1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE IN THE MATTER OF CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7508, SURFACE MINING PERMIT NO. 213, AND NOISE ORDINANCE EXCEPTION NO. 2 DENIAL FINDINGS The County of Riverside Planning Commission (the Commission) heard the above-referenced matters (the Project) in regular and special sessions assembled on April 26, 2011, May 3, 2011, June 22, 2011, July 18, 2011, August 15, 2011, and August 31, 2011, after giving the required notice. The County of Riverside Planning Department (the Planning Department) made a presentation before the Commission and recommended certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and recommended approval of the Project subject to the conditions of approval. Granite Construction (the applicant) and the applicants representatives gave oral testimony, as did members of the public. Following the presentation and oral testimony, the Commission tentatively denied the project and directed the Planning Department and Office of County Counsel to prepare the following findings. Surface Mining Permit No. 213, Change of Zone Case No. 7508, and Noise Ordinance Exception No. 2 constitute the Project (Project). The Commission has reviewed the findings and hereby denies the Project based thereon. A. Factual and Procedural History 1. Surface Mining Permit No. 213 would, if approved, permit the construction and operation of a mine on 414 acres located in southwest Riverside County. The 414 acre site would include 135 acres to be used for the quarry and associated support operations, 10 acres would be used for the access road and lower utility pad, and the remaining 250 acres would serve as a buffer area intended for permanent conservation. 2. Change of Zone No. 7508 would, if approved, change the zone from Rural Residential (R-R) to Mineral Resources and Related Manufacturing (M-R-A) on 14 parcels consisting of 110 acres near the center of the site where the processing plant would be located. The Change of Zone is not required for the Surface Mining Permit to be approved. It would make ancillary uses, contemplated under the mining permit, permitted without requiring a conditional use permit. 3. Noise Ordinance Exception No. 2 would, if approved, provide an exception from County Ordinance No. 847 to address the existing ambient noise levels resulting from noise levels related to the I-15. 4. The Project site is designated Rural: Rural Mountainous (R:RM) on the Southwest Area Plan. 5. The proposed use, surface mining and related activities, are permitted uses in the Rural: Rural Mountainous (R:RM) designation which specifically explains limited recreational uses, compatible resource development (which may include the extraction of mineral resources with approval of a surface mining permit) and associated uses, and governmental uses are also allowed within this designation. 6. The Project site is surrounded by properties which have General Plan designations of Open Space (OS) by the City of Temecula to the north and west, Community Development: Light Industrial (CD:LI) to the east by the County of Riverside, and Multiple Rural Use by the County of San Diego to the south 7. The City of Temecula on November 10, 2010, annexed the surrounding property to the north and west of the Project site, which is also part of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER). Page | 1 8. The zoning for the Project site is Rural Residential (R-R).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9. The proposed use, surface mining and related activities, is a permitted use, per section 5.1a(15) of Article V, of Ordinance No. 348, the Rural Residential (R-R) zone. 10. A 2.5-acre portion of the Project site located in San Diego County is zoned as A-70. Surface mining operations, and related facilities and activities are permitted in this zoning district, subject to a San Diego County approved Major Grading Permit. 11. The Project site is surrounded by properties which are zoned Open Space-Conservation-Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) by the City of Temecula to the north and west, Rural Residential (R-R) to the east by the County of Riverside, and A-70 by the County of San Diego to the south. 12. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP 13. This Project is not located within a Criteria Area of the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 14. The Project site is located adjacent to the San Diego State Universitys SMER on the west and north. 15. There are a number of residential subdivisions within one half mile of the Project site, such as the community of Red Hawk, consisting of approximately 3,000 homes. Single family homes, generally on lots over one half acre in size, are located to the south, north and east of the Project site. 16. Five public hearings were held on the Project in Temecula, California, in order to be close to the Project site and facilitate community input on the Project. The public meeting for Commissioners deliberations was held in Riverside, California. 17. In total, the public hearings lasted approximately 51.5 hours 18. In addition to comments received on the Projects Environmental Impact Report No. 475 (EIR), the Planning Department received 55 letters in support of the project, 14 letters that were neutral, and 77 letters in opposition. 19. At the first public hearing, the Planning Department recommended approval of the reduced footprint alternative as presented in the Projects EIR which would reduce the mine site from 155 acres to 135 acres, eliminate a settling pond, which created a buffer to the south, create an additional 250 acres of conservation and create a 400 foot buffer to the north of the Project site. 20. On July 18, 2011, after taking testimony from all members of the public who submitted a speaker card, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing to further public testimony. The public hearing was left open for all other purposes. 21. Those not present at the hearing made their opposition known in other ways such as submitting email, letters, petitions, and aerial photos showing groups of people arranged to spell out anti quarry sentiments. 22. A petition with signatures of many residents of the Red Hawk Community was submitted to the Commission in opposition to the Project. 23. Project supporters also submitted letters and attended the public hearings; however, the majority of those in attendance at the hearings expressed opposition to the Project. 24. During the applicants rebuttal, the Commission asked questions of the applicant, the applicants representative, the Planning Department and members of the public. The applicant was given an opportunity to respond to the answers provided to these questions. 25. Many residents of nearby neighborhoods, users of the neighboring SMER, elected officials and representatives from the City of Temecula and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians ( Pechanga) testified at the hearings and expressed concerns regarding impacts including air quality, traffic, noise, blasting, rock fall, biological resources, cultural resources, and impacts to the Temecula Valley Wine Country. 26. The City of Temecula, which borders the Project to the north and west, approved a resolution Page | 2 on March 8, 2011 opposing the Project.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 3

27. Representatives of the San Diego State University opposed the Project citing several potential impacts to the SMER, which is an open space research area that borders the Project to the north and west. 28. The EIR studied the Projects potential environmental impacts. The EIR is divided by areas of environmental study such as geological impacts, cultural impacts, air quality impacts, etc. The EIR concluded that there are six (6) categories (12 specific impacts) that remained significant, even after mitigation was analyzed. These six (6) significant and unavoidable impacts are direct impacts to both Air Quality and Traffic as well as Cumulative impacts to Air, Biological Resources, Traffic, and Utilities (water). B. Applicable Statutes, Regulations and Ordinances 1. Section 15093(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires the decision making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable. 2. Public Resources Code Section 21082.2(e) provides that statements in an environmental impact report and comments with respect to an environmental impact report shall not be deemed determinative of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 3. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(h)(5) provides, in pertinent part, when an [environmental impact report] shows that a project could cause substantial adverse changes in the environment, the governmental agency must respond to the information by one or more of the following methods, including disapproving the project. 4. According to Section 7(b) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 555, an application for a permit shall not be granted unless that permit is expressly subject to such conditions as are necessary to protect the health, safety or general welfare of the community. C. Project Benefits 1. The Project would mine a significant economic mineral resource, provide a portion of the local and regional demand for aggregate and meet 40% of all Western Riverside County aggregate needs for 75 years. 2. The Project would also create approximately 100 direct jobs and 178 indirect jobs. 3. The Project site is closer to existing major transportation infrastructure than alternative locations as presented in the EIR and would bring the supply closer to the demand, thus reducing the cost of aggregate. 4. The Project would also reduce regional truck trips by bringing the supply of aggregate closer to the demand. Such a reduction would have a net benefit to air quality and greenhouse gases. 5. Truck trips would be reduced by over 16.5 million truck miles a year. 6. Additionally, the Project site is not as visible to large population areas than alternative locations as presented in the EIR. 7. The Project would produce about $300 million in new sales tax revenue and $41 million in new property taxes and fees for the County of Riverside. 8. The Project would also produce tax revenue for the State of California.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

D.

Environmental Impacts 1. Air Quality a. EIR Information Air Quality EIR Background Potential air quality impacts generally occur when the emissions of a project result in a violation of an air quality standard, conflict with an applicable air quality plan, expose sensitive receptors to significant levels of toxic air contaminants, or allow regional exposure to significant levels of sulfate and nitrate deposition. Section 3.2 of the EIR summarized project specific research contained mainly in the Projects Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA), which was conducted consistent with the SCAQMD Air Quality CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993). Criteria for determining both the construction and operation impacts associated with air quality have been developed in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, SCAQMD Air Quality Thresholds, and a set of thresholds established to determine impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. Design Features That Assist in Mitigation The Project design for the operation of the quarry includes the following design features, which were included in the air quality modeling and assessment. These features assist in mitigating the air quality impacts and were considered by the Commission. Installation of baghouse emission control on crushers and screens with the potential for emissions. This reduces PM10 emissions by estimated 97.5 percent. Installation of baghouse emission controls on transfer points with the potential for emissions that are associated with the screens and crushers. This reduces emissions by estimated 97.5 percent. Pavement around the entire aggregate, asphalt, concrete, and electrical generation plant sites. Only on site haul roads will be unpaved, and those will be chemically stabilized and/or routinely watered. Installation of an ultra-efficient material loading system to minimize the amount of product delivery trucks idling time. Utilization of material load-out chutes to minimize the potential for dust generation during product loading. Purchase and use of all new off-road equipment (such as off-road quarry haul trucks, loaders, graders, etc.) that meet required, stringent emission controls. Installation of emission controls on drilling equipment to minimize dust generation. Utilization of only natural gas fuels and installation of a 3-way oxidation catalyst on the engines driving the on site electrical generators. Implementation of a blue smoke program and other nationally accepted practices that reduce the potential for odor from asphaltic concrete (conventional, recycled asphalt products, and rubberized) production, including mixing the asphalt at as low a temperature as feasible.

Page | 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 5

Establishment of a conservation easement over undeveloped land within the Project site at an effective ratio of 2 to 1 compared to impacted land, which will result in protecting habitat that would offset greenhouse gas emissions in perpetuity.

Conditions of Approval Considered During Hearings That Assist in Mitigation In addition, during the public hearings additional conditions of approval were proposed by County staff. One required all on road heavy duty diesel trucks serving the facility to comply with EPA2007 on-road emission standards for PM-10 and NOx (0.01g/bhp-hr and at least 1.2 g/bhp-hr respectively). Annual reports would assure compliance. The second required solar panels over parking areas and on all office rooftops. Mitigation Measures In addition to the design features listed above, numerous mitigation measures were applied to the Project to further reduce impacts, a full list of mitigation is provided in Table ES-1 of the FEIR. Significant and Unavoidable Air Quality Impacts Even after the design features and mitigation measures were taken into account, the EIR determined that the Project would have the following significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality in two catagories: Direct Air Impacts: o Impact AQ-2 from the EIR analyzed if, construction-related air emissions from the Proposed Project could result in construction-related emissions that exceed any of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of significance in [DEIR] Table 3.2-8 (SCAQMD Thresholds for Construction Emissions). The EIR identified that the impacts would be significant but temporary. According to EIR Table 3.215, particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) emissions would be below the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. However, emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Organic Gases (ROG), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) would exceed SCAQMD daily emission thresholds for construction and would be considered a potentially significant impact. These impacts are related to construction only and would, therefore, be temporary in nature. o Impact AQ-3 from the EIR analyzed if, operational emissions from the Proposed Project could exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance in [DEIR] Table 3.2-10 (SCAQMD Thresholds for Operational Emissions). According to EIR Table 3.2-20, after mitigation, the emissions of ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 are expected to be reduced to less than their SCAQMD CEQA operation emission significance thresholds. However, NOx and CO emissions are expected to remain above their SCAQMD CEQA operation significance thresholds and would be considered a potentially significant impact. o Impact AQ-5 from the EIR analyzed if, construction from the Proposed Project could result in off site ambient air pollutant concentrations that

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 6

exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance in [DEIR] Table 3.2-9 (SCAQMD Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Concentrations Associated with Proposed Project Construction). Construction impacts are short term (approximately 2 years), and there are no residential or worker receptors (i.e., no human exposure) at the point of maximum impact, which is at the Project boundary. According to EIR Table 3.2-24, modeled air quality concentrations for construction activities all remain below the SCAQMD air quality impact thresholds, except the 24-hour and annual PM10 concentrations. Therefore, the EIR determined that off site air pollutant concentrations due to Project construction would be significant for PM10. These impacts are related to construction only and would, therefore, be temporary in nature. o Impact AQ-6 from the EIR analyzed if, Proposed Project operations could result in off site ambient air pollutant concentrations that exceed a SCAQMD threshold of significance in [DEIR] Table 3.2-11 (SCAQMD Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Concentrations Associated with Proposed Project Operations). According to EIR Table 3.2-25, the off site ambient concentration impacts associated with the Projects operation would be less than significant for NO2, SO2, CO, and annual PM2.5. However, the EIR concludes that the maximum off site ambient pollutant concentrations of 24-hour PM10, annual PM10, and 24-hour PM2.5 associated with operations would be significant as compared to the SCAQMD incremental thresholds. Cumulative Air Impacts: o Impact AQ-8 from the EIR analyzed if, the Proposed Project could result in GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions that would hinder or delay the state's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in [Assembly Bill] AB 32. The Project is still anticipated to generate approximately 80,000 (30,000 with truck displacement) tons per year of CO2e even with mitigation applied. Additionally, Section 5.4.2 of the EIR analyzes cumulative effects and explains that although there are regional benefits to air from the Project, the analysis takes the most conservative approach and concludes that any new source of pollution that contributes to a cumulative exceedance of daily operational emissions thresholds or contributes to a cumulative net increase GHG emissions is significant. Beyond the Project level measures identified in Section 3.2, there are no additional feasible mitigations available. As such, the Projects air quality impacts related to criteria pollutants and GHG are cumulatively considerable, significant and unavoidable. However, the EIR also concluded that even though the environmental documents conservatively determine the impacts to be significant and unavoidable, given the EIR analysis, it is unlikely that the Project would hinder or delay the States ability to meet the reduction targets of AB 32. Impacts to Surrounding Communities o The SMER. The EIR explained that PM10 and NO2 impacts are of primary interest in evaluating air quality impacts on the SMER because the other pollutant impacts are equally as small. The increases in these particulates were far less than

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 7

the most stringent annual federal and California ambient air quality standard threshold for PM10 and NO2 and far under the SCAQMD annual threshold for a project-related increase. Therefore, the EIR determined that the potential air quality impacts at the SMER are less than significant. The EIR also provides that the levels of sulfate and nitrate deposition are less than levels associated with vegetative injury as discussed in Section 3.2.3 and Table 3.2-31 of the EIR. Consequently, the EIR concluded that when considering existing and future research projects that analyze deposition rates and effects on soils and vegetation, the Project would result in a less than significant impact from sulfate and nitrate deposition. Additionally, questionnaire responses indicated that approximately ten research projects were related to air quality, four of which were assessing nitrogen deposition impacts to vegetation that could be affected by nitrate and dust deposition. According to the EIR, since deposition is less than the thresholds, it is not expected that the incremental increases in nitrate deposition would affect the ongoing vegetation research within the SMER. Similarly for dust deposition, the anticipated deposition rate at the point of maximum impact would be less than 10 percent of the minimum amount that has been shown in published literature to have an adverse effect on vegetation. The EIR also studied the cancer risk from exposure to hexavelent chromium, diesel exhaust, and crystalline silica. Because the cancer risk is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in a million, the EIR determined that the Project would result in less than significant health risk impacts to researchers working near the property boundary and on research projects that would be conducted within the SMER. The SMER also maintains a network of data acquisition sensors and towers throughout the SMER. According to the EIR, the Project would not affect these sensors and their ability to collect data. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures, the EIR concluded that direct and indirect project specific emissions would not significantly impact research projects within the SMER related to air quality or to other biological resources affected by air emissions deposition. o City of Temecula, Rainbow, De Luz and Fallbrook. Regarding air quality impacts to the City of Temecula and communities of Rainbow, De Luz and Fallbrook, the EIR explained that PM10 and NO2 impacts are of primary interest in evaluating air quality impacts on the SMER because the other pollutant impacts are equally as small. The increases in these particulates were far less than the most stringent annual federal and California ambient air quality standard threshold for PM10 and NO2 and far under the SCAQMD annual threshold for a project-related increase. Therefore, the EIR concluded that potential air quality impacts to the surrounding cities and communities are less than significant. The EIR studied the cancer risk from exposure to hexavelent chromium, diesel exhaust, and crystalline silica. Because the cancer risk, as modeled at receptor locations near the communities, were below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 8

million, the EIR concluded that the Project would result in less than significant health risk impacts to residences in the surrounding cities and communities. b.Public Testimony o During the pubic hearings several experts testified regarding Air Quality Impacts. In particular, Paul Weir, Senior Engineer for Sage Environmental Consulting. o Mr. Weir explained that air quality emission factors, used by the EIR, are specifically discouraged by the EPA for hard rock blast modeling. He also explained that because the particulate levels for PM10 in the EIR were 98% of the AQMD requirements, small changes to the emission factors could result in important changes to the significance determination. o Additionally, Mr. Weir indicated that higher emission factors contribute to higher concentrations of toxic dust contaminates. o Several area doctors also testified that the Project would create detrimental health impacts to the community. o Mr. Weir also commented that the Project site has lower moisture content then the air quality model indicates. c. Air Quality Conclusions Made by the Planning Commission 1. Based on the publics testimony, the Project presents health risks to the surrounding communities. These risks include air quality impacts in the form of silica dust. While these impacts would be small and have minimal impacts in the short term, the level of impact in the long term imposes a danger to the publics health and safety. 2. Additionally, the air quality impacts resulting from the Project would reduce the number of researchers and research projects willing to use the SMER because researchers may perceive the operating mine as an impediment to their research. 3. Despite mitigation measures, the Project would also increase emissions from truck activities creating incremental adverse impacts to air quality. 4. In light of the publics testimony, the Project would cause air quality impacts and result in unavoidable environmental risks that are not outweighed by the Projects benefits set forth above. Therefore, the air quality impacts are not acceptable. 5. Additionally, these unavoidable environmental effects are detrimental to the publics health, safety and general welfare. 2. Aesthetics and Light a. EIR InformationAesthetics and Light EIR Background Aesthetics, or visual resources, are the natural and cultural features of the landscape that can be seen and contribute to the publics appreciative enjoyment of the environment. Visual resource or aesthetic impacts are generally defined in terms of a projects physical characteristics and potential visibility, and the extent to which the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 9

projects presence would change the perceived visual character and quality of the environment in which it would be located. Section 3.1 of the EIR summarized project specific research contained mainly in the following reports prepared by CH2M HILL which were reviewed to assess the potential nighttime light impacts and are included as Appendix M (Lighting Plan for the Proposed Liberty Quarry [Lighting Plan] [CH2M HILL, 2007a]) and Appendix M1 (An Analysis of Potential Light Impacts for the Proposed Liberty Quarry [Light Impact Technical Report] [CH2M HILL, 2007b]). The Lighting Plan was reviewed by the Riverside County Environmental Programs Division for consistency with the Countys MSHCP in September 2007. In addition, the analysis of potential light impacts was reviewed by Palomar Observatory in 2007. Criteria for determining both the construction and operation impacts associated with the aesthetics and light have been developed in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Summary of EIR Evaluation and General Methodology for Aesthetics For aesthetics, the EIR included a comparison of the before photographs with the simulations of the Project as it would appear during its operational phase. This provided the basis for determining Project impacts on views and visual quality. Two to three images were included for each specific vantage point as follows: a view toward the site under existing conditions; a view toward the site as it would appear without full mitigation; and, a view toward the site with mitigation measures incorporated. The EIR concluded that all potentially significant impacts for aesthetics were reduced with mitigation to a level of less than significant. Summary of EIR Evaluation and General Methodology for Light Impact In regards to lighting, The EIR determined that with implementation of the applicable County Ordinances, potentially significant impacts from lighting would be less than significant. The EIRs analysis of the Projects potential light-related impacts, found that in terms of the standards for determining the significance, the Project would not create a significant impact because of the following: o It would not result in light spilling onto off site areas creating light trespass and changes in ambient lighting conditions. In particular, the EIR found that the Project would have no effect on the ambient lighting conditions in the adjacent SMER or on residential properties in the Project vicinity; o it would not result in substantial adverse alteration of nighttime views; and o it would not create substantial daytime or nighttime glare. The County of Riverside has not established specific assessment criteria or thresholds for evaluating the significance of a projects light impacts in terms of effects on sky glow. Riverside and San Diego Counties, however, have adopted ordinances whose objectives include limiting sky glow to protect visibility of the nighttime skies from the Palomar Observatory. As a result, the EIR states that a reasonable standard for assessing a projects sky glow impact is the extent to which a project is in conformance with these ordinances. The EIR concludes that the use of low wattage lighting, low pressure sodium lamps, shielding, pointing all lights downward, and full cutoff fixtures specified by these ordinances will prevent direct transmission of light up into the atmosphere, and will minimize the amount of light that is cast onto the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 10

surface of the quarry and then reflected upwards. Therefore, the EIR determined that the Projects net contribution to the skyglow conditions will be minimized. Mitigation Measures The EIR includes numerous mitigation measures for the Project to further reduce impacts, a full list of mitigation is provided in Table ES-1 of the FEIR. Impacts to Surrounding Communities The EIR also specifically analyzed the impacts to surrounding communities. Tribal lands. The area of the Tribal lands east of the Project site and I-15 is vacant, mostly undisturbed rocky hills and ridges similar to much of the open space mountains in the area. There are no homes or marked trails in the area, therefore, the EIR determined that few if any viewers would be affected by views of the Project which results in low viewer sensitivity. While the site would be seen from this area, due to the fact that there are no permanent receptors and infrequent hikers and even less potential viewers at night, the EIR concluded that visual impacts from this area are considered less than significant. Nighttime lighting of the process plants, mining, and street lights along the access road, however, would be visible. Luiseno Ancestral Origin Landscape. With respect to the two potential TCPs identified in the EIR, the EIR concludes that the Project would not result in changes to the ambient lighting conditions north and west of the Project site. The EIR addresses potential project light impacts in and around the asserted Luiseno Ancestral Origin Landscape and, as noted above, concluded that with the application of mitigation the Project would not result in the spilling or trespass of light onto adjacent properties or increase ambient nighttime lighting conditions. The SMER. The SMER borders the site on its north and west boundary. Views from adjacent higher elevations in SMER, would be able to see the Project quarry. Views from SMER areas to the west of the site would be able to see the hills and ridges within the property boundary. The Project ridgeline would reduce most direct views of the quarry and plants from the central and western portions of SMER including the North and South Stations. The site would not be visible from anywhere along the Santa Margarita River because of the canyon depth and intervening ridges. The remaining areas of potential visibility are 3.5 or more miles from the site on higher elevation areas where viewers are few. The EIR provided that to the extent that there are any human nighttime viewers in the SMER, their views toward lighting associated with the Project quarry would be very limited. From this area, the lighting at the aggregate processing area and asphalt plant would be visible in the distance. The EIR emphasized that although the Project lighting might be visible as distant points of light visible from limited areas in the SMER, this lighting would have no effect on ambient lighting conditions within the SMERs boundaries.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 11

The EIR provided that from most other portions of the area north and west of the site, the Projects lighting would not be visible. The only exception is that lighting from the processing area and asphalt plant has the potential to be seen from the upper portions of the ridgeline located immediately to the west of the SMERs western boundary and from some small higher elevation areas located north of the SMERs northwest corner. The EIR determined that new light sources would be minimal areas of illumination seen at a distance of more than 3 miles, the overall effect on the views from these areas would be low. Night lighting at the quarry site was of concern to potential influence on bat behavior and conflict with SMER research programs striving to understand bat feeding behavior in natural environments. According to the EIR, the extent to which additional regional lighting may influence bat behavior, if at all, is uncertain. According to the EIR, two SMER researches currently utilize lights to attract species for collection, one at the North and South Stations and one throughout the SMER. Small mammals and crickets sensitive to light are studied near the North Station and South Station, nearly 2 miles from the Projects light sources and blocked from view by intervening ridges. Additionally, another researcher records wildlife movement along I-15 where vehicle lights and the border patrol checkpoint create substantial lighting. The EIR concluded that lighting at the site would not be discernable from the I-15 corridor. The EIR determined that it is not expected that Project lighting would affect the SMER, SMER projects, or wildlife within the SMER due to implementation of design and mitigation measures, distance between light sources and SMER, and topography that blocks Project lighting. The City of Temecula. The Temecula vantage points used for the EIRs analysis included the entire area located to the northeast and east of the site beyond the I-15 corridor. Ridgelines as high as 2,350 feet in elevation separate the Temecula Valley from the site and would obstruct most views from the north-northeast. Based on topographic maps, portions of the high ridge tops impacted by the Project would be visible from some limited locations in Temecula, where it would be seen at distances ranging from 3.5 to over 6 miles. A representative location within the Temecula Valley from which the Project could be visible, located approximately 6 miles northeast of the site near Highway 79 and Anza Road, would not be substantially altered by the Project. Therefore, the EIR determined that there would be no substantial alteration of the existing character of the view. The EIR did provide that a small area of the distant ridgeline would appear slightly reduced, but the visual quality of the view would remain average. The EIRs lighting visibility analyses prepared in conducting the lighting impact assessment establish that none of the Project lighting, including lighting associated with the Project access road, would be visible from Temecula. Therefore, the EIR concluded that the Project would have little to no effect on views with project design measures and mitigation, and no light would be visible from Temecula.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 12

The Community of De Luz. De Luz is located north of the SMER, which borders the site on its north and west boundary. In this area, the Project would have little to no effect on views seen by any substantial numbers of viewers. Areas of potential visibility in De Luz are 3.5 or more miles from the site on higher elevation areas where viewers are also few. The EIR provided that the views toward lighting associated with the proposed quarry from nighttime viewers in De Luz would be very limited. Because the new light sources would be small limited areas of illumination seen at a distance of more than 3 miles, the overall effect on the views from these areas would be low. The Community of Rainbow. The unincorporated Community of Rainbow is located approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the site in San Diego County. Most locations within Rainbow have unobstructed views of the prominent peaks and ridges on the southeast portion of the site. These peaks and ridges would not be developed as part of the Project, and would block views of the quarry and plants from some points in the Rainbow Landscape Unit. The proposed access road would be visible in unobstructed views from Rainbow Valley Boulevard and from many locations in Rainbow depending on line of site. Two typical vantage points within Rainbow, approximately 1.5 miles south of the site, were included in the EIR to represent relatively unobstructed views of the site. The existing character of this view is that of a somewhat intensively developed rural residential setting, and the overall visual quality is average. The views from these locations show the effects of the access road cuts on the distant hills. Although clearly visible from this location, the EIR determined that the presence of these cuts would not substantially alter the character of the view from this developed rural residential setting. According to the EIR, none of the lights in the quarrys operational areas would be visible from the portion of Rainbow located on the valley floor, and the only lighting that would have the potential to be seen would be the roadway lights and vehicle lights associated with the Projects access road. At many locations in Rainbow, views toward the access road are blocked to some degree by structures and vegetation. The EIR provided that since these lights would be small, distant features in the landscape and would be seen in the context of views that include lighting associated with residences and other land uses in the foreground, the change in the overall visual character and quality of the nighttime view would be low. From the area of low density and highly dispersed rural residential development located in the hills that border Rainbow to the east, more of the proposed quarrys lighting would be visible than from the valley floor. According to the EIR, the lighting at the quarrys working face would be visible from some locations at the higher elevations, as well as the lighting at the maintenance and employee facilities, the aggregate processing area, the asphalt plant, and the roadway lighting and vehicle lights along the quarrys access road. From these areas, the lighting associated with the Project access road would have a limited effect on the visual character and quality of the view because it would be 1.7 miles or more in the distance and would be seen in the context of the similar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 13

light fixtures and vehicle lights at the Rainbow Valley Boulevard weigh station, which are already visible in these views. The EIR determined that the Project would have a less than significant effect on views with mitigation, and the effects of lighting would be moderated by other visible existing freeway and community lighting as well as by project design measures. The Community of Fallbrook. Fallbrook is an unincorporated community in San Diego County that is located approximately 3 to 6 miles to the southwest of the site. The EIR provided that the Project would have relatively little effect on views in Fallbrook, because in many areas, views toward the site are screened by intervening structures and vegetation. Changes associated with the Project (such as alterations of ridgelines or permanently visible cut slopes) that are visible from the Fallbrook area (viewing distances range from 3 to 8 miles) would appear as small and distant elements in the view. Although Projectrelated changes might be detectable in some views from Fallbrook, they have little potential to be visually dominant elements that would substantially alter the character or quality of the view. Furthermore, the Reduced Quarry Footprint Alternative would eliminate the settling pond from the southwest portion of the Quarry Area, eliminating this potential visual impact. Consequently, although the Project could result in minor impact to some views from Fallbrook, the EIR determined that these impacts would not be substantial. The lighting visibility analyses prepared in conducting the lighting impact assessment indicate that for the most part, the lighting proposed at the site would not be visible from Fallbrook. The only exception is that in a small area of Fallbrook located 5.5 miles and farther from the site, lighting associated with the aggregate processing and loading area and the asphalt plant has the potential to be visible. Because of the great distance of this lighting in the view, its potential to be screened by structures and trees in the foreground, and because it would be seen in the context of lighting at residences and other land uses in the foreground, this lighting has little potential to have a substantial effect on the overall character and quality of nighttime views from these areas of Fallbrook. Because the new light sources would be small, limited areas of illumination seen at a distance of more than 3 to 8 miles, the overall effect on the views from these areas would be low. b.Public Testimony During the public hearings, many speakers testified to concerns related to aesthetics, light and the potential impacts to biology. These concerns are further discussed in Section B.2.b. herein. c. Aesthetics and Light Conclusions Made by the Planning Commission1. Based on public testimony, the Projects light impacts would reduce the number of researchers and research projects willing to use the SMER because researchers may perceive the operating mine as an impediment to their research.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 14

2. Additionally, despite proposed mitigation, the scenic resources for the site would be impacted by the line of trucks using the access road. These trucks would be visible at all hours of the day and night from the surrounding communities. 3. The publics testimony also indicated that the Projects light would refract in the air moisture creating a night glow that would be visibly and aesthetically detrimental to the surrounding communities. 4. Many of the aesthetic impacts of an open pit quarry would remain even after project reclamation. 5. In light of the publics testimony, the Project would result in unavoidable aesthetic and light impacts to the surrounding communities. These impacts are not outweighed by the Projects benefits. Therefore, these unavoidable environmental effects are not acceptable. 3. Biology a. EIR Information Biology EIR Background Biological resources generally include vegetation and habitat, wildlife, and biological connectivity. Potential impacts to biological resources mainly occur when a project has a substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species; has a substantial adverse effect on sensitive habitat, including federally protected wetlands; interferes substantially with the movement of migratory fish or wildlife; conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; or conflicts with the provisions of an approved conservation plan. Section 3.3 of the EIR summarized Project specific research including, a Biological Technical Report (Appendix D), a Summary of Supplemental Biological Services (Appendix D-1), a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (Appendix D-2), and an MSHCP Consistency Analysis (Appendix E). Criteria for determining both the construction and operation impacts associated with biology have been developed in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Summary of Biological Impact Evaluation Upon review of potential impacts to biological resources, in particular to sensitive species not covered in the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the EIR determined that there would be less then significant impacts after mitigation. Summary of the EIR Evaluation of the MSHCP The EIR determined that the Project was consistent with the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and was not in any criteria cells. The Project is within a Special Linkage Area (SLA). The EIR explains that designation of the SLA within the Western Riverside County MSHCP was facilitated by the County in response to comments received on the draft MSHCP related to the Santa Ana-Palomar Mountain (SAPM) Linkage plan, which was released during the preparation of the MSHCP. The EIR provided that the SLA does not stand alone and, instead, is intended to contribute to the much larger Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Linkage (SAPM) Linkage Area. This SLA will contribute to the assembly of a portion of the SAPM for the benefit of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 15

Covered Species. The SLA includes an approximately four (4) square mile area and is bisected by Interstate 15 and Old US 395. Uses within the SLA currently include, commercial, residential and light industrial uses particularly along the Old US 395 corridor. The EIR provided that, although proposed projects in the SLA are required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA, the SLA does not preclude development from occurring provided that the appropriate environmental studies are completed and mitigation measures are applied, if necessary and feasible. Mitigation Measures The EIR included numerous mitigation measures for the Project to further reduce impacts, including the application of one of the project alternatives which suggested a reduced footprint for the site that would provide additional open space. A full list of mitigation measures is provided in Table ES-1 of the FEIR. Significant and Unavoidable Biological Impacts However, even with the reduced footprint and mitigation measures taken into account, the EIR determined that the Project would have the following cumulative significant and unavoidable impact to biology: Cumulative biological impacts were assessed in Section 5.4.3 in the DEIR. The biological function of the SAPM linkage area and the Pechanga Corridor is currently substantially impaired by the eight-lane I-15, existing urban development in north San Diego County (Community of Rainbow, Old US 395, and CHP truck weigh station) and in southwest Riverside County (Border Patrol checkpoint, CHP truck weigh Station, Temecula, and surrounding development). Despite implementation of the MSHCP and recommended mitigation measures, the projects in the cumulative list shown in DEIR/FEIR Table 5-1 would contribute to cumulative effects to wildlife movement in the vicinity of the Project. As no additional, feasible mitigation measures are available, the Projects cumulative effects on wildlife movement remain significant and unavoidable.

Impacts to Surrounding Communities The EIR also analyzed the Biological impacts to surrounding communities. The EIR did not find any potential biological impacts to surrounding residential communities, only potential impacts to the neighboring SMER. Regarding biological impacts specifically related to the SMER, the EIR explained that the Project is immediately adjacent to open space lands that are dedicated to long-term habitat conservation (i.e., SMER located to the north and west margins of the site). Biological research projects identified through questionnaire responses totaled over 44 and represent the prime resource area studied within the SMER. According to the EIR, Project activities have the potential to result in adverse impacts to the SMER research area and projects in several ways, as discussed below pursuant to the MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. Drainage. Drainage water would not be discharged to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Drainage water would be collected and treated on site at the southern end of the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 16

Plant Area and near the bottom of the access road. Drainage water would not be allowed to enter into the watershed of the drainage feature located at the western portion of the site, which is tributary to a tributary of the Santa Margarita River, or into the watersheds of any other off site drainages. As required under state and federal water quality control laws, the applicant would prepare SWPPPs to demonstrate the collection and treatment of site drainage water. With the implementation of the SWPPPs, the EIR determined that the Project would not affect research projects related to the watershed downstream of the project within the SMER. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Wildlife Movement Corridor. In total, the disturbed area from the Project is estimated to be about 164 acres, or about 6 percent of the 2,560-acre SLA identified in the MSHCP. Even after application of mitigation measures including increasing the distance between the quarry area and the known crossings north of the site, establish 250 acres of conservation easements and providing a 400-ft buffer to the north any incremental increase in impacts would be a cumulatively considerable impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Toxics. The EIR provided that the mining operation would transport petroleum products and asphalt oil on public roads, and use and store asphalt oil, petroleum products, and used oils within the developed quarry area. These products would be stored and used well away from the MSHCP Conservation Area and in accordance with applicable Riverside County regulations. The drainage measures approved in the SWPPP would also prevent accidental spills within the quarry area and elsewhere on the site from draining potentially toxic materials onto the MSHCP Conservation Area. With the appropriate design features and implementation of the SWPPPs, the EIR concluded that impacts to the research projects within the SMER would be less than significant. Lighting. The EIR provided that night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the conservation area from direct night lighting. By compliance with County ordinances, the EIR determined that impacts to biological resources at the SMER would be less than significant. Noise. The EIR included mitigation measures to ensure the Projects operational noise levels within the SMER comply with the Riverside County residential noise standards. Such mitigation measures include that all mining operations would be setback at least 400 feet from the north site boundary; mining activities would be restricted between Riverside County-defined noise nighttime hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and the concrete truck filling operations associated with the concrete plant would be enclosed by placing those operations in a tunnel-like structure so that the sides of the truck and its engine are shielded by the walls of the tunnel. Invasives. The EIR provided that Riverside County and State Mining and Geology Board approval of landscape maintenance and revegetation plans would ensure that the Project would avoid the use of potentially invasive species adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. For this reason, the EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 17

Barriers. The applicant is proposing to manage the site as an active mining project, with access strictly limited by gates and fencing surrounding the developed area. According to the EIR, with special signage installed, the Project would minimize unwanted access to the SMER. For this reason, the EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. Grading. The Project is designed such that earthwork on the site shall not affect or extend off site. Grading, grubbing, and earthwork in general would only be conducted within the approved mining area. Berms constructed to reduce projectrelated visual and noise effects would be located on applicant-owned property and the minimum 400-foot setback from Project boundaries with the SMER would ensure no earthworks (e.g., slopes) extend onto adjacent MSHCP Conservation Area lands. According to the EIR, with these features, the Project would meet the requirements of the MSHCP and avoid grading impacts to the adjacent SMER. For these reasons, the EIR determined that the impacts would be less than significant. According to the EIR, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, direct and indirect project specific impacts to biological resources and research projects within the SMER and wildlife corridors can be reduced to levels less than significant. b.Public Testimony During the public hearings many speakers raised concerns regarding biological impacts. Many were experts from, or representing, SDSU, the City of Temecula, and Pechanga. Dr. Matt Rahn, Director for Development and Research with the San Diego State University Field Stations Program, testified regarding the Projects impact to the SMER. He explained that the SMER is used by researchers today because of its low noise levels and pristine conditions. Dr. Rahn indicated that mining activities can and will impact the level of research and researchers willing to use the SMER in the future based on impacts from the mine. Dr. Rahn indicated there are large volumes of study on vibration and noise impacts on biology. These impacts include behavioral impacts that result from stress levels impairing an animals ability to find food, sleep, communicate and reproduce. Additionally, Dr. Rahn explained that any amount of light will impact and impede wildlife movement Dr. Rahn also provided that that an urban presence of species is not an indication of an animals ability to adapt to urban environments. Often such animals are those with already significantly impacted behaviors Dr. Rahn also explained that Least Bell's Vireo, which was studied in the EIR, is not the best threshold candidate to test vibration impacts to biology near the SMER, because it can be urban associated. Mr. Ruben Ramirez, a speaker who indicated he had 17 years of expertise on radio tracking species, and Dr. Rahn indicated that the Project will impact many species through light, noise and other stressors; not just mountain lions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 18

c. Biology Conclusions Made by the Planning Commission1. Based on public testimony, the Projects activities would detrimentally impact the research conducted on the SMER, on nearby properties, and the biologys habitation, reproduction and migration patterns. 2. Additionally, the Projects biological impacts would reduce the number of researchers and research projects willing to use the SMER because researchers may perceive the operating mine as an impediment to their research. 3. Based on information presented during the hearings, the SMER, and biological habitation, reproduction and migration patterns would also be impacted by the glow created by the Projects light refracting in the airs moisture. 4. Furthermore, based on the publics comments, the crushing of concrete and heavy plant traffic, would produce noise, light and vibrations that would negatively affect wildlife using the linkage. This incremental loss to the already impaired habitat linkage is not acceptable. 5. In light of the publics testimony, the Project would result in unavoidable adverse impacts on biology. These impacts are not outweighed by the Projects benefits; therefore, the impacts are not acceptable. 4. Cultural Resources a. EIR InformationCultural Resources EIR Background According to the EIR, cultural resources as defined by State and Federal regulations include tangible buildings, sites, structures, objects and manuscripts, each of which might have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Cultural resources can also be argued to include traditional places deemed significant by a living groups perspective or cultural history. It is possible that such places may not have tangible culturally modified remains or artifacts present. Evidence for such cultural resources is often found in oral history passed down from generation to generation. According to National Register Bulletin 38, published by the National Park Service, one kind of cultural significance a property may possess, and that may make it eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, is traditional cultural significance. Traditional in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practices. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a communitys historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Section 3.4 of the EIR discusses the impacts for cultural resources as a result of implementing the Project. The EIR summarizes the cultural resources investigations which included a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix F), a Phase I Archaeological Assessment (Appendix F-1), and a Cultural Resources Technical Report (Appendix F-2). Note these appendices are confidential and are not for public review; they are on file with the County. Criteria for determining both the construction and operation impacts associated with cultural resources have been developed in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 19

Additionally, a supplemental ethnographic study was prepared by Stephen O'Neal to specifically address potential Pechanga Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) in the vicinity of the Project site. Mr. O'Neil noted that TCPs were generally defined in relation to the National Park Services (NPS) Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. Mr. ONeals report generally includes geographic areas that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of the areas association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community. Such practices are rooted in that community's history, and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. Tribal Communications The County initiated communications with Pechanga in 2005 and continued communications, which included field surveys by Pechanga Tribal monitors, through 2010 in an effort to identify and address potential cultural resource impacts associated with the Project. The EIR identified a total of seven (7) potential Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) in the region surrounding the Project. Of those potential traditional cultural properties, however, the EIR determined only two properties were in proximity such that they could be potentially impacted by the Projects implementation. These potential impacts to these potential traditional cultural properties, identified as Wexewxi Pueska and Rainbow Canyon Camp, were analyzed in Impact Section 3.4 of the DEIR. Summary of Cultural Resources Impact Evaluation The EIRs analysis of potential impacts to Tribal cultural resources proceeded under the assumption that both the Wexewxi Pu'eska and 1870s Diaspora Settlement were eligible for listing under both the California and National Registers of Historic Places as traditional cultural properties (TCP). According to the EIR, these potential TCPs will not be directly impacted by the Project. The EIR, however, did identify the potential for the Project to result in indirect impacts to these resources as a result of adjacent project operations and identified mitigation measures to reduce those potential indirect impacts to a less than significant level. The EIR includes a total of four mitigation measures to reduce the Projects potential indirect impacts to Pechangas identified potential TCPs. As such, the EIR concluded that the Project would have no impact to tribal archeological resources and determined that the Project would have a less than significant impact to archeological resources. The EIR further concluded that the Project would not have any direct impacts to the two identified potential TCPs. Indirect impacts, however, were determined to be potentially significant due to the Project's construction and operational activities (i.e. visual intrusion, noise, light, and vibration), as well as the Project's potential to increase access to the TCPs. b.Public Testimony During the public hearings many speakers raised specific concerns with cultural resources, specifically the Pechanga Tribe.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 20

Mr. Paul Macarro, representative from the Pechanga Tribe, explained that Wuyoot, the Luiseno Chief and Father of the first ancestral group, the Kaamalam, died near the Project site. Mr. Macarro explained this was the first death and introduced the Kaamalam to death. Mr. Paul Macarro also explained that Kaamalam Pumki, home to the original Luiseo, is larger than the applicant or the studies in the EIR suggested. He indicated it comprises a larger area including the entire hill that includes the Project site. Mr. Paul Macarro further testified that place names indicate areas that were used by the Tribe in the past. He further explained that place names are different from the locations related to the creation story and are not the same as TCPs. Ms. Miranda, legal counsel and member of Pechanga, explained that not all place names are classifiable as sacred. Ms. Miranda testified that Pechanga gave the County information on the Projects impacts to specific ancestral places, including some within the Project site, in the form of comment letters and Mr. Macarros ethnography. Ms. Miranda also provided that Pechanga has never developed on sacred property. The developed area near Pechangas casino may have impacted a Pechanga place name, a gathering place, but not a location from the creation story, or a sacred site. Mr. Thorson, attorney for the City of Temecula and Ms. Coyle, outside Counsel for Pechanga, indicated that the LAFCO Staff Report for the 2009 City of Temecula Annexation explained that minimal development was possible on the Project site regardless of the General Plan and Zoning designations proposed by the annexation. They indicated the City was proposing designations that would have permitted the same number of residential units currently permitted by the County. The Citys designations, however, would not have permitted a quarry. Ms. Coyle also testified that the land use intensity of 81 residential units would be far less then that proposed by the Project. Dr. King, archeological expert brought in by Pechanga, explained aspects of Bulletin 38, which he authored for the National Historic Register. The Bulletin, he argued, explains that only tribes should indicate what is important to a tribe. Further, archeological evidence should not be required to determine if an area is significant to a tribe, which they determine is a TCP. Dr. King testified that a smaller potential TCP can be within another larger TCP. Dr. King also explained that tribes generally attempt various forms of protection, regarding sites, when sites are specifically threatened. Dr. Lisa Woodward, archivist with Pechanga, presented a number of maps including John P. Harringtons map which was created about 100 years ago showing place name locations and other location specific information, and maps showing TCP boundaries over portions of the Project site. Dr. Woodward, read from a letter by Steven ONeal indicating that many potential TCPs in the vicinity of the Project site could be included in a potential TCP district.

c. Cultural Conclusions Made by the Planning Commission-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 21

1. Although there were no archeological items found on the Project site, public testimony has demonstrated that the Project site is in close proximity to several significant archeological and historical sites. 2. Additionally, in light of Pechangas testimony, the Project site has strong ties to Pechangas creation story and may be eligible as a TCP or a TCP District. As a result, the Project would adversely impact Pechangas heritage and nearby lands. 3. Furthermore, an open pit mine would forever destroy the Project site, leaving a permanent and geologically modified landscape. This permanent impact would not result from a less intensive land use such as a large lot single family home development. 4. Therefore, based on the publics testimony, the Project would result in unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural resources that are not outweighed by the Projects benefits. As a result, these environmental impacts are not acceptable. 5. Furthermore, these impacts are detrimental to the publics health, safety and general welfare. 5. Geology and Hydrogeology a. EIR InformationGeology and Hydrogeology EIR Background Section 3.5 of the EIR studied Geology and Section 3.7 studied Hydrology (and Hydrogeology). The information below from the EIR is specific to the groundwater and the connection of underground throughout the site. Because this topic is covered in both sections, the information below comes from both sections of the EIR and in part from the response to comments for the Final EIR. Information contained within the EIR, specifically related to groundwater on the site has been largely obtained from the Geologic and Hydrologic Evaluation Proposed Liberty Quarry, Riverside County, California (see Appendix H) and Responses to Frequent Questions, Proposed Liberty Quarry, Riverside County, California (see Appendix H-1), which evaluated geologic and hydrogeologic conditions for the Project. The Response to County of Riverside Review Comments, County Geologic Report No. 1902, Geotechnical Report, Proposed Liberty Quarry, Riverside County, California clarifies comments from Riverside Countys review. Criteria for determining both the construction and operation impacts associated with geology and hydrogeology have been developed in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Summary of Geology and Hydrogeology Impact Evaluation According to the EIR, the site is located in rugged mountainous bedrock terrain, and the massive crystalline bedrock underlying the site is considered nonwater bearing (California Department of Water Resources [DWR], 1956 and 2003). Groundwater also occurs to a much lesser extent locally in the crystalline bedrock, but is primarily limited to fracture and joint systems and in deeply weathered areas overlain by saturated Quaternary or Tertiary deposits. The EIR also provides that lowland

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 22

groundwater basins are not hydrologically connected with the site. Two seasonal surface seeps are located on the site and appear to be related to localized fractures draining under the influence of gravity. A hydrologic evaluation of the site was conducted. During the investigation for the EIRs analysis, groundwater was encountered in three deep, vertical borings drilled into the underlying granitic bedrock. The EIRs evaluation found that groundwater, where observed at the site, is limited to joints and fractures because of the massive igneous bedrock underlying the site, which is considered nonwater bearing by DWR. Additionally, the EIR provided that limited hydraulic connection exists between groundwater encountered in bedrock fractures and joints at the site. Based on a review of published literature, geologic and hydrogeologic assessment activities performed at the site, and subsequent data analysis and evaluation performed to date, the EIR determined that the site appears to be topographically, structurally, and hydraulically isolated from near-by, off site intermontane valleys and topographic lowlands. As a result, the EIR determined that the Projects operations are not anticipated to adversely affect local or regional groundwater supplies for residents in the surrounding area, or Temecula or Rainbow Valleys. EIR Summary of Groundwater The EIR does not state or suggest that groundwater will not be encountered at the site. The EIR found generally low groundwater in the boreholes. According to the EIR, in well MW-2 no flowing water into the borehole was noted above 200 feet depth, also despite the presence of joints and fractures. The EIR provided that groundwater occurs in the bedrock at the proposed quarry site; however, it occurrence is in very low volume and highly dependent on the hydraulic connectivity of joints and fractures in the bedrock, which is low. According to the EIR, there is no aquifer beneath the site. The EIR also provided that hydraulic isolation of the proposed quarry location is well supported by various lines of evidence. Additionally, the EIR indicated that the poor performance of pumping tests described above and the lack of response at observation wells during the tests, the high seasonality of flow in local seeps, springs, and streams suggests low connectivity with groundwater, since a good connection with a system of high capacity should supply a more perennial flow to these features. According to the EIR, stream flow and springs in the area exhibit seasonal flow, derived primarily from recent precipitation via surface flow and/or local joints and fractures that drain to ground surface rather than transmitting water through the bedrock. Mitigation Measures The EIR included numerous mitigation measures were applied to the Project to further reduce impacts, a full list of mitigation is provided in Table ES-1 of the FEIR. Impacts to Surrounding Communities The EIR also specifically addressed the impacts specific to the SMER. The EIR provided that groundwater is limited to joints and fractures in the massive crystalline bedrock and is considered non-water bearing. Hydrogeologic testing found little, if any, groundwater intercommunication on or off of the property. Therefore, the EIR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 23

determined that potential impacts to groundwater off site or to groundwater seeping into rivers or creeks off site are not expected. b.Public Testimony During the public hearings many speakers raised specific concerns regarding geology and hydrogeology. Kerry Cato, Geologist at Cato Geoscience, Inc. brought by the City of Temecula, contended that vertical wells are not optimal if attempting to intersect fractures. Mr. Cato indicated that proper testing of wells require additional pumping after the first test because water recharges wells over a longer period of time. He indicated the EIR only did one test in mid-summer 2006 over a two-week period. Mr. Cato indicated that proper testing requires drilling in lineaments. He further indicated that one of the test sites was drilled about sixty-three feet from a lineament. He indicated that none were drilled directly into lineaments. Mr. Cato testified that testing for water was not done on all thirteen wells drilled on site, only three. Mr. Cato and Dr. Roy Shlemon, geology expert from Roy Shlemon and Associates, Inc., brought by the Pechanga, indicated there are unclassified faults on the Project site. They indicated that faults can create pathways for water that are different from fracture flows. Howard Omdahl, a local resident of the area, showed several images depicting flora and fauna. He testified that the images indicate year round water sources exist. Mr. Omdahl indicated that there are several oak trees on the site that have survived seven year droughts which indicates connectivity of the underground water sources, based on conversations he has had with oak tree experts. Chairman Macarro of Pechanga indicated that rocks on the east side of the mountain have been seeping water for over one hundred years. Dr. Shlemon suggested fault studies should be done for mining project applications. Dr. Shlemon suggested that balanced rock studies should be done for mining projects on sites like the Project site. Dr. Rahn explained that a significant volume of water is contributed to the Santa Margareta River from the groundwater within the mountain. Dr. Rahn further testified that during a summer test in 2010 major flows within the River were shut off, yet flowing water was still being contributed to the River from groundwater within the adjacent mountain.

c. Geology and Hydrogeology Conclusions Made by the Planning Commission1. The information presented by several public speakers, including information on the flora and fauna found on the site, demonstrates the interconnectivity of the underground hydrology which would be significantly impacted by the Project.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. Jobs

2. Additionally, based on the publics testimony, the continual expansion of fractures that would result from the Projects blasting will cause water to collect within the mine pit, and create quarry lake. This is not acceptable. 3. Based on information provided by the public, rocks on the side of the mountain have been seeping water for over 100 years. Such seep indicates that a continually replenished underground water source exists in the mountain. 4. Furthermore, after considering the publics testimony, the Project will cause dewatering of the site which will impact the weeping rocks, a culturally significant feature. 5. Therefore, in light of the above, the Project would result in unavoidable adverse impacts related to geology and hydrogeology that are not outweighed by the Projects benefits. As a result, these environmental impacts are not acceptable. 6. Furthermore, these impacts are detrimental to the publics health, safety and general welfare.

a. EIR/Fiscal Impact Report Study Information Jobs Analysis Background The EIR did not specifically analyze jobs as such analysis are not required by CEQA. A Fiscal Impact Report entitled Economic Impact on Riverside County and its Southeastern Area by John Husing of Economics and Politics, Inc. dated February 13, 2007 was done to determine the fiscal impacts the Project would have on the County. This study was not a part of the CEQA analysis. As the EIR explained in the response to comments, CEQA does not require a DEIR to address the potential impacts associated with an actuarial or financial analysis of a Project. CEQA Article 9, Contents of Environmental Impact Reports, Section 15131(a) provides that economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Jobs Analysis Summary The Fiscal Impact Report explained, within the Temecula-Murrieta area, a key concern has been the availability of local jobs that are good paying. The need for local job creation was underscored because the region has just 0.86 jobs for each occupied dwelling, compared to the 1.25 average for Southern California. According to the Fiscal Impact Report, this means that the area has 31% fewer jobs for each family than is required in the Southland for a sub-market to have a self-sustained labor market. This results in a large number of commuters. The Fiscal Impact Report indicated that the Project would help add 287 jobs, primarily in southwestern Riverside County. Because jobs and economic factors are not generally under the purview of CEQA, no significance determination was made pertaining to this category. b.Public Testimony

27 28
Page | 24

During the public hearings many speakers raised specific concerns regarding jobs and fiscal issues in general.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Dr. Smith, representing the Rose Institute, indicated that total aggregate production in Riverside County will not change with the Project. It will simply shift the production south. He also explained that the production jobs will simply shift within the County but the total job count would stay consistent. He indicated that the County cannot have a reduction in truck trips and an increase in jobs. He further explained that as truck trip reduction is applied, the total truck distance in miles traveled will fall, which means less truck driving jobs. By his account, the total jobs will actually fall within the County. Dr. Smith also contended that sales taxes generated from the production of aggregate at the site is not as simple as the Fiscal Impact Report indicates. Dr. Smith discussed a study by Diane Height that studied the impacts on home prices and mines. The study used hedonic home pricing models and multiple regression to show homes are worth less when close to mines. He argued that hedonic home pricing models and multiple regression are critical to any study that analyzes home prices and their relationship to mines.

c. Jobs Conclusions Made by the Planning Commission13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1. Although the Project would create approximately 100 jobs, these jobs would be generated in the future at a time when all improving sectors would also show increasing job needs. Jobs are needed now in the County. 2. Many of the jobs that would result from the Project would be truck driving positions that would be transplanted jobs, not newly created jobs. This would result in a less net increase of jobs within Riverside County. 3. As a result, based on the publics testimony, the increase in jobs is relatively small and does not help justify or offset the Projects unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 7. Noise a. EIR informationNoise EIR Background Noise impacts generally occur when project noise levels exceed applicable standards in the General Plan and noise ordinances. According to the EIR, anticipated noise levels associated with the Project were evaluated at 17 noise-sensitive land uses. The receptor locations, which are generally within approximately 4.5 miles of Liberty Quarry include locations in the SMER, Temecula, Rainbow, and Fallbrook. The EIR analysis is based on a noise study included in Appendix I. Criteria for determining the significant impacts associated with noise have been developed in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, noise Ordinance requirements of San Diego County, Riverside County and City of Temecula and CEQA thresholds

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 26

used by the California Energy Commission (CEC) (CCR Title 20, Article 6, Appendix B[g)][4][A]). Design Features that Assist in Mitigation The Project design for the operation of the quarry includes the implementation of design features that assist in mitigating the noise impacts and were considered by the Commission. The design features are the following: The excavations and Plant Area locations are designed to use the surrounding ridgelines and on site setbacks to limit noise from mining activities and the processing plants. The processing plants would be constructed on an excavated building pad of 1,670 to 1,700 feet amsl to lower the profile of the plants and limit off site noise. A landscaped berm, a minimum of 25 feet high, would be constructed on the southwest side of the Plant Area to limit off site noise. Crushers and screens at the aggregate processing, concrete batch, and recycling plants would be enclosed (presumed required to satisfy air quality requirements; noise reductions from standard enclosures were taken into account). Concrete truck loading operations would be partially shielded by the reclaim tunnel structure under the concrete batch plant. The asphalt plant exhaust fans would be fitted with effective silencing, anticipated to be 5 feet long. Engine generator sets and heavy mobile equipment would be fitted with appropriate mufflers and enclosures so that modeled levels are realized. Mining activities would be set back at least 400 feet from the north site boundary. (This setback is identified as mitigation in the biology section and is included in the noise assessment modeling.)

Mitigation Measures In addition to the design features listed above, the EIR included numerous mitigation measures that were applied to the Project to further reduce impacts, a full list of mitigation is provided in Table ES-1 of the FEIR. According to the EIR, ambient, construction, operational, and ground borne noise would be less then significant with mitigation incorporated. Impacts to Surrounding Communities The EIR also specifically analyzed the impacts to surrounding communities. The SMER. As shown in Table 4-1 of the EIR, within the SMER (Receptors 14, 15, 16, 36, and 37) noise levels with the Project and mitigation measures comply with the Riverside County residential noise standard. Therefore, potential noise impacts within the SMER would be less than significant.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 27

Based on questionnaires, twelve SMER research projects were potentially affected by noise; however, EIR concluded no impacts to noise are expected. Noise levels will increase only slightly or will not be affected throughout the SMER due to distance from the Projects noise sources, intervening terrain, project design, and required mitigation measures as discussed above. The EIR concluded that it is not expected that noise produced by the Project would substantially impact any SMER research projects. The City of Temecula. As shown in Table 4-2 of the EIR, within Temecula at Receptors 10, 20, 21, and 35, the Project would result in no significant change in noise levels. The project does not result in the citys 65 Ldn standard being exceeded and results in a less than 5 dBA increase in ambient levels. Therefore, the EIR determined that potential noise impacts within Temecula would be less than significant. The Community of Rainbow. As shown in Table 4-3 of the EIR, within Rainbow, at Receptors 2, 17 and 18, noise levels from the Project comply with the applicable requirements of San Diego and Riverside County. Therefore, potential noise impacts within Rainbow would be less than significant. The Community of De Luz As shown in Table 4-4 of the EIR, within De Luz, at Receptors 7 and 15, noise levels from the Project comply with the applicable requirements of Riverside County. Therefore, potential noise impacts within De Luz would be less than significant. The Community of Fallbrook. As shown in Table 4-5 of the EIR, within Fallbrook, at Receptor 12, noise levels from the Project comply with the applicable requirements of San Diego and Riverside County. Therefore, potential noise impacts within Rainbow would be less than significant.

b.Public Testimony During the public hearings many speakers raised specific concerns regarding noise. The following outlines the concerns raised by the public during the hearings. Many of the following concerns were also shown in the biological section of these findings in Section B.3.b. Dr. Rahn indicated the SMER is used by researches because it has low noise levels and that mining activities can and will impact the level of research and researchers willing to use the SMER in the future based on impacts from the mine. Dr. Rahn indicated there are large volumes of study on vibration and noise impacts on biology. These impacts included increased behavioral impacts that result from stress levels which impact animals ability find food, sleep, communicate and reproduce. Tom Cole, code enforcement officer for the City of Temecula, explained that the baseline readings for the site should have been measured on site, not simply modeled. Mr. Cole took 6 readings at all times of day and weather conditions over a two month period near the site that were all below 30 decibels. Mike Jurkosky testified that his family would hear all quarry operations and be significantly impacted by the Project.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 28

c. Noise Conclusions Made by the Planning Commission1. Based on information presented by the public, noise levels on the Projects site, particularly nighttime operations, would be incompatible with the uses of the neighboring SMER property and would impact research on the property. 2. Additionally, based on the publics testimony, noise impacts from the Project would reduce the number of researchers and research projects willing to use the SMER because researchers may perceive the operating mine, and noise it creates, as an impediment to their research. 3. In light of the public testimony, the Project would result in unavoidable noise impacts to the SMER and to residential properties close to the Projects site. These unavoidable adverse impacts are not outweighed by the Projects benefits, therefore, they are not acceptable. 4. Additionally, these impacts from the Project are detrimental to the publics health, safety and general welfare. 8. Traffic and Truck Trip Reduction a. EIR Information Traffic Reduction EIR Background Traffic and transportation impacts generally occur when a proposed activity would cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to existing capacity; exceed an established LOS standard; result in inadequate parking or inadequate emergency access; alter waterborne, rail, or air traffic; affect maintenance roads or circulation during construction; or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Riverside County and Caltrans reviewed and approved the methodology and analysis conducted in support of the traffic and transportation analysis, which was primarily based on the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, 2008) and the responses to comments. Criteria for determining the significant impacts associated with traffic and transportation have been developed in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Truck Trip Reduction EIR Background Section 6.3.1 of the EIR discusses the findings from the Liberty Quarry Truck Traffic Miles-Reduced Evaluation (Appendix K-1). This study analyzed the number of trucks that could be displaced by the Project (i.e., the reduction in the number of trucks needed to transport aggregate from distant sources based on having a local source of aggregate closer to the market area where it would be used). The study found that the Project would reduce aggregate truck travel on I-15 in Riverside County by up to 16.5 million vehicle miles. Mitigation Measures The EIR included numerous mitigation measures that were applied to the Project to further reduce impacts, a full list of mitigation is provided in Table ES-1 of the FEIR. Significant and Unavoidable Traffic Impacts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 29

Even after mitigation measures were taken into account, the EIR determined that the Project would have the following significant and unavoidable impacts to Traffic in two categories: Direct Traffic Impacts: o Impact T-1a analyzed if, the Proposed Project could cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in reduction of [level of service] LOS at intersections). According to the EIR, the Project has included mitigation to pay for and construct intersection improvements that are outside the Countys jurisdiction. Although this is technically (physically) feasible, implementation would require approval of other agencies including Caltrans, Temecula, and San Diego County. Because the intersections are within the jurisdiction of Caltrans, Temecula, and San Diego County, and because no improvement can be made without the approval of these jurisdictions, Riverside County cannot ensure that the improvements would mitigate the impacts of the Project. Therefore, although Riverside County would undertake all reasonable steps to coordinate with these jurisdictions to install the improvements, the Projects impacts on these intersections are significant and unavoidable. o Impact T-1b analyzed if, the Proposed Project could cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in increased queue lengths). The EIR determined that this impact is significant and unavoidable for the same reason noted above. o Impact T-1c analyzed if, the Proposed Project could cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in increased traffic volume along roadway segments). The EIR concluded that is impact is significant and unavoidable for the same reason noted above. o Impact T-3 analyzed if, the Proposed Project could exceed, either individually or cumulatively, an LOS standard established by the San Diego County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways. The EIR also determined that this impact is significant and unavoidable for the same reason noted above. Cumulative TrafficCumulative Traffic impacts were assessed in Section 5.4.3 in the EIR. According to the EIR, potential project-related local, regional, and cumulative traffic impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. The applicant would pay their fair share of cumulative traffic and transportation improvements including participation in the Riverside County Development Impact Fees and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee, as well as the San Diego County Traffic Impact Fees for local road improvements. Although improvements to roadways would mitigate impacts to a less than significant level, for the same reasons noted in the transportation section above, the authority to fund and implement those improvements would be outside the jurisdictional authority of Riverside County in its role as the CEQA Lead Agency.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 30

Because this analysis cannot assume or rely upon the funding and construction by other entities, the EIR concluded that the impacts remain significant and unavoidable. It is also important to note that the impacts to intersections were determined without using the truck trip reduction concept in an attempt to create the most conservative analysis possible. Impacts to Surrounding Communities The EIR also specifically analyzed the impacts to surrounding communities. The City of Temecula. Winchester Road, Rancho California Road, and SR-79 South provide access to and from I-15 within Temecula. As evaluated in Section 3.11 of the EIR, the Project would result in these intersections operating at a less than acceptable LOS and would cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2 specify improvements that would reduce delays and allow these intersections to operate at an acceptable level of service and for traffic load to not exceed capacity of the street system. Because the intersections are within the jurisdiction of Caltrans, Temecula, and San Diego County, and because no improvement can be made without approval of these jurisdictions, Riverside County cannot ensure that improvements would mitigate the impacts of the Project. Therefore, although Riverside County would undertake all reasonable steps to coordinate with these jurisdictions to install the improvements, the Projects impacts on these intersections are significant and unavoidable. The Community of Rainbow. Rainbow Valley Boulevard provides access to and from I-15 from Rainbow. As evaluated in Section 3.11 of the EIR, the Project would result in this intersection operating at a less than acceptable LOS and would cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2 specify improvements that would reduce delays and allow this intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS and for traffic load to not exceed capacity of the street system. The Project would add vehicle trips to the southbound offramp at Rainbow Valley Road. The offramp is also used to access a CHP weigh station. The additional vehicle traffic associated with implementation of the Project would result in congestion at this offramp, which could result in delayed access by fire and sheriff vehicles. Mitigation Measure T-11 includes construction of a right turn lane, an additional through lane, and an additional receiving lane at the Rainbow Valley Boulevard southbound offramp and a two to four-lane access road to the quarry. This EIR mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to less than significant because access to the weigh station would continue to be provided and is considered to fall within acceptable levels. As shown in Table 4-3 of the EIR, the Project would have a less than significant impact to CHP weigh station access at Rainbow Valley Boulevard. b.Public Testimony During the public hearings many speakers raised specific concerns regarding traffic and truck trip reduction.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 31

Dr. Smith, representing the Rose Institute, testified that truck trip reduction, if true, would cause the overall tuck miles traveled in the County to fall. He further testified that anytime overall truck miles traveled falls, it will result in a decrease of truck driving jobs. Therefore, he contends, the total truck driving jobs will actually fall within the County. Dr. Smith explained that if most of the aggregate production is going south into San Diego County truck trips would be further reduced it the Project was located in San Diego County. Gary Gonzales, transportation engineer for the City of Temecula, argued that additional intersections should have been analyzed for traffic impacts. Mr. Jeff Heald from Fehr and Peers, brought by the City of Temecula, contended that it was not clear how Urban Crossroads ascertained if the counted aggregate trucks were full aggregate trucks or empty aggregate trucks. Mr. Heald further argued that a passenger car equivalence of 3.0 should have been used to be more conservative. Mr. Heald testified that not enough data was collected to support the claim of reduced truck trips and that license plate surveys would have been more appropriate.

c. Traffic and Truck Trip Reduction Conclusions Made by the Planning Commission1. Based on the publics testimony, the project will increase truck traffic. 2. Based on information presented by the public, overall truck trips throughout Riverside County would not be reduced if other surface mines can compete with the Project in terms of aggregate cost. 3. In light of the publics testimony, the Project would create an unavoidable adverse traffic impact that is not outweighed by the Projects benefits. As a result, the unavoidable traffic impacts are not acceptable. 4. Additionally, these traffic impacts are detrimental to the publics health, safety and general welfare. 9. Water Supply Assessment (WSA) a. EIR InformationWater Supply EIR Background The EIR studied the provision of water in Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems. The Project is located within the boundaries of the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) and, as such, would receive water service as part of WMWDs retail service area. The review of the water supply was not limited to the Water Supply Assessment. A review of the local utility and service systems and of the commitments of the utility and service system providers that would serve the Project was completed in support of the analysis in the EIR. Criteria for determining both the construction and operation impacts associated with the utility and service systems have been developed in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) Background

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 32

Consistent with the requirements of California Water Code section 10910 et seq., the County and the Project Applicant contacted WMWD regarding preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Project. In reviewing the Project, WMWD staff determined that the project did not meet the threshold requirements for preparation of a WSA. Specifically, WMWD concluded that the portions of the Project associated with industrial and/or processing activities did not exceed the Water Code threshold of 40 acres because the Projects processing facilities would occupy approximately 3.42 acres of the Project site. In addition, based on Western Municipals average annual residential demand of 0.88 acre feet per unit, it was determined that the projects water usage would have to exceed 440 acre feet per year to trigger the Water Codes 500 dwelling unit equivalency threshold. (2005 Urban Water Management Plan, page 18.) The Project is anticipated to demand 398 acre-feet of water per year. Given the above, WMWD concluded that the Project did not trigger the need for preparation of a WSA. Furthermore, WMWD advised the County that there are sufficient water supplies to serve the Project. Notwithstanding WMWDs decision that a WSA was not legally required for the Project pursuant to the Water Code, the County independently determined that compliance with CEQA required a full analysis of the Projects potential water supply impacts. (Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412.) As such, Section 3.12 of the DEIR provides a detailed discussion of water supply issues and, based on the standards articulated in Water Code Section 10910 et seq., the Section analyzes the Projects water demands under normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year supply scenarios. Summary of Water Supply Analysis from the EIR As a result of this analysis, the County concluded that there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project under normal, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions consistent with the information provided by WMWD. However, the responses to comments for the Final EIR explain that since the preparation of the EIR, WMWD has prepared and approved a WSA which indicates a sufficient supply of water for the Project for a 20-year period. Mitigation Measures A host of mitigation measures were applied to the Project to further reduce impacts, a full list of mitigation is provided in Table ES-1 of the FEIR. Significant and Unavoidable Water Supply Impacts However, even after mitigation measures were taken into account, the EIR determined that the Project would have the following significant and unavoidable impact to utility and service systems: Impact USS-2 analyzed if, the Proposed Project could have insufficient water supplies from existing entitlements and resources, or new or expanded entitlements might be needed. WMWD has prepared and approved a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) which indicates a sufficient supply of water to serve the Project for a 20-year period. Impacts to water supply are determined to be less than significant. However, cumulative water supply impacts were assessed in Section

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page | 33

5.4.12 in the DEIR. Despite implementation of recommended mitigation measures to reduce demand to 369 ac ft/yr, the County has conservatively determined that given the uncertainties in the ability of the State to provide future water supply, as discussed in Sections 3.12 and 5.4.12, the Projects water supply impacts are considered cumulatively significant. b.Public InformationDuring the public hearings many speakers raised general concerns with water supply. In particular, that the water supply in California is very unpredictable. No water experts spoke regarding the water supply or the WSA. c. Water Supply Assessment Conclusions Made by the Planning Commission1. The WSA was done correctly, in accordance with applicable State laws. 2. However, the uncertainties in the ability of the State to provide future water supply, make any time line longer than 20 years (the Project is requesting a 75 year lifespan) unacceptable. Therefore, the cumulative impacts identified by the EIR cannot be mitigated or balanced with any project benefits. E. Overall Conclusions 1. As evidenced by the above, the Project is incompatible with the surrounding area and inconsistent with the neighboring uses. 2. The Project would export most of its aggregate south to San Diego County; however, based on information presented by the public, ample aggregate deposits exist in San Diego County. 3. While the aggregate from the Project would provide more benefit to San Diego County than Riverside County, the majority of the environmental impacts remain in Riverside County. This represents an environmental injustice to Riverside County. 4. Based on the information contained in the EIR and on evidence presented at the public hearings, the impacts to air quality, aesthetics, traffic, noise, geology/hydrogeology, biological resources and Pechangas heritage and nearby land are not outweighed by the Projects benefits and would create negative effects for the region. 5. Therefore, the environmental impacts are deemed unacceptable and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15002(h)(5) and 15093(a), the Project is denied. 6. Additionally, based on the above, the Commission hereby finds that the Project and proposed conditions of approval for Surface Mining Permit No. 213 do not protect the public health, safety or general welfare. The Surface Mining Permit, therefore, does not comply with Ordinance No. 555 and is denied. 7. Additionally, granting the request for Change of Zone No. 7508 and Noise Ordinance Exception No. 2would foster and facilitate a surface mine, which, as stated above, would not protect the public health safety and welfare and are hereby also denied. 8. The Commissions decision is final unless appealed or the Board of Supervisors assumes jurisdiction by ordering the matter set for public hearing.