Response to
Comments prepared for the Final EIR, dated August 19, 2009, a copy of the letter is
provided, (Attachment 4). Finally, staff sent the County Planning Division a comment
letter with Requested Project Conditions, dated March 24, 2010, a copy of the letter is
provided, (Attachment 5).
Please note that, this RDEIR constitutes a substantially revised entire EIR and
responses to comments will only be prepared and included in the Final EIR for new
comments submitted on this revised document.
DISCUSSION
PROJECT HISTORYAND EXISTING OPERATIONS
The project site was historically used for surface mining in the 1950's and 1960's under
a previous mining operator. The mining operator at that time abandoned the site in
1967. During its existence, the operation had mined an approximate 15-acre area.
Since there were no Conditional Use Permit (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. The site has also historically 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 a
plant throughput 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.
The existing CUP requires 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. Delivery occurs 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.
\\DC 1\Department Share\Community Development\OTHER AGENCIES\Ventura County\Grimes Rock Mining\Agenda Reports\CC Agenda Report Grimes RDEIR_121017.doc
10
Honorable City Council
October 17, 2012
Page 4
Only 64 of the currently permitted daily maximum of 300 one-way truck trips may use
the southern haul route. In addition, project related trucks using the southern haul route
have limitations on their arrival and departure times in order to minimize traffic volumes
during peak travel hours, and during school bus operations.
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.
• 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 (Le. 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.
• Material hauling along any route to any customer location.
• The elimination of volume and timing restrictions on trucks going south.
• Upon termination of mining at the site the proposed end use of the land is to be
Open Space.
The RDEIR indicates that the project may result in significant impacts to Air Quality -
offsite dust generation along trucking routes; Noise — On-road truck noise and
Cumulative On-road truck noise; Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources;
Paleontological Resources; and Alteration of views from SR-23, Visual Resources.
Traffic
Currently there are 1,285 average daily truck trips (one-way) generated by all four
mines. With the increase of trips generated by Cemex under its existing permit, 1,812
trips would be generated. The proposed expanded mining projects would increase the
average daily truck trip limits by 744, for a total of 2,556 trips at the four mines in the
area.
MC 1\Department Share\Community DevelopmenAOTHER AGENCIES\Ventura County\Grimes Rock Mining\Agenda Reports\CC Agenda Report Grimes RDEIR_121017_doc
11
Honorable City Council
October 17, 2012
Page 5
The Grimes Rock mine is currently permitted to generate 300 maximum trips and is
requesting an increase up to a maximum of 600 trips. The Grimes Rock mine would
generate an increase of 160 trips, about 22 percent of the total of the four combined
active mining projects' total, which would also result in an increase over currently
permitted average daily trip limits.
Noise
The RDEIR indicates that project specific and off-site traffic noise impacts are significant
and unavoidable.
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 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.
The RDEIR indicates that the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project
Alternative because it would avoid significant impacts related to noise, paleontological
resources and visual resources associated with the proposed expansion of the mining
facility and the increase in annual aggregate production.
Among the remaining alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative is Alternative
4 (Increase in production level less than requested with operations under the proposed
Reclamation Plan). This alternative would "substantially lessen" the on-road noise
impacts caused by the proposed Grimes Rock operation by reducing the increase in
proposed truck trips. This alternative would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives
of the project.
A draft comment letter requesting that these issues be addressed in the Draft EIR is
provided (Attachment 7).
\\DC10epartment Share\Community Development\OTHER AGENCIES\Ventura County\Grimes Rock Mining\Agenda Reports\CC Agenda Report Grimes RDEIR_121017.doc
12
Honorable City Council
October 17, 2012
Page 6
FISCAL IMPACT
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to send a comment letter to Ventura County Planning Division to address the
unresolved issues in the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, as drafted.
Attachments:
1. Staff comment letter on Notice of Preparation, dated December 17, 2003
2. Staff comment letter on Draft EIR, dated August 4, 2006
3. EIR Consultant Response to Comments in Final EIR, FINAL EIR dated June 2009
4. Staff comment letter on Response to Comments Final EIR, dated August 19, 2009
5. Staff comment letter with Requested Project Conditions, dated March 24, 2010
6. Copy of Chapter 1.0 Executive Summary Recirculated DEIR, dated Aug/Sep 2012
7. Draft staff comment letter to Ventura County Planning Division, October_, 2012
\\DC1\Department Share\Community Development\OTHER AGENCIES\Ventura County\Grimes Rock Mining\Agenda Reports\CC Agenda Report Grimes RDEIR_121017.doc
13
ppPQ'pR c,t'��9
z CITY OF MOORPARK
y _... ......... __. ..._....._ _ ........
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
} PLANNING — BUILDING AND SAFETY — CODE ENFORCEMENT
09 q' 799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021 (805)517-6200 fax(805)529-8270
www.ci.mooroark.ca.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.
PATRICK HUNTER JANICE PARVIN CLINT HARPER ROSEANN MIKOS KEITH F.MILLHOUSE
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
14
CC ATTACHMENT 1
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
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
z S
oP
C/•aK c A y
q17M40oq7ark
0
0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:PLANNING—BUILDING AND SAFETY—CODE COMPLIANCE
o99TeQ ,� 799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021 (805)517-6200 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 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 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, tons 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
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
5:1COmmunily Dev<IOpmeM1AGENC1E51Vemura County)-1 Cany,MN0e DEIR G,i %,k.Ean
PATRICK HUNTER ROSEANN MIKOS CLINT HARPER KEITH F.MILLHOUSE JANICE PARVIN
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
17
CC ATTACHMENT 2
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 2
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 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. Relationship of Existing and Proposed Permits to CEQA Analysis (Section
2.3.1) — The Draft EIR cites a previous court case (Fairview Neighbors v. County of
Ventura — 70 CaLApp.4th 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
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,
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
18
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 3
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 close
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.
• 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 Los 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
Ventura County, as well as the demand from Los 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
19
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 4
understanding the project impacts in the comparison of alternatives and in the
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
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 B:
■ 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
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
20
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 5
unacceptable levels of service with the proposed project. The intersection
volume counts in the City of Moorpark need to be updated for a realistic
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
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
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.
21
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 6
• 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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
are incorrect for Grimes Rock and Best Rock (e.g., 4 cars/.952 million tons
22
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 7
= 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
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
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
permitted trips.
• Page 51, Table 17: It would be helpful if the order of project sites in
Tables 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 22A, 22B, and 22C matched the order of sites in
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 are
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
although this section is about the existing permitted traffic.
• 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?
The Notice of Preparation states that the Wayne J 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
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
23
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 8
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
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
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.
Are there three or four sites as part of the proposed project?
• Figure 16a: The legend or title should indicate which project sites are
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
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
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
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
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
the ICU value in the calculation worksheet in Appendix E (.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"
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.
24
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 9
• Page 85: The text should include a discussion of the projects' significant
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 "B") does not match
the ICU value in the worksheet in Appendix E (989 LOS "E"); however,
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
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
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
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
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
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
ICU calculations worksheets in the Appendix.
• Page 98: Walnut Canyon Road/Moorpark Avenue is not a truck route on
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
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
Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118) as a result of the redistribution
of truck traffic still needs to be addressed.
25
Scott Ellison
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
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
number of project trips traveling on Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118) east of
Grimes Canyon Road.
• Page 117: The enforcement of route restrictions must be actively pursued
and meaningful penalties must be imposed.
• Page 127: The mitigation costs will need to be recalculated after updated
traffic counts are obtained and corrected lane assumptions and signal
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
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
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.
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 from 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
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
not infeasible as stated.
26
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
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
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 Ave" 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
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 EIR that this project would have a significant and immitigable
community character impact in Moorpark.
Other comments are as follows:
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
27
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 12
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
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 closer 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
28
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 13
Plan and Zoning objectives, which should have been included as project objectives
(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
residents and businesses along Walnut Canyon Road/Moorpark 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.
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,
Barry K. Hogan
Community 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
29
o ➢
city o Wooer par)C
a�o
0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT-PLANNING-BUILDING.4ND SAFETY-CODE COMPLIANCE
799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021 (805)517-6200 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 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 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
exppnsion 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, tons 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
30
CC ATTACHMENT 3
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 2
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 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 46-1
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
2.3.1) — The Draft EIR cites a previous court case (Fairview Neighbors v. County of
Ventura — 70 Cat.AppAth 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, "s
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
31
Scott Ellison
August 4. 2006
Page 3
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 close
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-1601MRP) Zone.
Among the stated purposes of the MRP Overlay Zone are:
• to safeguard future access to an important resource. 46-3
■ 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 Los 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 Los 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
32
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, riot 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 8:
■ 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
33
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 5
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 46-8
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
improvements assumed in the .MTAM that are not assumed in the 469
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
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
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
apply a passenger car equivalent (PCE) adjustment to the background 46"10
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, �_1
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/.952 million tons
35
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 7
= 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 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 46-19
Tables 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 22A, 2213, and 22C matched the order of sites in
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 are
supposed to be based on the existing counts because there is no CUP trip 46-20
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„221
although this section is about the existing permitted traffic. J
• Page 53, Table 18: The car trip volumes have no relation to the existing 46-22
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 J 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
Lip 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 46-25
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
36
Scott Ellison
Auaust 4, 2006
Page 8
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 46_25
percentage of truck traffic to the north from Best Rock and Grimes Rock
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 70, 81, 84, and 87 also refer to four project sites.
Are 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 E (.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
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 "B") 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 46-38
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 �'`
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
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
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
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. 4:6-46
• Page 127: The mitigation costs will need to be recalculated after updated
traffic counts are obtained and corrected lane assumptions and signal 46-47
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 46-49
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.
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 :6-50
surYimer of 2005, however, a simultaneous right-turn arrow from 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
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 x_55
Walnut Cyn" should be changed to "W of Moorpark Ave" and "E of Moorpark Ave" 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 EIR 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
40
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 12
noith 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 46"57
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
frorn 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
�r
41
Scott Ellison
August 4, 2006
Page 13
Plan and Zoning objectives, which should have been included as project objectives
(see comment no. 3). 46"58
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
residents and businesses along Walnut Canyon Road/Moorpark Avenue to residents 46"59
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. 46-6o
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,
j0 ar
. Hog
munity 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
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 FOR Chapter 5.0 Alternatives.
While State Ready Mix in Saticoy is the primary customer of CUP 4784, 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 EIR
CUP 4171-3 Page 9-77 June 2009
43
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 5171-3 Page 9-78 June 2009
44
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 1) 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 E1R
CUP 417i-3 Page 9-79 June 2009
45
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 B 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 EIR
CUP 4171-3 Page 9-80 June 2009
46
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
9.0 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 clear-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
9.0 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 EIR.
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 417,-3 Page 9-83 June 2009
49
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 FOR 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 47,71-3 Page 9-84 June 2009
50
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 E1R
CUP 41 71-3 Page 9-85 June 2009
51
V Ey
OO �/I�I
1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.PLANNING-BUILDING AND SAFETY-CODE COMPLIANCE
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 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 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 Tem Councilmember Coundimember Coundimember 52
[_r ATTA[_HMFNIT A
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 ivaccaCaD-ci.moorpark.ca.us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
C 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
A
0
Zt oj �Uooipark
- 4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:PLANNING-BUILDING AND SAFETY-CODE COMPLIANCE
799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021 (805)517-6200 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 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 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 'lair 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 Tern Councilmember Coundimember Councilmember 54
CC ATTACHMENT 5
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 existing 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 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
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
%Vw_prk servtdepartment share%Community DevelopmentlOTHER AGENCIES%Venture CouWGdmes CanyonklOW24 CUP Conditions Mods to Best Grimes Wayne J.doc 55
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The County of Ventura has prepared this Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact
Report (RDEIR) to assess particular potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project to continue and expand the existing Grimes Rock, Inc. mining operation. This
RDEIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of
Regs., § 15000 et seq.), the County of Ventura's Administrative Supplement to the
CEQA Guidelines, and the County's Initial Study Assessment Guidelines.
The project applicant, Grimes Rock, Inc. (Grimes Rock), requests that Modification No.
2 of Conditional Use Permit 4874 (CUP 4874-2) be granted and that an Amended
Reclamation Plan prepared pursuant to the California Surface Mining and Reclamation
Act (SMARA) (Pub. Res. Code § 2710 et seq.) be approved. The requested actions
would authorize an expansion of the area subject to surface mining activities and allow
for the continuation of surface mining activities to the year 2040.
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE RDEIR
This RDEIR is divided into several sections that reflect the mandatory content of an EIR
as required by Article 9 of the CEQA Guidelines. The key section of the EIR is Chapter
4.0. This chapter contains the evaluation of environmental impacts in the various issue
areas for which the need for further analysis was identified in the Initial Study. Each of
the impact analysis sections is divided into six subsections as follows:
• Existing Conditions — This subsection describes the existing environmental
setting for each issue area.
• Thresholds of Significance — This subsection identifies the thresholds used to
identify the significance of project impacts. These are based on the County of
Ventura's Initial Study Assessment Guidelines or, where applicable, the City of
Moorpark thresholds.
• Project Impacts — This subsection describes the extent to which the proposed
project would affect the existing environment and whether that affect would
constitute a potentially significant impact.
' • Cumulative Impacts — This subsection evaluates the potential for significant
impacts to result from the proposed project in combination with other anticipated
development in the project area. Whether the proposed project contribution to
any identified impact is cumulatively considerable is evaluated.
F
• Mitigation Measures—This subsection lists the mitigation measures required to
reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts identified for
4 the proposed project.
Grimes Rock,Inc. R"in;ulated Dreg EIR
f CUP 4874-2,Amended Reclamation Plan Page 1-1 August 2012
56
C:('. ATTA[:HMFNT R
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Residual Environmental Impacts — This subsection identifies the level of
significance of the identified impacts with implementation of the identified
mitigation measures.
1.3 SCOPE OF THE RDEIR
Prior to preparation of the original Draft EIR circulated for public review in 2006, an
Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the County's Initial Study
Assessment Guidelines in effect at that time to identify potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed Grimes Rock project. This Initial Study is included as
Appendix A of the original Draft EIR circulated for public review in 2006. The Initial
Study identified potentially significant impacts in the following environmental issue
areas:
• Transportation/Circulation
• Air Quality
• Noise
• General Plan/Land Use Compatibility
• Hydrology and Water Resources
• Biological Resources
• Paleontology
• Visual Resources
All of the issues listed above were addressed in the Draft EIR circulated for public
review in 2006. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, this Recirculated Draft
EIR has been prepared to incorporate changes in the project description, new County
Initial Study Assessment Guidelines adopted in 2010, and a new amended Reclamation
Plan. The requirement that the proposed modification of the CUP be considered
concurrently with a complete Reclamation Plan is mandated by a 2010 California
Appeals Court decision (Nelson v. County of Kern),
Section 15088.5(f)(1)of the CEQA reads as follows:
When an EIR is substantially revised and the entire document is recirculated, the
lead agency may require reviewers to submit new comments and, in such cases,
need not respond to those comments received during the earlier circulation
period. The lead agency shall advise reviewers, either in the text of the revised
EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, that although part of the
administrative record, the previous comments do not require a written response
in the final EIR, and that new comments must be submitted for the revised EIR.
Grimes Rock,Inc. Re-circulated Draft EIR
CUP 4874-2,-Amended Redamation Plan Page 1 -2 August 2012
57
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The lead agency need only respond to those comments submitted in response to
the recirculated revised EIR.
In accordance with the above guideline, this RDEIR constitutes a substantially revised
entire EIR and responses to comments will only be prepared and included in the Final
EIR for new comments submitted on this revised document. Note that the"General
Plan/Land Use Compatibility' section has been replaced with a "Community Character"
section in accordance with the 2010 ISAGs.
1.4 CLASSIFICATION OF IMPACTS
The following nomenclature is used to describe various levels of impact within this EIR:
• Class I Impacts — Potentially significant environmental impacts for which
feasible mitigation that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level has
not been identified. Pursuant to Section 15092(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the
County decision-makers must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to
approve a project with Class I impacts.
• Class II Impacts — Potentially significant environmental impacts that can be
mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation
measures identified in this EIR. The County must make "findings" pursuant to
Section 15091(a)of CEQA Guidelines in order to approve the proposed project.
• Class III Impacts — Environmental impacts that are adverse, but less than
significant.
• Class IV Impacts—Beneficial Impacts.
1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Summary:
The applicant requests approval of Modification No. 2 of Conditional Use Permit 4874
(CUP 48742) 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. 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.
(Note: The permitted area of excavation is 48.4 acres.)
Grimes Rock,Inc. Re-circulated Draft EIR
CUP 4874-2;Amended Reclamation Plan Page 1 -3 August 2012
58
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 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 from 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.
• Material hauling along any route to any customer location.
• The elimination of volume and timing restrictions on trucks going south.
• An end or post-reclamation 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 Reclamation Plan maps and cross sections (Figure 2-5).
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 2-6). 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.
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 site will be reclaimed to a configuration
that includes a nearly level floor surrounded by maximum 2:1 (h:v)gradient slopes.
Runoff from the slopes will drain across the floor to be discharged at the low point
Grimes Rock,Inc. Re-circulated Draft EIR
CUP 4874-2;Amended Reclamation Plan Page 1 -4 August 2012
59
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(approximately 1,000-foot elevation)where an existing drainage course intersects the
floor.
Reclamation of final slopes will consist of establishing 2:1 gradient slope configurations
and revegetation. The lower one-third of final slopes will be graded in a concave
configuration in order to blend with the floor of the mine. 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.
Finished slopes will be revegetated with a native 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.
It is proposed that the site will be reclaimed to an end use of open space.
1.6 USE OF RDEIR
This RDEIR has been prepared to evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts
associated with the proposed operational changes and expansion of the Grimes Rock
mining facility that would be authorized by the requested approval of a modified CUP
and an amended Reclamation Plan. 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. Listed below are
the permits or plans required for approval of the proposed project.
Permit or Plan Regulation Lead Agency
Modified Conditional Use Ventura County Non- County of Ventura
Permit Coastal Zoning Ordinance
Amended Reclamation Plan Ventura County Non- County of Ventura
Coastal Zoning Ordinance,
and the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act
Permit to Construct California Health &Safety Ventura County APCD
Code Section 42300 et se g.
Permit to Operate California Health & Safety Ventura County APCD
Code Section 42300 et se g.
Streambed Alteration Section 1603 of the California Department of
F
Agreement California Fish and Game Fish & Game
Code
Clean Water Act Section 401 of Federal California Regional Water
Certification Clean Water Act Quality Control Board
Grimes Rock,Inc. Re-circulated Draft EIR
CUP 4874-2,Amended Reclamation Plan Page 1 -5 August 2012
60
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table summarizes the proposed project's environmental impacts and the
measures identified to mitigate these impacts.
Issue Area EIR Impact Mitigation Measures Residual
Section # Requirement Impact
Congestion of area T 1-1 Limit on peak-hour Less than
roadways due to truck trips significant
new project-related T 1-1A Internal access road to (11)
truck traffic. (T-1} be used to avoid
congestion and safety
effects on Grimes
Grade segment of SR
23.
T 1-1113 Overnight parking of
heavy trucks.
Traffic/Circulation 4.1 T 1-4 Limit on peak-hour
truck trips at the SR
118/SR 34.
intersection.
Increase in traffic T 2-1 Facility entrance Less than
safety hazards due improvements significant
to increased (II)
project-related
truck traffic. -2
Considerable T 1-1 Limit on peak-hour
contribution to truck trips
cumulative traffic T 3-1 Payment of traffic Less than
congestion.(T-3) impact mitigation fees. significant
Grimes Rock,Inc. Re-circulated Draft EIR
CUP 4874-2,-Amended Reclamation Plan Page 1-6 August 2012
61
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(1 1)
Considerable T 1-1 Limit on peak-hour Less than
contribution to truck trips significant
cumulative T 2-1 Facility entrance (II)
congestion and improvements
safety effects at the T 3-1 Payment of traffic
mine entrance impact mitigation fees.
road. T-4
Considerable T 1-1A Internal access road to Less than
contribution to be used to avoid significant
traffic safety congestion and safety (II)
hazards on SR 23 effects on Grimes
due to increased Grade segment of SR
project-related 23.
truck traffic. (T-5) T 2-1 Facility entrance
improvements
Onsite fugitive dust AQ 1-1 Enhanced dust control Less than
and PM10 plan significant
emissions(AQ-1) AQ 1-2 Compliance with Air (11)
Pollution Control
District rules and
re ulations
Air Quality 4.2 AQ 1-3 Covering of loads
Onsite ozone AQ 2-1 Ozone Less than
precursor precursor/carbon significant
emissions dioxide reduction in- (II)
AQ-2 lieu fee ro ram
Carbon monoxide None Less than
concentrations significant
AQ-3 (11 1)
Health risk for None Less than
diesel particulate significant
matter(AQ4) (III)
Cumulative onsite AQ 1-1 Enhanced dust control Less than
fugitive dust and plan significant
PM10 emissions AQ 1-2 Compliance with Air (II)
(AQ-5) Pollution Control
District rules and
regulatio,ns
AQ 1-3 Coverin of loads
Cumulative off-site None Significant
dust generation p)
along trucking
routes AQ-6
Cumulative onsite AQ 2-1 Ozone Less than
ozone precursor precursor/carbon significant
emissions(AQ-7) dioxide reduction in- (11)
lieu fee program
Cumulative carbon None Less than
monoxide significant
concentrations III
Grimes Rock,Inc. Re-circulated Draft EIR
CUP 4874-2;Amended Reclamation Plan Page 1 -7 August 2012
62
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AQ-8
Cumulative health None Less than
risk for diesel significant
particulate matter (lll)
AQ-9
On-road truck noise N 3-1 Limitation on truck Significant
(N-1) arrival and departure (1)
times
N 3-2 Restricted use of
Noise 4.3 engine braking
Noise from on-site None Less than
operations significant
N-2 III
Cumulative on-road N 3-1 Limitation on truck Significant
truck noise(N-3) arrival and departure (1)
times
N 3-2 Restricted use of
engine braking
Cumulative noise None Less than
from onsite significant
operations N-4 Ill
Changes in WR 1-1 Disposal of residual Less than
groundwater fine-grained material significant
recharge R 1 III
Depletion of None Less than
groundwater significant
Hydrology and 4.5 supplies R 2 Ill
Water Resources Reduction in None Less than
groundwater significant
storage capacity
R3
Degradation of WR 4-1 Design requirements Less than
surface water and for maintenance areas significant
groundwater quality WR 4-2 General industrial (II)
(WR 4) stormwater permit
WR 4-3 Restrictions on future
animal keeping
Alteration of WR 5-1 Flood control facilities Less than
drainage patterns requirements significant
resulting in erosion WR 5-2 Slope design (II)
or flooding(WR 5) requirements
Special-Status BR 1-1 Mitigation of impacts Less than
Plants through protection of significant
(BR-1) offske habitat areas (II)
BR 1-3 Staking of permit
boundary and
disturbance area
BR 1-5 Limitation on disturbed
area
Special-Status BR 1-1 Mitigation of impacts Less than
Grimes Rock,Inc. Re-circulated Draft EIR
CUP 4874-2;Amended Reclamation Plan Page 1 -8 August 2012
63
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlife(BR-2) through protection of significant
offsite habitat areas (II)
Biological 4.6 BR 1-5 Limitation on disturbed
Resources area
BR 4-1 Obtain permits from
Federal and State
resource agencies,if
necessary for the
coastal California
natcatcher
BR 7-1 Protection of nesting
birds
BR 7-2A Protection of special-
status wildlife
BR 7-213 Woodrat nest
avoidance and
relocation
BR 10-1 Avoidance of coastal
California gnatcatcher
Indirect Impacts on BR 11-1 Mitigation of lighting Less than
Special Status impacts on special- significant
Species(BR-3) status wildlife (11)
BR 1-5 Limitation on disturbed
area
AQ 1-1 Enhanced dust control
plan
AQ 1-2 Compliance with Air
Pollution Control
District rules and
regulations
AQ 1-3 Covering of loads
N 3-1 Limitation on truck
arrival and departure
times
N 3-2 Restricted use of
engine braking
N 3-1 Limitation on truck
arrival and departure
times
Sensitive Plant BR 1-1 Mitigation of impacts Less than
Communities through protection of significant
(BR-4) offsite habitat areas (11)
BR 1-3 Staking of permit
boundary and
disturbance area
BR 1-5 Limitation on disturbed
area
Waters and BR 1-1 Mitigation of impacts Less than
Wetlands through protection of significant
(BR-5) offsite habitat areas (11)
BR 4-1 Obtain ermits from
Grimes Rock,Inc. Re-circulated Draft EIR
CUP 4874-2,Amended Reclamation Plan Page 1 -9 August 2012
64
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Federal and State
resource agencies
Habitat BR 1-5 Limitation on disturbed Less than
Connectivity(BR-6) area significant
III
Cumulative impacts BR 1-1 Mitigation of impacts Significant
(BR-7) through protection of (1)
offsite habitat areas
BR 1-5 Limitation on disturbed
area
BR 7-1 Protection of nesting
birds
BR 7-2A Protection of sensitive
wildlife
BR 7-213 Woodrat nest
avoidance and
relocation
BR 10-1 Avoidance of California
natcatcher
BR 11-1 Protection of sensitive
wildlife(limitation on
ni ht li htin
Potential loss of PR 1-1 Recovery of Significant
Paleontological 4.7 paleontological paleontological (1)
Resources resources PR 1 resources
Cumulative loss of PR 1-1 Recovery of Significant
paleontological paleontological (1)
resources PR 2 resources
Alteration of views VR 1-1 Limitation on disturbed Significant
from SR 23 area(equivalent to BR (1)
Visual Resources 4.8 VR 1 1-5
Generation of light BR 11-1 Protection of sensitive Less than
and glare wildlife(limitation on significant
VR 2 night light n 11
Cumulative VR 1-1 Limitation on disturbed Significant
alteration of views area(equivalent to BR (1)
from SR 23 VR 3 1-5
Cumulative BR 11-1 Protection of sensitive Less than
generation of light wildlife(limitation on significant
and glare VR 4 night lighting) II
1.8 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives developed for the RDEIR 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 cited as an example where there are no feasible altemative
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
Grimes Rock,Inc. Re-circulated Draft EIR
CUP 4874-2,Amended Reclamation Plan Page 1 -10 August 2012
65
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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 1)
impacts related to noise, paleontology and visual resources identified in this RDEIR.
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
.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 will expire in 2013. 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.
A_ltemative 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 3-5 more years beyond 2013.
Grimes Rock,Inc. Re-circulated Draft EIR
CUP 4874-2,-Amended Reclamation Plan Page 1 -11 August 2012
66
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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
Aftemative 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.
Grimes Rock,Inc. Re-circulated Draft EIR
CUP 4874-2,Amended Reclamation Plan Page 1 -12 August 2012
67
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Comparison of Alternatives
Issue Significant impact to remain es/no
Area 1 2 3 4 5
Noise No No No Yes Yes
Paleontology No No Yes Yes Yes
Visual No No Yes Yes Yes
Attain project No No No Yes No
objectives?
Yes/No
In this case, the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative
because it would avoid significant impacts related to noise, paleontological resources
and visual resources associated with the proposed expansion of the mining facility and
the increase in annual aggregate production.
Among the remaining alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative.is Alternative
4 (Increase in production level less than requested with operations under the proposed
Reclamation Plan). This alternative would "substantially lessen" the on-road noise
impacts caused by the proposed Grimes Rock operation by reducing the increase in
proposed truck trips. This alternative would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives
of the project.
Grimes Rock,Inc. Re-circulated Draft EIR
CUP 4874-2;Amended Reclamation Plan Page 1 -13 August 2012
68
CITY OF MOORPARK
°P
9
O �
c o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1 799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021
Main City Phone Number(805)517-6200 1 Fax(805)532-2540 1 moorpark@ci.moorpark.ca.us
g4TE0
October , 2012
County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency
Planning Division
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Attention: Brian Baca
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 response to our comment letters for
consideration of the Recirculated Draft>EIR, (RpEIR) for the proposed expansion of Grimes
Rock Inc.'s mining operations. The City of Moorpark recoglzes the importance of the
proper management of the County's aggregate resources to provide for present and future
County needs. Howeuet, as his been clearly stated in pasf`correspondence, expansion of
any of the mining operations at State Royce 23 north of Moorpark, that either increases
the number of sand; "hid gravel tt` Gks in our b.wntown area or increases the hours in which
the trucking occurs, s strongly opposed by`�the City. These trucks already significantly
impact downtown ares;;land:uss, artd any expansion would be in opposition to the City's
efforts to;,improue the`IFVapility`-of this area and redevelop its downtown core into a vibrant
commerelal destipaton, coris:istent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.
The,.`RDEIR prepar6d., for the .expansion of Grimes Rock's mining operation does not
ade44ately address the �u:ll extent cf the project impacts. Based on the comments below
related> o.; 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-m f:g;tool on th."I:expansion proposal.
1. Project Histor2<and Existing Operations (Section 2.2) — The EIR also refers to truck trip
limits in terms of`o"'e-way 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. 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 provided to western
CC ATTACHMENT 7
9
JANICE S.PARVIN ROSEANN MIKOS,Ph.D. KEITH F.MILLHOUSE DAVID POLLOCK MARK VAN DAM
Brian Baca, Ventura county Planning Division
October 2012
Page 2
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 Caltrans 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 the
funding mechanism has been created.
70
Brian Baca, Ventura county Planning Division
October , 2012
Page 2
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.
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.
You may contact me directly or Joseph R. Vacca, Principal Planner at (805) 517-6236 or via
email at jvacca _ci.moorpark.ca.us if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
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
71