Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - LACO SOLEDAD MINING PROJ TMC (2)NEW BUSINESS DATE: SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT City Manager's Approval: 1,4V Item to be presented by: Jeffrey Lambert May 11, 1999 PROPOSED L.A. COUNTY SOLEDAD CANYON SAND & GRAVEL MINING PROJECT DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council to appropriate funds in an amount not to exceed $50,000 to hire a CEQA specialist, legal specialist, lobbyist, and scientists and engineers to further evaluate the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR and Draft EIS for the proposed L.A. County Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project. 2. City Council to direct staff to meet with Congressman McKeon to discuss the proposed L.A. County Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project and its effect on the Santa Clarita Valley. 3. Staff to research similar mining facilities in the proposed project area and pursue a joint study with Los Angeles County regarding the long-range impacts of such facilities on the area. BACKGROUND In March 1999, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the proposed L.A. County Soledad Canyon Sand & Gravel Mining Project was distributed for public review and comment. The project, proposed by Transit Mixed Concrete Company (TMC), involves surface mining of 83 million tons of material on a 460 -acre site just outside the eastern boundary of the City of Santa Clarita. In addition, concrete processing is proposed to occur on a 40 -acre area. Both the surface mining and concrete processing operations are proposed to extend over a 20 - year period. The attached fact sheet provides additional information regarding project characteristics and the environmental process. Specifically, the project site is situated in the area north of Soledad Canyon Road, south of the Antelope Valley Freeway, and west of Agua Dulce Canyon. It is located approximately two miles from City's eastern boundary, approximately three miles from the Sand Canyon Road- Soledad Canyon Road intersection. The project site, designated a Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resource Area by the State of California, is zoned M-2 in the County i�NO Agenda ItemAL I Since the release of the Draft EIR, several residents in the community of Canyon Country and the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, including Agua Dulce and Acton, have expressed their concerns related to the project's effect on the environment and its potential affects on the health, safety and quality of life of the Valley's residents. Given the scope and nature of the project and the complexity of the Draft EIR, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission received numerous requests, including a request from Mayor Jo Anne Darcy on behalf of the City of Santa Clarita, to extend the public comment period. At their April 7,1999, meeting, the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission voted to extend the public comment period for an additional 45 days, to June 13, 1999. City staff has also been following this project closely. Following a review of the Draft EIR, staff prepared a detailed letter of response to the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning which was submitted on April 14, 1999 (see attached). The letter identifies a number of potential environmental impacts related to land use compatibility, visual resources, air quality, noise, traffic, public health and safety, and water quality, among others. The letter also comments on the adequacy of the environmental analysis prepared for this project. Staff will prepare an additional letter to supplement and clarify these comments prior to the close of the public review period. Over the past several months, City staff has attended a variety of community meetings regarding the proposed Soledad Canyon Sand & Gravel Mining Project. TMC representatives have been invited to attend meetings of the Sand Canyon Homeowners' Association, Agua Dulce Town Council, and the Acton Town Council to present their surface mining proposal and address community concerns related to the direct and indirect impacts of project operation. Additionally, the City hosted a community meeting at the Pinetree Community School to provide an opportunity for City and County residents to meet with representatives of the Transit Mixed Concrete Company. In preparation for the April 12, 1999, community meeting, the City placed four advertisements in local newspapers, distributed flyers and directly contacted key community representatives, town leaders, and environmental groups. Approximately 150 persons from the Pinetree, Stonecrest, and Sand Canyon communities, as well as Agua Dulce and Acton, attended the meeting. The County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Department, the lead agency for this project, held the first public hearing at the Hall of Records in downtown Los Angeles on April 21, 1999. At this meeting, Commissioner George Pederson proposed a motion to hold the second public hearing in the Santa Clarita Valley, tentatively scheduled for July 14, 1999. At this meeting, the public will have an opportunity to present testimony to the decision making body regarding TMC's mining proposal. The proposed project requires approval by the County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission and several other permitting agencies prior to implementation. City staff is now seeking direction from the City Council on whether to pursue additional, more in-depth review of specific sections of the Draft EIR. A quantitative analysis of the air quality, biological resources, and water resources sections would require external consultant expertise (biologists, scientists, and engineers). The City may also want to seek a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or a legal/land use expert to provide specific expertise related to the CEQA process and to assist the City in its position toward the proposed Soledad Canyon Sand & Gravel Mining Project. FISCAL IMPACT The project is located in Los Angeles County, just outside the City's eastern boundary. The project, in and of itself, would not have a direct fiscal impact on the City of Santa Clarita. Retention of a CEQA specialist, legal specialist, lobbyist and scientists and engineers to evaluate the environmental analysis in Draft EIR and Draft EIS would require the commitment of City funds. City funds appropriated from the City Council Contingency Fund (1900-7401) would not exceed $50,000. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Continue monitoring the proposed L.A. County project at the staff level. 2. Other actions as determined by Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter of Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report from the City of Santa Clarita (prepared by Jeff Lambert, Director of Planning and Building Services) 2. Fact sheet on proposed L.A. County Soledad Canyon Sand & Gravel Mining Project prepared by City staff 3. Fact sheet on proposed L.A. County Calmat Company Agua Dulce Quarry Project prepared by City staff (this mining proposal is presently inactive) 4. Summary section of Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed L.A. County Soledad Canyon Sand & Gravel Mining Project (available in Clerk's Reading File) 5. Position Paper in Support of the TMC Soledad Canyon Sand & Gravel Mining Project prepared by Baker & McKenzie, Attorneys at Law, for Transit Mixed Concrete Company, April 6, 1999. (available in Clerk's Reading File) LMH s:\pbs\current\tmc\agdarpt.doc City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (661) 259-2489 Santa Clarita Fax Caldomia 913552196 (661) 259-8125 Website: www.santa-cladta.com April 14, 1999 Julie Moore, Project Planner Department of Regional Planning County of Los Angeles Impact Analysis Section, Room 1348 320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Re: Response to Draft EIR for the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Dear Ms. Moore: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared for the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project proposed by Transit Mixed Concrete Company. As stated in the Draft EIR, the proposal involves surface mining of 83 million tons of material on a 460 -acre site just outside the eastern boundary of the City of Santa Clarita. In addition, concrete processing is proposed to occur on a 40 -acre area. Both the surface mining and concrete processing operations are proposed to extend over a 20 -Year period. The City of Santa Clarita received the Draft EIR for the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project in March 1999. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City has prepared a response to the Draft EIR which identifies environmental issues and other areas of concern related to the project's long-term impacts on the Santa Clarita Valley. The comments submitted are only preliminary. The City will supplement and clarify comments in an additional letter to be submitted prior to the end of the 60 -day review period extension. The City recognizes that the area is designated as a "Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resource Area." However, the size and scale of this project, with the associated environmental consequences, are daunting. In short, the project will have a significant impact on the Santa Clarita Valley's natural landscape, further urbanizing and industrializing a Valley known for its suburban and rural character. From information provided in the Draft EIR, the City finds that operations associated with the proposed project will have an adverse and irreversible impact on the Valley's environmental resources and visual character and could degrade the quality of life enjoyed by residents throughout the Canyon Country area. is PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 2 Land Use The Land Use Section of the Draft EIR concludes that no land use impacts would result from project implementation as the site is appropriately zoned for mining activity and would be located adjacent to an existing mining facility. The City finds that this evaluation falls short in its discussion of the City of Santa Clarita's land use characteristics near the project site and believes that land use impacts would occur. The following sections should be considered in the preparation of the Final EIR for this project. Project's Relationship to the City of Santa Clarita Although the site is located outside the City of Santa Clarita's jurisdiction, the Draft EIR fails to acknowledge the significance of the City's geographic Proximity and relationship to the site. Various sections of the Draft EIR indicate that it is not necessary, nor appropriate, to involve the City of Santa Clarita in the planning process for this project. In addition, the Setting discussion of the Land Use Section fails to acknowledge the community of Canyon Country, which extends throughout the eastern portion of the City of Santa Clarita. It is important to note that the City of Santa Clarita, the largest populated area in the Valley with 143,836 residents, is located approximately two miles from the project site. The current eastern boundary of the City of Santa Clarita extends along the centerline of the Antelope Valley Freeway to approximately Shadow Pines Boulevard and Soledad Canyon Road to the north. South of the Antelope Valley Freeway, the City encompasses the Sand Canyon and Oak Springs Canyon areas. Six annexations along the City's eastern boundary have been completed since 1990. The most notable, Pinetree, includes 2,330 single-family homes on a 1,038 -acre site north of Soledad Canyon Road. This 15 -year-old neighborhood, with 7,223 residents, would be the most adversely affected residential area within the City of Santa Clarita. Other annexations along the eastern edge of the City include American Beauty (299 single-family homes), Prime West (179 single-family homes), Hunters Green (73 single-family homes with two golf courses), Oak Springs Canyon (35 single-family homes), and Morton Stanley (75 single-family homes). Proposed annexations north and adjacent to Pinetree include Thompson Ranch (1,126 projected single-family homes) and California Canyons (204 single-family homes). The location and timing of annexations in the Canyon Country area is indicative of a strong development trend in the Valley. In other words, throughout the 1990s, the City's boundary has continued to move east toward the proposed project site. In addition, the City anticipates resubmitting a proposal for a sphere of influence (SOI) to the Local Agency Formation Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 3 Commission that will extend beyond the current City boundary. A future SOI would likely include the proposed TMC site. Regardless of whether the project site becomes part of the City of Santa Clarita, the City has a vested interest in the operations that occur on the site. The City seeks to ensure that the proposed mining operations do not adversely affect the City's residential population or drastically change the visual and operational character of the area. Regardless of jurisdiction, the EIR should provide a more comprehensive discussion regarding the character of the Santa Clarita Valley and the land use characteristics of the City of Santa Clarita, especially along its eastern boundary. Land Use Conflicts The proposed project site is included in the City s General Plan Land Use planning area. The City's General Plan designates the southern portion of the project site as Residential Estate (RE). The General Plan states that the RE designation "is a category created to ensure the continuation of existing agricultural farming and ranching activities and to ensure the rural and country character of certain portions of the planning area are maintained" (General Plan, L-43). North of the Antelope Valley Freeway, the General Plan calls for a combination of residential densities including Residential Low (RL - 2.2 dwelling units per acre) and Residential Suburban (RS — 5.0 dwelling units per acre). Mining operations within the RE area would conflict with the City's General Plan and potentially affect nearby areas slated for residential development. The two predominant land uses in the project area include a variety of residential developments and mining operations. Residential uses and industrial uses are at opposite ends of the land use spectrum and, when located in proximity to one another, can result in land use conflicts. The Draft EIR downplays the serious health and safety effects that industrial operations can have on nearby residences, stating that the further encroachment of residential uses would adversely affect the realization of the site's maximum potential to produce aggregate. In short, the Draft EIA appears to conclude that existing and planned residential developments would present a nuisance -to project operations. The intensity and scale of the mining operations in proximity to residential developments and important environmental features is not considered in the determination of land use compatibility. Land uses in proximity to the site include: • Established City of Santa Clarita communities (Pinetree) to the northwest; • Existing mobile home/RV park V4 mile southwest of the project site; • Established rural community of Ague Dulce to the northeast; • Shadow Pine development (499 single-family lots) to the northwest; • Tract Map No. 87459 (637 units) to the northwest; Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 4 • Proposed Bee Canyon Mobile Home Park (650 units) adjacent to the proposed project site; • Rio Dulce development (622 lots) to the northeast; • Angeles National Forest to the south; and • Santa Clara River (SEA No. 23), which extends through the site for approximately 2,000 feet. The Draft EIR concludes that mining operations at the proposed location would be appropriate as six other mining operations are currently located in the area. And although the project would certainly be compatible with the established mining facilities, its implementation would only contribute to a cumulative change in the existing rural land use character, further exacerbating the problems that result from a mixture of residential and industrial uses. The approval of this large-scale surface mining operation may also pave the way for the approval of future mining projects in the Santa Clarita Valley. The Draft EIR indicates that three (3) applications are on file with the County of Los Angeles. With the approval of TMC's current proposal, the area will become predominantly industrial, overshadowing the existing and planned residential communities in the area. With future mining proposals, approval of the TMC project would likely be used to (1) support arguments of land use compatibility, and (2) establish that there is a trend toward industrial uses in this area of the Santa Clarita Valley, regardless of the high residential population within a three -to -four mile radius of the area. Aesthetics/Visual Resources Although not in the City, the project, as proposed, will have significant visual impacts resulting from the proposed grading. These visual/grading impacts are significant and will leave a permanent scar on the area. The following existing and proposed land uses have views of the proposed TMC site. The Antelope Valley Freeway (Highway 14) located north and northwest of the project site is defined as a secondary priority study route for scenic highways in the Santa Clarita Area Plan prepared by Los Angeles County. It also marks a gateway into the Santa Clarita Valley and the City of Santa Clarita, which may be drastically changed with the 200 -foot reduction of a ridgeline and the filling and smoothing of ravines. This scenic vista must be preserved, as indicated in Section 3.1.10.1 (Visual Qualities, page 3-240), "ridgelines should be preserved." The surface mining operation, as proposed, would fail to satisfy this goal. The Angeles National Forest is located south of the project site. The area hiker or adventurer will have a direct view of the proposed mining operations, potentially without screening to the south. In addition, Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 5 Metrolink commuters will have full, unscreened views of the site for over one continuous minute. There are several existing and proposed residential developments directly to the north, northwest and northeast of the project site, including neighborhoods within .the City of Santa Clarita. The Draft EIR only provides viewshed photo simulations from inside a vehicle, the Antelope Valley Freeway, and Soledad Canyon Road. The analysis fails to include photo simulations from residential areas, the Angeles National Forest, the Santa Clara River, and locations along the Metrolink rail corridor. During site visits, City staff found that the project site would be highly visible from the City of Santa Clarita as well as other residential communities in the vicinity of the project. The Draft EIR assumes that no significant visual impact would occur from views in Santa Clarita, without providing a photo -simulated analysis from the City. The Visual Qualities Section should be expanded to include a photo analysis of the aforementioned viewsheds. The transformation of the secondary ridgeline will be glaringly obvious to users of the Antelope Valley Freeway. This will especially be noticeable during the filling of the North Fines Storage Area (NFSA) as haul trucks will transform the north -facing side of the ridge into a solid, filled-in ravine, contrasting to the surrounding terrain. Section 3.1.10.2 (Visual Qualities, page 3-252) makes the assumption that, "Many drivers, when they are concentrating on the road in front of them, are not as aware of other surroundings (including landform)." While this statement can be true for the occasional driver unfamiliar with the area, the same can't be said of the daily commuter making approximately five (5) weekly round trips from the Greater Los Angeles area to the Antelope Valley and vice versa. The fact that this subjective remark is used as a measure of significance and intended to justify a major alteration of a secondary ridgeline is unacceptable and unprofessional and should be removed from the environmental analysis. Section 3.1.10.2 (Visual Qualities, page 3-269) states that, "the site will blend into the surrounding terrain in a manner consistent with other disturbances," which assumes that adding to an existing visual impact is acceptable and does not require mitigation. While the City acknowledges that there is some hillside degradation in the project area, the applicant should not assume that existing conditions justify further damage to a significant scenic region. The Draft EIR further indicates plans to reclaim the proposed TMC site, while not specifying a monitoring agency to ensure how the process will be completed. The City of Santa Clarita recommends that, aside from issuing a bond for the land reclamation, the applicant must also hire an independent monitoring agency to monitor the reclamation process. Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 6 Figure 3.1.10-5, South Side of Site at Proposed Entrance to Mine Facility, is an example of a viewshed from a motorist's perspective on Soledad Canyon Road. While the intent of this photograph is to demonstrate the view from inside a vehicle, it does not represent the full visual perspective of the driver or passenger. Photo simulations should also be provided without obstructions in the picture (i.e. rear-view mirror) to allow for a better assessment of the visual impacts. PublicHealth and Safetv While the City understands that restricted access and compliance with the regulations and requirements of OSHA, MSHA and the County Uniform Fire Code will help to reduce potential on-site hazards, it does not eliminate all risks associated with the project operations. Regular use of explosives, operation of large combustible equipment, on-site fuel storage, and major earth moving operations throughout the 500 -acre site will increase the number of public hazards in the area. Section 3.1.13.1 (Public Health) of the Draft EIR identifies several health and safety hazards including: • Potential for fuel spills or exposure to other hazardous materials; • Storage of two (2) 6,000 —10,000 gallon above -ground tanks; • On-site blasting to occur twice a week during Phase I and four times a week during Phase II; • Potential for a brush, equipment or electrical fire; and • Proximity to open space, recreationalists, mobile home parks, etc. The Public Health Section of the Draft EIR states that, "Mining operations may require occasional blasting onsite" (page 3-325). The project proposes to conduct blasting twice a week for the first 10 years of the project, increasing this to four times a week during the latter 10 years. This translates to 104 blasting events per year, or 1,040 blastings over the first 10 -year period. This doubles to 208 blasting events per year during Phase II, or 2,080 blastings over the course of this 10 -year period. The Public Health Section fails to provide any quantitative analysis of the number and frequency of blasting events proposed as part of the project, referring only to these activities as "occasional." Even the simple calculations provided above do not appear in the analysis of public health impacts. Although nearby residential communities are briefly mentioned in the Setting section of the Public Health analysis, no further consideration or reference to sensitive receptors is made in the evaluation of public health impacts. Will the facility have an evacuation plan in the event of an emergency? How does TMC propose to inform nearby residential populations and ensure their safe evacuation from the area? Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 7 All industrial operations, especially those involving explosives and major Processing functions, carry with them some potential for public hazard. The fact that there are extensive regulations, safety procedures and employee training requirements indicates the level of risk associated with this industry. Given the nature and size of the proposed operation, the City believes that the Draft EIR improperly concluded that, "No potential unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after mitigation" (page 3-326). The City finds this statement to be presumptuous and unsupported. Traffic and Circulation Project operations would occur over a 20 -year period and involve daily materials transport to areas throughout Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley. The project will rely solely on the segment of the Antelope Valley Freeway extending through the Santa Clarita Valley to execute daily transportation operations. Although traffic volumes do not trigger the Los Angeles County threshold for significance, the Draft EIR should acknowledge that the addition of heavy, oversized equipment and haul trucks on a major freeway and local roads over a 20 -year period will result in significant adverse impacts. Daily Phase I operations will involve 75 ready -mixed concrete trucks, seven cement/fly ash trucks, and 265 aggregate trucks that will interface with passenger vehicles on Soledad Canyon Road and the Antelope Valley Freeway. During Phase II, the number of aggregate trucks will increase to 500. The Draft EIR does state that, "The majority of traffic generated by the Project will be heavy trucks," (page 3-302), however, this is only in reference to the access road. No mitigation is provided for project -related traffic traveling on the Antelope Valley Freeway. The segment of the Antelope Valley Freeway that extends through the Santa Clarita Valley serves as the critical link between the Antelope Valley and the Greater Los Angeles area. During peak morning and evening hours, the Antelope Valley Freeway is heavily congested with commuters traveling between the Antelope Valley and locations throughout the Greater Los Angeles area. Transportation operations associated with the proposed project would exacerbate poor traffic conditions along this major transportation corridor during peak hours, thus affecting regional mobility between the Antelope Valley, Santa Clarita Valley and the San Fernando Valley. The County of Los Angeles has designated Soledad Canyon Road as a major highway in the North Portion County of Los Angeles Highway Plan. Soledad Canyon Road also serves as an alternative route through the Santa Clarita Valley when the Antelope Valley Freeway is congested. Since TMC will be generating additional traffic in the area, especially on Soledad Canyon Road, they should provide full public improvements including additional lanes meeting the County of Los Angeles Major Highway requirements. Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 8 Daily materials transport activities have the potential to: (1) change vehicle composition on the Antelope Valley Freeway; (2) create traffic hazards due to vehicles traveling at different speeds; (3) impede motorist visibility due to oversized equipment and trucks; and (4) result in motorist injury and vehicle damage due to loose gravel and rocks which typically fly off trucks. In short, the introduction of additional haul trucks and oversized equipment on a major state freeway has the potential to cause traffic delays and safety hazards. Will all haul trucks be covered? How will TMC ensure compliance with contract transportation services? In addition to vehicle interface conflicts, on-site blasting and other grading operations at the 460 -acre project site could also affect roadway conditions on the Antelope Valley Freeway. Noise, vibration, dust and possible light/glare impacts resulting from these operations will distract or impair motorists, thus creating a potential roadway hazard. The Draft EIR fails to identify such hazards or to provide for appropriate mitigation to eliminate or minimize these hazards. How does TMC propose to minimize off-site effects and maintain roadway conditions for motorists along the Antelope Valley Freeway during major on-site operations? The Draft EIR states that "95 percent of Project traffic would travel to the Antelope Valley Freeway via Soledad Canyon Road" (page 3-292). Although the quantitative analysis of project -related traffic found that volumes would be insignificant, the interface of passenger and large commercial vehicles warrants mitigation measures to avoid roadway conflicts. Table 3.1.11-5, Related Projects, confirms that land uses in the project vicinity are divided between residential uses and mining operations. Therefore, the City recommends that the applicant assume a "worst case" scenario and install the traffic signal at the Soledad Canyon Road/Antelope Valley Freeway Ramps intersection as part of Phase I of project implementation. This will ensure that a higher level of roadway protection is provided for both passenger and commercial vehicles transitioning from Soledad Canyon Road to the freeway and vice versa. Mitigation Measure TI is internally inconsistent. It states that "mitigation measures are required for the Soledad Canyon Road/Antelope Valley Freeway NB and SB ramps intersection, and the east approach of Soledad Canyon Road to the Bee Canyon Mobile Home Park's most easterly access road that were determined to have significant cumulative impacts." However, the same paragraph also states that it is recommended County Public Works and Caltrans "determine if and when the mitigations are required." This statement invalidates the first statement, thus making this mitigation measure unenforceable. Where significant impacts are identified, defined and measurable measures must be provided to ensure impacts are reduced to a less -than -significant level. Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 9 The Draft EIR also indicates that the Santa Clarita Valley, in addition to the Greater Los Angeles area, will be a major market for materials produced from the proposed TMC facility. However, there is no discussion of haul routes or potential impacts to roadways within the City of Santa Clarita and other unincorporated areas throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. The traffic analysis should be expanded to include a qualitative evaluation of anticipated roadways and buyer locations throughout the Santa Clarita Valley to be used by TMC. This evaluation should consider whether heavy commercial vehicles would become a nuisance or pose a hazard to sensitive land uses in proximity to designated roadways. Air Quality The Draft EIR identifies numerous emission generators — heavy equipment, conveyor systems, rock and sand processing, concrete plant operations, on-site truck travel, off-site truck travel, and scraper travel. It is understandable, then, that the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR concludes that even with the most aggressive mitigation measures in place, the project will exceed the accepted levels of pollutant emissions. However, the EIR then goes to argue that significant emission levels will not affect even the closest residential receptor as the pollutants will remain over project site. Yet the Draft EIR does not provide a discussion of the effect high winds could have on dispersing these pollutants to nearby receptors and the region at large. Given that this portion of the Santa Clarita Valley is regularly a high wind advisory area, the City believes that the Air Quality Section must include a comprehensive analysis of wind patterns and appropriate mitigation measures to containing these pollutants on the project site. Will TMC shut down mining operations during periods of high wind? What wind velocity thresholds would be used to determine when to stop specific surface mining operations (i.e. blasting), or the entire operation? Who would monitor operations to ensure that off-site air quality impacts do not occur? How does TMC propose to protect surrounding residential populations from high emission levels? The discussion of sensitive receptors on pages 3-159 to 3-160 with regard to air qty impacts is. summed up in five sentences. This discussion fails to provide the number of affected residences or any descriptors regarding residential types, means of access, neighborhood orientation, recreational areas, etc. Given that long-term pollutant exposure to neighboring residences poses the largest public health threat, this discussion is clearly inadequate. Later on page 3-174, it is concluded that "Because of the extreme distances from sensitive receptors, no nuisance complaints are anticipated" with regard to fugitive dust. This statement is not supported and does not differentiate between the residences V4 -mile from the site, or the community of Agua Dulce located three miles from the site. Given the project's intensity and size, it is unclear whether three miles would serve as an adequate buffer to reduce Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 10 potential air quality impacts. Therefore, this evaluation should be expanded to clearly depict the existing uses of the area and how topography and wind patterns could affect pollutant exposure. In sum, project operations will degrade the air quality of the Santa Clarita Valley over a 20 -year period, creating a local and a regional impact. As no further mitigation is available to effectively reduce emission levels, the City strongly encourages TMC to reduce the scope of work. Reduced production levels may bring the project into compliance with established air quality standards. Noise & Vibration Sensitive receptors located in the immediate project area include: the River's End Mobile Home/RV Park adjacent to the site; established single-family residential communities located within two miles of the site; sensitive habitat/wildlife; and the proposed Bee Canyon Mobile Home Park (if approved, this development would be adjacent to the project site). Section 3.1.5.1 states that `few sensitive receptors are located in this area" (page 3-119). The Draft EIR should specifically identify all sensitive receptors and present findings which show the projected level of noise and vibration -related disturbances. In addition, Figure 3.1.5-2 should be revised to include dwellings to the northeast on Agua Dulce Canyon Road, the community of Agua Dulce, the City of Santa Clarita, and residential developments located north of the Antelope Valley Freeway. Although TMC proposes to comply with all Los Angeles County and federal noise regulations, the project will result in increased noise levels throughout the area with an increase in industrial activities. These activities will include blasting and operation of haul trucks, on-site extraction equipment and the batch plant. The Draft EIR concludes that the mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts to a less -than -significant level. However, residents as far away as Santa Clarita and Agua Dulce have complained of the noise currently generated from existing mining operations near. the project site. For this reason, the Draft EIR should further analyze the site's relationship to sensitive noise receptors and how topography may affect decibel levels and sound travel distances. This should include an analysis of the current mining operations, surveys 'from nearby residents, and an evaluation of noise and vibration impacts to the natural habitat. The trucking operations associated with this project are proposed occur on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week. Although this may be effective to reduce air quality impacts, noise generated from heavy haul trucks will be significant, beginning as early as 5:00 a.m. Although less impact on traffic may occur at this hour, there is greater potential for noise conflicts with nearby residents. How does TMC propose to respond to complaints regarding early morning operations and the related noise impacts? Who will respond to the resident Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 11 complaints? Will TMC alter operations if a significant number of complaints are received? The City finds that the Draft EIR fails to consider these potential noise -related problems. How does TMC propose to address these issues? Although the Draft EIR presents some measures to reduce significant noise levels to adjacent sensitive receptors, the analysis does not significantly address the site-specific characteristics. Topographic features, climatic conditions, and locations of adjacent land uses each affect noise levels off the project site. The Draft EIR makes a comparison to a TMC mining facility in Azusa, claiming that no significant noise impacts are produced by mining operations at this particular facility. However, the mining facility in Asuza is located in a remote area not in proximity to sensitive noise receptors. Furthermore, the Azusa site is located below -grade, entirely contained in a large pit; therefore, the majority of the noise is contained within the project site. The Soledad Canyon facility would be located within a mountainous area with various canyons and valleys having the capability to amplify and carry the noise produced by the mining operations. The Draft EIR should provide a more detailed analysis of the site's characteristics and its potential to exacerbate noise impacts resulting from project operations. In Section 3.1.5.1 (page 3-126), the community of Agua Dulce is identified as a sensitive noise receptor, however, there is no reference to the City of Santa Clarita. Please explain why the City is excluded from the analysis of noise and vibration impacts. Cultural Resources With the exception of LAN 1847H, the cultural resources analysis concludes that no additional historic or paleontological features are located on the 500 - acre site. Agua Dulce officials have indicated that there may be a grave site of a Franciscan missionary just outside the project site to the southwest. They believe the grave dates back to the first contact with the indigenous population of the Santa Clarita Valley. At the Agua Dulce Town Council meeting of March 10, 1999, a TMC representative responded to this information by stating, `If necessary, we will do the archeology." The City requests that the project applicant work with Agua Dulce officials to further investigate this possible finding. The Draft EIR should also include a mitigation measure to serve as a mechanism for the protection of unknown/unidentified cultural resources in the event that a historic or paleontological resource is found on the site during mining operations. Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 12 olo The geotechnical analysis in the Draft EIR contains numerous assumptions regarding slope stability, minimum strength characteristics, and minimum relative compaction requirements. The City requests that the factors and rationale for these assumptions be provided to support the evaluation of geological impacts associated with project implementation. Specifically, please provide the slope stability analysis, including the perimeters used in the calculations for the fines storage areas, proposed fill slopes and proposed cut slopes. It is recommended in the Draft EIR that the outer 10 feet of the proposed fill slopes be constructed with a soil material having minimum strength characteristics of cohesion equal to 175 psf and angle of internal friction equal to 35 degree OR some other alternative soil strength combination that will result in the minimum factor of safety of 1.5. Please describe the other alternative soil strength combinations being considered that will result in the 1.5 minimum safety factor. What slope angle (horizontal? vertical?) was used to perform this analysis? What is Los Angeles County's minimum relative compaction requirement for the fill slopes? Also, what is TMC's future plan for the abandoned silt ponds and the existing south silt pile? Biological Resources The proposed mining operations could adversely affect the Santa Clara River and the wildlife which depends on it. Whether on-site or in proximity to the project, the habitat of the area will be affected with the introduction of a large- scale surface mining operation. The Draft EIR makes several references to "inaccessible" areas of the site in regards to the habitat analysis. In reference to areas difficult to inspect, the Draft EIR indicates that, "inaccessible areas were scanned with binoculars," The majority of the site is sloped, rugged terrain, hence what amount of the site required a binocular inspection during the biota analysis? Is this amount a significant ,portion of the project? Are binocular surveys an accepted form of site habitat analysis? The vegetation surveys must include accurate data and analysis for those "inaccessible areas." Figure 3.1.8-2 indicates that the project site encompasses a portion of the study area for the unarmored threespine stickleback. Because the species was not observed on site, Table 3.1.8-2 indicates there is no "Potential for Occurrence Onsite." However, the species is common to the area and could be directly affected by the project. How does TMC propose to protect the species? The Draft EIR states that, "a large population of slender homed spineflower (1,000 + individuals, Dodecahema leptoceras), a state and federally -listed endangered species, was observed on benches within the alluvial wash in Bee Canyon well outside the project area." The Draft EIR, fails to indicate the Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 13 distance from the project site, which is directly adjacent to Bee Canyon. In addition, the Draft EIR assumes that this state and federally -listed endangered species will not be affected, when due to the proximity to the site there appears to be a potential for an impact. Although outside the project area, the Draft EIR must further analyze potential impacts to the slender horned spineflower. Does the North Fines Storage area (NFSA) operations present a danger to the species? The applicant should address this in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR states that, "no significant impacts will occur to the wildlife movement corridors." Although no mining operations will occur in the river corridor, the Draft EIR should Acess potential impacts to sensitive habitat/wildlife based on noise and vibration from increased truck traffic and mining operations. How does TMC propose to address this issue? Although the Draft EIR (page 3-238) states that noise levels will be below 65 dBA in the riparian habitat, the project will introduce additional noise that is currently not present. In addition "stray lighting" could create an impact since the majority of wildlife migrates during the nighttime hours. The use of low - intensity lighting and directional shielding will help to reduce stray light; nevertheless, the project will introduce lights which are currently not present on the site's habitat. The Draft EIR concludes that sensitive wildlife including the San Diego coast horned lizard, coast patch -nosed snake, coastal rosy boa, and coastal western whiptail were not observed on the site, therefore, "no significant impact on this species is anticipated." However, it appears that a high potential for these animals is possible based on the site's "suitable habitat." The Draft EIR analysis makes too many assumptions that no significant impacts will occur to sensitive wildlife because none or very few were observed during site visits. In Table 3.1.8-1 (Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species that Potentially Occur Onsite and in Neighboring Offsite Habitats), survey results contain "no comments" for a majority of the species listed. Given that the analysis is based in large part on the "binocular surveys" and assumptions that only those species found on-site are affected, a more detailed survey should be performed to analyze all areas affected by the project, including those outside the project boundary. Water Quality/Stormwater Manairement The City of Santa Clarita is located downstream from the project site; however, this information is not mentioned in the analysis of water quality. The City finds the analysis of runoff characterization incomplete. How will runoff from the project affect water quality, runoff and flooding in the City? How does TMC plan to monitor runoff downstream? What is the characterization of material leaving the site? Letter of Response to Draft EIR Solaced Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 14 The Draft EIR mentions that subsurface flow will be diverted. Is there a study or plan available that states why this is required as part of project implementation? How will this be accomplished? What mitigation techniques does TMC plan to apply to reduce the negative impact on the ecosystem and/or runoff downstream? The City requests a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). Water Resources The project will require several hundred acre-feet of water per year, a significant amount to commit each year over a 20 -year period. There have been continual questions by various agencies including the Newhall County Water District, some members of the Castaic Lake Water District, and members of the public about the availability of water for the Santa Clarita Valley. This may be an area of the project that has not been adequately addressed. Recygh Program The project appears to represent a Federal subsidy of the production of virgin aggregate. This will stifle the potential for a recycled construction and demolition market (C&D) in the City of Santa Clarita. If virgin material is produced locally for a much lower price than recycled material, how will that affect the potential for recycling programs encouraged by the State? Further, the California Integrated Waste Management Board has identified C&D waste as a priority waste stream and encourages recycling markets for these products. The project, as proposed, contradicts with the State's policies regarding recycled material. The Draft EIR notes that 0.5 million tons of fines material will be shipped off- site within the first three years of project operation. How much will be shipped per year? What is/are the destinations? Please note that the City is opposed to adding this material to local landfills. Recreation (Trails) The City of Santa Clarita has identified the Santa Clara River in its proposed River Plan which includes recreational amenities and a multi -use river trail. The entire length of the river is also included in the State recreational trails system and the County's Master Plan of regional trails. The proposed TMC site is a non -compatible use with the proposed recreational plan for the Santa Clara River. The Santa Clara River extends approximately 2,000 feet through the proposed site. How does TMC propose to co -exist with future recreational activities associated with the Santa Clara River while conducting heavy industrial mining operations? Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 15 Soledad Canyon Road is currently the public access route for the Santa Clarita Recreational Corridor. This adopted State of California recreational corridor is the only east -west connection in the Los Angeles County area from the Pacific Crest Trail to the California State Bike -Centennial 'hail in Ventura. This trail corridor is the primary route connecting Santa Clarita Valley's recreational users to California's interior regions from Oregon to Mexico and the beach areas from Cresent City to National City. The expanded volume of heavy transportation equipment along this two-lane road with unimproved side panels will significantly degrade the public's ability to utilize this recreational right-of-way. Additional traffic will create substantial safety and health hazards for recreationalists. The City recommends that project mitigation include land acquisition for an off-site trail alignment and construction of a multi -use recreational trail to bypass the area affected by project -related traffic. The trail bypass should be developed through public participation meetings and coordination with representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, State of California Recreational Trails Committee, California Trails and Greenways Foundation, Los Angeles County Parks Department, the City of Santa Clarita, and the town of Acton. Cumulative Impacts With approval of TMC's project, a precedent will be set for the establishment of future mining projects in the area. Cumulatively, the TMC site, with existing and proposed mining in the area, will further contribute to growing land use incompatibilities. Contrary to Section 3.4 (Cumulative Impacts), which states that only a "small number of sensitive receptors" exist in the area, the Draft EIR fails to justify the appropriateness of the TMC proposal and further ignores many of the contributing negative factors. Although CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130 [61) normally do not require a great amount of detail to be provided under the "cumulative impacts" analysis, the TMC project can be considered the exception. The proposed project requires further analysis due to its potential to set a trend for other mining proposals in the area. The Draft EIR should address this by providing a comprehensive table of all mining projects in the immediate project area and the region which are ongoing or are being processed at the county, state or federal level to fully assess the potential cumulative impacts. Furthermore, the Draft EIR continuously makes reference to cumulative impacts attributed to residential and commercial projects as opposed to the proposed mining operations. The Draft EIR states that, "Cumulative residential projects have the potential for inducing growth within neighborhood areas and encouraging land uses that may not be compatible with mineral extraction uses. Such incompatible land uses would result in significant cumulative impacts." However, the Draft EIR fails to consider the Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 16 opposite position. For the existing sensitive uses, land use incompatibility would result from approval of TMC's proposed project. Alternatives to the Proiect The Draft EIR briefly discusses six sites that were eliminated from further analysis prior to the preparation of the Draft EIR. All alternatives to the project considered in the Draft EIR are variations to the proposed project at the proposed location. Therefore, the option for the decision-making body to recommend an alternative site is not provided. The Draft EIR states that all other sites considered for this project proved to be cost prohibitive, making the Santa Clarita Valley site the only economically - feasible location for TMC's mining operations to occur. What were the thresholds/criteria used to determine the infeasibility of alternative sites? Who establishes these thresholds — TMC, a governmental agency, or a private third party? Did the applicant prepare a feasibility study or a major investment study prior to the preparation of the Draft EIR? It appears that the decision to exclude alternative sites was based on a monetary basis, rather than a comprehensive cost -benefit analysis which considers the qualitative, as well as quantitative, effects of project implementation at a variety of sites. The spirit of a cost -benefit analysis is to consider the direct and indirect effects of a project and evaluate what is gained from project benefits to what must be foregone in order to achieve it. For this project, a cost -benefit analysis would enable decision -makers to weigh the negative effects of surface mining on a population of approximately 150,000 with the added transportation cost to be incurred by TMC in traveling to an alternative site. In defining the Reduced Quantity Mining Concept Alternative, the Draft EIR states that "the objective of this reduced quantity analysis is to examine a reasonable alternative to the Project that would feasibly attain most of the Project's objectives but which would avoid or reduce significant environmental effects" (page 3-404). Later in this section, however, the Draft EIR states, "the Reduced Quantity Mining Concept Alternative is not considered to be the most viable alternative because it fails to meet most of the TMC Project objectives and is not economically feasible" (page 2-414). These statements directly conflict with one another and indicate that alternative mining proposals which reduce the scope of work will automatically be deemed infeasible as they compromise the project objectives. One of the project objectives is to mine the project site to produce 56.1 million tons of PCC aggregates. All alternatives are required to meet this production output threshold to achieve the project objective. The Reduced Quantity Mining Concept Alternative, then, is set up to fail and lose its designation as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 17 The impacts associated with the alternatives considered in the `Alternatives To Project' section are weighed against the proposed project. The City recommends that the applicant reevaluate the beneficial and adverse impacts associated with each alternative following the revision of the environmental analysis for the proposed project. The City believes that many of the environmental effects associated with the project alternatives will fall into the "less than" category when balanced against a more complete analysis of the proposed project. Concluding Statements In general, the City finds that the Draft EIR understates the range of impacts associated with the proposed Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project and is, therefore, inadequate. As indicated throughout this letter, the City has noted the exclusion of the City of Santa Clarita in several sections of the Draft EIR. The City finds that this is a major deficiency in the environmental analysis and recommends that appropriate references and analysis be added to the Final EIR. The City of Santa Clarita is committed to the protection of the environment, the prevention of land use conflicts, and a high quality of life for Valley residents. The project, as proposed, has potential to affect the full range of environmental factors of public concern and compromise the City's aggressive efforts to maintain the City's livable qualities. The City encourages the Transit Mixed Concrete Company to explore alternative means of (or locations to) obtain needed mineral resources without devastating the natural landscape or altering the land use character of established residential communities. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project. Please note that due to the size of the TMC proposal and mplexity of the Draft EIR, the City will be submitting a supplemental let to clarify specific areas of concern. If you have any questions, pla ntact Enrique Diaz, Assistant Planner I, or Lisa Hardy, Associate, , at (661) 255-4330. ambert, AICP of Planning and Building Services Letter of Response to Draft EIR Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Page 18 cc: Mayor Darcy and City Councilmembers George Caravalho, City Manager Vince Berton, Planning Manager JJL: LH/ED:lep s: \ pbs \ current \ tmc \ tmceir.doc Proposed L.A. County Soledad Canyon Sand & Gravel Mining Project FACT SHEET Project Site Location & Characteristics • Project site located in area north of Soledad Canyon Road, south of the Antelope Valley Freeway, and west of Agua Dulce Canyon. • Project site located approximately two miles from City's eastern boundary. Located approximately three miles from Sand Canyon Road-Soledad Canyon Road intersection. • Project site zoned M-2 and portions of site were previously mined by sand and gravel operators since 1968. • Area designated as a Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resource Area by the State of California. Project Obiectives • Provide reliable source of construction materials for the Greater Los Angeles area and the Santa Clarita Valley. • Mine the site to produce 56.1 million tons of Portland cement concrete sand and gravel (PCC aggregates) and provide $28 million in royalties to the Federal Government in accordance with the Federal Contracts. Project Descriotion • Project applicant: Transit Mixed Concrete Company • Lead agency: Los Angeles County • Surface mining of 83 million tons of aggregate (sand & gravel) on a 460 -acre site (Area A) just outside the eastern boundary of the City of Santa Clarita • Concrete processing is proposed to occur on a 40 -acre area (Area B). • Both the surface mining and concrete processing operations are proposed to extend over a 20 -year period. • Blasting to occur twice a week for the first 10 years of the project. This will be increased to four times a week during the later 10 years. • Excavation activities to take place six days a week between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 P.M. • Aggregate processing to take place 16 hours a day, and aggregate shipping to take place 24 hours per day. G V1 W2 0� as 0 ac as 00 z0 aZ Zz X W CZ Proposed L.A. County Calmat Company Agua Dulce Quarry Project FACT SHEET Site Location and Characteristics • Proposed project site located east of the proposed TMC project site, between Soledad Canyon Road to the south and the Antelope Valley Freeway to the north 1,183 -acre site Site bisected by Ague Dulce Canyon Road and Agua Dulce Creek. Site has 0.5 -mile frontage along Soledad Canyon Road to the south. • County zoning — A-1-1 and A-2-1 County land use designation — HM (Hillside Management) and W (Floodway/ Floodplain) in the Agua Dulce Canyon area; SEA (Significant Ecological Area) within the Santa Clara River corridor Project Description • Proposal involves excavation of construction -grade aggregate • Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has mineral ownership of the majority of the site . The information provided above was taken from the Draft EIR prepared for the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project (pages 3-319, 3-321 and 3-351) Status of Project • L.A. County project number: 91307 • Status of mining proposal is "pending" • Although an environmental impact report (EIR) was initiated, L.A. County staff report that the project is suspended and not considered an active project. • Project suspended due to issues related to obtaining water rights and other complications related to project operations. • L.A. County staff report that substantial changes have been made to the project description, possibly in response to the issue of water rights. L.A. County staff was unable to provide a current project description. Information regarding the status of the project was obtained in a telephone conversation with Julie Moore, project planner, with the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning on Tuesday, May 4, 1999. • Concrete batch plant and ready -mixed shipping may run seven days a week, 24 hours a day, depending on market demand. • A total of 347 outbound truck trips per day will occur during Phase I (1st 10 years) for aggregate and concrete shipping. During Phase 2 (latter 10 years), it is estimated that outbound truck trips per day will total 582. Environmental Analvsis Process • Draft EIR currently being circulated for public review. • The Draft EIR evaluated the following environmental factors: land use, visual qualities, water reources, air quality, traffic & circulation, noise & vibration, public health, public services, geotechnical, flood, and cultural resources. • Draft EIR finds that only two environmental factors would have unmitigable significant adverse impacts: air quality and visual resources. • The Draft EIR concluded that the project would not have any adverse impact on land use. • City staff is currently preparing a letter of response to the Draft EIR.