DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC WORKS and PLANNINGDEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION

• May 2011, the Applicant proposed and endorsed a reduced version of the Draft EIR Alternative 4, which incorporates additional reductions in the size of the mining surface disturbance area, as well as substantially shortening the life of the project, and reducing both annual and total production levels. Specific data was still needed at this time to initiate a full analysis.

• May 2011 to October 2011 Applicant submitted additional specific data to the County fully describing the Reduced Alternative – County EIR consultant and County staff analyze the reduces alternative for compliance with CEQA and potential impacts – completed November 2011.

• Upon analysis - Reduced Alternative 4 was included in the FEIR and formally announced in the Notice of Availability December 2011.

 Reduced Alternative 4 would not preclude mining on the face of Jesse Morrow

Mountain, this Alternative would avoid excavation on the ridgeline (excavation on the face would be limited to a point approximately 500 feet below the ridgeline). Under the proposed project, excavation from the Jesse Morrow Mountain ridgeline allows the project to achieve 2:1 slopes at final contour. Under this Alternative, overall slopes would be 1:1.

Reduced Alternative 4 - History

Project Element Proposed Project Reduced Alternative 4Acreage  

Total Surface Disturbance 440 acres 195 acresMined Acreage 400 acres 100 acres

Processing Acreage 40 acres 40 acres

Other Acreage 0 acres 55 acres (fill, material storage, and berms)

Production   Total Aggregate Reserves Mined 200 million tons 75 million tons

Maximum Annual Production 2 million tons 1.5 million tons

Operations Period  

Mining 100 years 50 yearsFinal Reclamation 3 years 3 years

End Use  

Reclaimed Slope Angle 2:1 1:1

Lowest Elevation 500 feet amsl (75 feet bgs) 375 feet amsl (200 feet bgs)

Reclaimed End Use Open Space/ Grazing Open Space/Grazing

 TABLE 1 (SEE STAFF REPORT PAGE 9)

PROPOSED PROJECT AND REDUCED ALTERNATIVE 4 SUMMARY COMPARISON

Planning Commission Hearing Summary February 9, 2012

• The Commission considered this item on February 9, 2012

• The Commission received/considered staff presentation, County Consultant, Applicant, public in favor of the proposal and public in opposition.

• Upon consideration, the Commission Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.

• The Commission voted seven to one to continue the hearing to a date uncertain and to allow for applicant rebuttal and project opponent sur-rebuttal.

Biological Survey: Specifically related to general procedures and Mountain Lion habitat. Hydrology: Analysis of any potential loss of groundwater recharge and impact on groundwater levels, groundwater use during dry years and impact on groundwater levels, and the potential of blasting impact on wells and the canal. Air Quality: NOx/Ozone Relationship, Project Impact, and Explanation of ATC/PTO Permit Process, Explanation of NOx Emissions Sources and Comparison between Proposed Project and Reduced Alternative 4, PM Emissions Control Measures (Regulation VIII), and PM Emissions Threshold Response to SJVAPCD. Traffic: Clarification of proposed Mitigation Measure related to CalTrans facilities - Opening Day Improvements/ Fair Share Contribution. Geology and Soils/Zoning Exception Provision: Concern regarding Core Samples, Slope Stability of Reduced Alternative 4 Reclaimed Slopes and clarification pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance Exception. Clarification regarding the State Department of Conservation (DOC) review process (and their response) Blasting Procedures and Process:  Operational Statement Clarification : Clarification based on specific questions regarding the maximum daily tonnage produced at the facility. Supply and Demand of Aggregate Material. Whether the Department of Conservation’s reports regarding supply and demand of aggregate material considered the recent recession. Selma Rail Facility: Whether the Selma Rail Facility should be considered a feasible alternative to the Project.

Issues raised at previous Planning Commission Hearing February 9, 2012

State Department of Conservation (DOC) & County staff Review

State Department of Conservation (DOC) & County staff Review

State Department of Conservation (DOC) & County staff review

State Department of Conservation (DOC) & County staff review

State Department of Conservation (DOC) & County staff review

DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC WORKS and PLANNINGDEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION