The Ojai Post

Howard-
Thank you for staying so on top of this and putting your heart and soul into service for the benefit of the residents of the Ojai Valley

February 4, 2009

Dear Kim Rodriguez and Carole Aragon,

Please add these latest incidents below to our list of formal complaints:

#45: On February 2, 2009 2:29 pm, a double hopper gravel truck heading from Swader allegedly cut through residential streets to go via La Luna Road from Highway 150 north to Route 33, thus attempting to illegally by-pass a section of the restricted zone. Trucks over three axles are forbidden to go on La Luna. If this truck was heading to Ozena, it would constitute a clear violation of traffic rules.

On that same day, a tan colored double hopper was tracked entering the restricted zone from the north and exiting from the south in Casitas Springs at 3:21 pm. It was fully loaded but as usual, uncovered. If this truck was coming from Ozena, it would constitute a clear violation of the C.U.P.

#46: On February 3, 2009 between 8:05 am and 8:17 am, four double hopper gravel truck heading north on Route 33 were tracked going through the restricted zone. The first one had a black cab and two yellow hoppers, the next two were from Swader, and the fourth had a blue cab with white hoppers. If any of these vehicles had been going to Ozena, their trips would constitute yet additional potential violations.

#47: On February 4, 2009 three double hoppers were tracked entering the restricted zone from the south in apparent violations. The first was a 5:50 am, and was a white double hopper. The next two at 7:05 am and 7:18 am, were from Swader. If any of these vehicles had been going to Ozena, their trips would constitute yet additional potential violations.

Later that day, at 4:01 pm two heavily rusted out bottom dumping style double hopper trucks entered the restricted zone from the north and traveled all the way through and out at Casitas Spring. If any of these vehicles had been coming from Ozena, their trips would constitute yet additional potential violations, as they were traveling with uncovered loads.

Also attached is a recent letter to the Ventura County Planning Commission, in which the Chair of the Ojai Valley Municipal Advisory Council, Russ Baggerly, wrote:
"The Ojai Valley Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) has heard numerous complaints and concerns from residents of the Ojai Valley about the Ozena Mine violating many conditions of its Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P). It is up to the Planning Division to enforce these conditions and we are deeply concerned that very little is being done to
enforce the conditions of approval...."

And, "...it occurs to the MAC that you should be considering that an appropriate action would be to terminate the Ozena Mine's temporary C.U.P. until the past violations, alleged violations and new EIR are completely resolved. This is a matter of vital concern to the MAC for the ongoing safety, air quality concerns, health and welfare of the residents of the Ojai Valley. "

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks
----- Original Message -----
From: Ojai StopTheTrucks
To: OjaiStopTheTrucks@gmail.com ; Kim Rodriguez ; Carole Aragon ; Matt Carroll ; Peter Foy ; Kathy Long ; Steve Bennett ; Supervisor.Zaragoza@ventura.org ; linda parks ; Mark Lunn ; Steve Offerman
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 3:31 PM
Subject: Complaints #42 thru #44, From Stop the Trucks, January 30, 2008

January 30, 2009

Dear Kim and Carole,

Please add these latest incidents below to our list of formal complaints.

#42: Recently Robert Kwong, County Counsel assigned to the Planning Division, called the lawyers for 'Stop the Trucks" and allegedly informed them that the County doesn't have any of the documents we had requested in our Public Request of December. A copy of that request, originally sent to Chris Stephens, with cc's going to Marty Robinson, Matt Carroll and Noel Klebaum, is attached.

Given that we were requesting, for example documents that clearly exist, such as those related to the recently concluded "Virgilio vs Ventura County" court case; the documents related to the recently proposed and responded to RFP to review the EIR for the Ozena C.U.P. renewal; and the weigh tickets from Ozena, including those recently reviewed by the Planning Director; such as response - if true - borders on the comical and absurd. Our attorneys asked Mr. Kwong to put that opinion in writing.

We hope that Mr. Kwong's statement was merely an oversight and all of the requested documents will be forthcoming.

#43: Today's accident on Route 33 allegedly involving two trucks that caused a major spill of diesel fuel into the watershed near the Cuyama valley, highlights the dangers of any big rig driving up and over six thousand foot high mountains on this narrow, winding two line highway through the national forest and along side the very rivers and streams that flow into our supply of drinking water.

It also highlights the fact that there was never any traffic safety or road safety reviews in any of the MND's approved to date by the Planning Commission, despite the fact there their have been many documented gravel truck accidents and a road collapse on Route 33 in recent years.

A preliminary survey of the few documents we have obtained through our earlier Public Records Requests indicate that no substantive traffic or road safety studies have been planned for the upcoming EIR review required for Ozena's permit renewal. This too is a situation that can not be tolerated given the history of this roadway. We hope you can explain this apparent oversight as well.

#44: On January 30, 2009 between 1:15 pm and 1:45 pm four UNCOVERED but fully loaded double hopper gravel truck heading south on Route 33 were tracked going through the restricted zone. Two were from Swader, the third was a white cab with two dark blue hoppers and the fourth was a white but heavily rusted out bottom dumping style double hopper. If any of these vehicles had been coming from Ozena, their trips would constitute yet additional potential violations, as they were traveling with uncovered loads in the middle of Santa Ana high wind conditions.

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:38 PM
Subject: Complaints #39 thru #41, From Stop the Trucks, January 29, 2008

January 29, 2009

Dear Kim and Carole,

Please add these latest incidents below to our list of formal complaints.

#39: On January 28, 2009 at 5:30 pm a white double hopper gravel truck heading north on Route 33 was tracked passing through the restricted zone. If this vehicle had been going to Ozena, that might well constitute yet another potential violation.

#40: On January 29, 2009 at 6:00 am another UNCOVERED but fully loaded double hopper gravel truck heading south on Route 33 was tracked in the restricted zone. If this vehicle had been coming from Ozena, would that not constitute yet another potential violation, particularly since it was - as always - traveling with an uncovered load.

#41: On January 29, 2009 at 7:14 am a blue and white double hopper gravel truck (trailer style) heading north on Route 33 was tracked entering the restricted zone by the Arnaz Grade. If this vehicle had been going to Ozena, that might well constitute yet another potential violation.

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:57 PM
Subject: Complaints #37 & #38, From Stop the Trucks, January 28, 2008

Dear Kim and Carole,

Please add these latest incidents below to our list of formal complaints.

#37: On January 26, 2009 at 7:11 am a blue and white double hopper gravel truck (trailer style) heading north on Route 33 was tracked entering the restricted zone and followed. If this vehicle had been going to Ozena, that might well constitute yet another potential violation.

#38: On January 28, 2009 at 7:05 am a white double hopper gravel truck (bottom dumper style) heading north on Route 33 was tracked entering the restricted zone and followed. If this vehicle had been going to Ozena, that might well constitute yet another potential violation.

Also attached is a copy of the full complaint referenced in Item #30 below that we presented to Matt Carroll in July. It was originally mailed to Marty Robinson a few weeks earlier.

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:24 AM
Subject: Complaints #30 thru #36, From Stop the Trucks, January 24, 2008

January 24, 2009

Dear Kim Rodriguez and Carole Aragon,

Please add these latest items and incidents below to our list of formal complaints. Please note, however, that the Coalition expects the Planning Division to meet all of the requirements for handling complaints, including those related to timeliness, as noted in the original C.U.P., Section 13 (on page 9) which deals with the resolution of complaints. The conditions therein specifically require that:

(a) All complaints received by the County shall be directed to the permittee's contact person established pursuant to Condition No. 12. Contact Person.

(b) As soon as possible, but no later than one day after receiving a complaint from the County or a citizen, the permittee shall investigate the complaint.

(c) The permittee shall report his findings to the complainant and the Planning Director as soon as possible, but no later than one day after receiving a complaint, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in question.

(d) If the investigation of a complaint by the permittee indicates a possible violation, the permittee shall take prompt action to correct the potential problem.

(e) If the problem persists, the County Planning Division shall initiate complaint resolution actions as contained in the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance then in effect.

#30: As a result of evidence presented during the recent "Virgilio Vs Ventura County" we are also resubmitting our complaint of July 2008, regarding massive violations of Condition 72 during the months of July and August 2007, which was originally delivered to Deputy County CEO Matt Carroll

In "Virgilio vs. County of Ventura" county lawyers acknowledged that a number of Planning Division staffers had made numerous errors in regards understanding and enforcing the C.U.P but "planners have no power to change the terms (of the C.U.P.) approved by the Planning Commission. " County lawyers further noted, "staff's misapplication of the Condition passively allowing truck travel during prohibited times does not and cannot effectuate a change to the Condition approved and adopted by the Commission." County Counsel went on to argue that: "to the contrary, Planning staff has a ministerial duty to apply and enforce all Truck Travel conditions as they were approved by the Planning Commission." "The clear and present duty of the County Planning Division is its ongoing ministerial duty to apply and enforce the Condition as written and approved by the Planning Commission and re-adopted in Mod 1."

Lawyers for the county apparently made such a good case in noting both the apparent violations of the C.U.P. by Ozena and the failure of the Planning Division to enforce the guidelines that Judge Reiser, in a footnote, went so far as to state that, "The initial permit allows for a five-year extension if the Planning Director, assuming, 'all conditions have been continuously complied with' by petitioners, authorizes such continued use. Since the County has already found permit violations; it might well be an abuse for the Planning Director to authorize such an extension."

In a letter to John Hecht, the agent for Ozena, in December of 2007, the Planning Director made an arbitrary decision that Ozena would not be responsible for "past" violations.

It makes as much sense for the Planning Director to dismiss possible "past violations" as it would for the District Attorney to dismiss murder charges as the murder happened in the past.

How can the public and the Coalition consider the Planning Director's decision to not consider past violations anything but a possible abuse of her discretion.

Furthermore, given the extremely high percentages of daily violations of the permit schedule that were found in a two month sampling of data from 2007 by both the County's Deputy CEO and the Coalition, how was the agency was able to determine that the mine operators had been in continuous compliance? The Coalition's review alone noted that possibly 40% of all trips and 55% of trips through Ojai were in violation.

Were there an appropriate, timely and proper investigation of the alleged violations, it can easily be argued that the extension for Ozena would have already been terminated.

# 31A through #31K:

The Coalition has made and repeatedly referenced several public records requests for all weigh tickets from Ozena. We have reported unconfirmed allegations that weigh tickets may or may not have been falsified or written up by hand. To date, the Planning Division has failed to turn over any of these weigh tickets, which, in and of itself could be considered a clear a violation of state law and public policy.

Furthermore, the Planning Division has failed to respond according to the guidelines established in Section 13, including, but not limited to those of timeliness.

Because of that failure to respond under Section 13 and because of the total failure of the Planning Division to provide any physical evidence whatsoever supporting the Planning Director's claim on page two, paragraph three of her January 14, 2009 letter to the "Stop the Trucks" Coalition, we are resubmitting all of these complaints From Stop the Trucks from February 8, 2008 through January 6, 2009 (below) and supporting them with further information or clarifications when available.

Given this history, there is simply no way any intelligent citizen of Ventura County could credibly accept any analysis of records by the Planning Division without the very physical evidence the Division appears to be adamant about withholding from public scrutiny.

In her letter of January 14th, the Planning Director wrote, "It cannot be concluded that if a truck is observed in Ojai then it traveled to or from the Ozena mine." In other words, short of a competent analysis of weigh tickets, the Planning Division has absolutely no ability to monitor C.U.P. compliance. Such monitoring is a fundamental requirement of CEQA, with out which no permit should be granted, much less extended.

#31A: On January 2, 2009, a white double hopper gravel truck came south fully loaded but uncovered and/or without a tarp down Route 33 and into the Ojai restricted zone at 3:23 pm. If this vehicle had been coming from Ozena, that would constitute yet another potential violation.

#31B: Today, January 6, 2009, a white double hopper gravel truck with a white cab with brown trim came south, also fully loaded but uncovered and/or without a tarp, on Route 33 into the Ojai restricted zone, past the high school and hospital and then turned left at the "y" and headed through downtown Ojai at 7:53 am. Five minutes later, a Swader double hopper came north up 33 through the restricted zone and then drove past the high school at 7:58 am.

Later that same day, a Swader double hopper gravel truck entered the Ojai restricted zone heading south fully loaded but uncovered and/or without a tarp on Route 33 at 3:08 pm and continued south all the way through Casitas Springs.

If these trucks were coming from Ozena, these too would constitute violations.

#31C: On Tuesday, December 30, 2008 beginning at around 4:25 pm one of our Coalition members spotted a light blue double hopper gravel truck, possibly one from Swader, passing through the restricted zone and then through the "Y" at Ojai, all the while heading north on Route 33. The truck continued north past the high school and hospital. The spotter trailed the truck for a considerable length of time as it proceeded up Maricopa Highway and towards Ozena.

#31D: On December 26, 2008, Friday, the day after Christmas, two double hopper gravel trucks came south with full loads that were uncovered and/or without a tarp on Route 33 and past by the Ojai Hospital and Nordhoff High School at 3:45 pm. They continued south through the restricted zone. If they were coming from Ozena, that would be yet another violation of the C.U.P.

#31E: This morning, December 18, 2008, and only hours after Route 33 was cleared of snow and re-opened to traffic, a dark blue, double hopper truck from Pride Trucking passed north through the restricted zone and then by Nordhoff High School just as students were arriving. This was around 7:37 am, in apparent violation of the allowed hours of travel through the Ojai Valley.

#31F: On December 10, 2008 at about 4:40 am a double hopper truck apparently passed through the restricted zone then by the hospital & high school heading north toward Ozena well before allowable hours.

Later that same morning what appeared to be the same vehicle, a light blue truck from Swader (fully loaded but uncovered and/or without a tarp) heading south through the restricted zone then left the restricted zone near Casitas Springs at about 7:10 am.

This afternoon, at precisely 3:24 pm two more double hopper, both white in color, came south fully loaded but uncovered and/or without a tarp) from the direction of Ozena and again passed by the high school and hospital and then south through the restricted zone. If correct, all of these would have be potential violations.

#31G: On Tuesday, December 9, 2008, between 8:22 am and 8:25 am we spotted three double hopper gravel trucks apparently violating the Ozena C.U.P. by heading north on Route 33 in the Ojai Valley restricted zone.

That same afternoon we spotted three more double hopper trucks, two of which were from Swader, apparently violating the C.U.P. by traveling south bound (fully loaded but uncovered and/or without a tarp) through the Ojai restricted zone between 3:21 pm and 3:50 pm, which would, once again, put them right in front of Nordhoff High School as students are leaving for the day.

#31H: On Monday, December 8, 2008 I spotted two more Swader double hopper gravel trucks apparently violating the C.U.P. by traveling south bound fully loaded but uncovered through the Ojai restricted zone at 3:33 pm and at 3:38 pm, which would again put them right in front of Nordhoff High School as students are leaving for the day.

#31I: On December 3, 2008, a double hopper truck went through the restricted zone north up Maricopa Highway (Route 33) past the high school and hospital towards Ozena at 4:40 am, well before the 6:00 am to 7:00 am allowable access through the Ojai Valley.

At 7:10 am another double hopper, this one from Swader trucking also went through the restricted zone and then past the high school heading north as students were arriving.

At 7:18 am, a third double hopper - possible another one from Swader - also headed north (through the restricted zone).

About ten minutes later, at 7:30 am, a fourth truck was spotted doing the same. The last two trucks were the same color as the Swader trucks but their logos were hard to identify at the speed they were traveling.

#31J On Friday morning, November 21st, I personally witnessed two double hopper gravel trucks heading north on Route 33 go through the restricted zone and the "Y" intersection between 7:30 am and 8:00 am in direct violation of the C.U.P. limits on hours of travel through the valley.

#31K At 7:15 am today, November 24th, I personally witnessed one double hopper gravel truck from Swader Trucking heading up Route 33 through the restricted zone and past Nordhoff High School in direct violation of the C.U.P. limits on hours of travel through the valley.

This afternoon I personally witnessed four different double hopper gravel trucks each fully loaded but uncovered and/or without a tarp, coming down through the restricted zone on Route 33 apparently from the Ozena Valley Ranch and Gravel Mine. The trucks all passed through the Ojai valley between 3:00 pm and 3:30 pm, also in violation of the C.U.P.

#31L Formal Ozena trucking complaint of February 8, 2008 from Bob Walker.

I am sending you this formal complaint in response to seven trucks that I witnessed on February 8, 2008 violating Ozena Sand and Gravel Mine's hauling time restrictions. At 8:40 A.M. two Southbound Swader trucks hauling 3/8" gravel passed in front of my house. That would put those trucks in the Ojai City limits during the restricted time. Also, I witnessed five Northbound, empty, Valley Bulk trucks in front of my house starting at 8:45 A.M. This would place the trucks passing through the Ojai Valley during the restricted times. The first Valley Bulk truck returned Southbound loaded with washed concrete sand at 11:03 A.M.and the second truck at 11:06 A.M. The roads had been closed due to the recent snows. As soon as they were open, the trucks went right back to their old habits.
Sincerely, Bob Walker.

#32: In the Planning Director's letter of January 14, 2009 to the Stop the Trucks Coalition, the Director alleges a new interpretation of Condition #72 that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Her interpretation not only contradicts wording used in every single Planning Division letter and communication to County officials and the Board of Supervisors, including the 2003 C.U.P. modification approval letter, it may also well be looked upon as another possible abuse of discretion.

The phrase in the "Day and Hours of Operation" Chart in Condition 72 reads as follows: "All project related travel on Highway 33 between Casitas Spring and City of Ojai." The Planning Director believes the word "between" allows her to exclude both Casitas Springs and the City of Ojai from the restricted zone. The Planning Director created a new map on November 17, 2008 – eight years after the Planning Commission approved the C.U.P. - indicating her determination of the restricted zone along Route 33 in the Ojai Valley.

Such an interpretation would mean for example that "consensual sex between two adults" did not involve either party, only the space "between them." Or that the American Civil War, "The War between the States," did not actually involve any states, just the people standing on the Mason-Dixon line. Or that a Conditional Use Permit "between" the County of Ventura and the Ozena Valley Ranch does not actually bind either party, just the space "between" them.

Perhaps such an absurdist's proposition could be argued over endlessly by lawyers, but again, we repeat the words of county counsel: "…planners have no power to change the terms (of the C.U.P.) approved by the Planning Commission. " and "…to the contrary, Planning staff has a ministerial duty to apply and enforce all Truck Travel conditions as they are approved by the Planning Commission." And, "the 'clear and present duty' of the County Planning Division is its ongoing ministerial duty to apply and enforce the Condition as written and approved by the Planning Commission and re-adopted in Mod 1.

If this bizarre action on the part of the Planning Director to modify and constrain the restricted zone does not constitute an abuse of her discretion, what does?

#33: In the same January letter the Planning Director wrote: "Some weigh tickets indicated that trucks did leave Ozena mine at times of day that would indicate a potential violation; however those tickets indicate the trucks had an Ojai destination which would not have resulted in a violation of Condition No. 72."

The C.U.P. Makes no exemption for local delivery. The condition reads: "All project related travel on Highway 33 between Casitas Springs and City of Ojai."

Again, in the words of County Counsel, "…planners have no power to change the terms (of the C.U.P.) approved by the Planning Commission. " The Planning Director's reveals not only another possible lapse of judgment but a further abuse of her powers.

#34 On January 19. 2009, over a dozen double hopper trucks were reported passing through the restricted zone. Trucks were spotted heading north as early as 5:30 am and south as late as 5:40 pm. None of the southbound trucks were covered or tarped. Several passed through the zone during the 7:00 am to 9:00 am black out. And at least three passed through the zone after the 3:00 pm cut off. If these vehicles had been coming from or going to Ozena, most of those trips would constitute potential violations, particularly since they were - as always - traveling with uncovered loads.


#35: On Wednesday, January 21, 2009 a south bound double hopper, which was uncovered, passed through the restricted zone about 3:27 pm. If this vehicle had been coming from Ozena, it would constitute a potential time violation, particularly since it was - as always - traveling with an uncovered load.


#36: On Thursday, January 22, 2009, a north bound white double hopper entered the zone at Casitas Springs and proceeded north at around 7:05 am. If heading to Ozena, this too would constitute a violation.

Sincerely,

Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 8:59 AM
Subject: Complaints #23, #24, #25, #27, #28 & #29 From Stop the Trucks, January 16, 2008

Dear Kim Rodriguez & Carole Aragon,

That you for your response last Thursday to several of our earlier complaints, however there were some fairly critical ones which have not been addressed. They are being re-stated here individually.

Please add these to our list of formal complaints below.

#23: On 12/31/08, "Stop the Trucks," informed you that we had already file three Public Record Requests (2 in August of 2008 and one in December of 2008) for all the weigh tickets from Ozena in order to confirm potential violations or to clear the mine of those allegations. These weigh tickets are also critical to establish base lines for any environmental impact review and to determine average daily and maximum daily trips. Without that information there is no way a reasonable EIR review can even be undertaken. We have received nothing to date.

#24: On 12/19/08 "Stop the Trucks," informed you that we recently learned that three environmental firms (URS; Lilburn; & Envicom) have responded to an apparent RFP prepared by the department last July according to your own billing records.

First, the Planning Division failed to included these documents in our Public Records Request of August, a clear violation in and of itself.

Secondly, the RFP was prepared prior to the public scoping process. Normally under CEQA, the public scoping to determine what should be in the RFP occurs BEFORE an agency sends out an RFP.

Third, and perhaps most critically, we have also learned from our last PRR that the three firms (URS; Lilburn; & Envicom) that responded to the RFP were not only either recommended by the agent for the applicant, John Hecht, but have also had significant contact with the applicant that was in fact encouraged by Pat Richards.

Fourth, URS had already responded to an "sole source" RFP on Ozena last spring, which was rejected by Mr. Hecht as being too expensive. Hecht wanted competitive bidding to lower the price of the RFP while also adding in a second proposal for Aqua-culture for one price. That the applicant gets to determine the size and scope of an EIR review based on cost instead of what is necessary and appropriate runs contrary to CEQA guidelines.

We have sent to County Counsel and Matt Carroll several recent documents from Fresno County that indicate that West Coast Environmental & Engineering and the Lilburn Corporation possibly worked side by side as co-consultants on a large project for Vulcan Materials. This project may still be ongoing.

There may or may not be anything inappropriate about Lilburn submitting a bid under these circumstances. As lay people this is not something we can judge.

Do you, however, think that in the public's perception of these matters, it might not appear to be a bit too cozy a relationship when companies that have worked together are then called upon to evaluate each other?

A further point... It is our understanding that URS, which apparently re-bid the Ozena C.U.P. work at a lower price after the sole source was rejected, was the same firm that Santa Barbara County used to evaluate Troesh's Diamond Rock proposals. The work for Troesh was done by West Coast Environmental & Engineering, supposedly putting them on opposite sides of this case.

However, during the entire six year course of the work on the Diamond Rock proposal, no one, for example, notified District Seven of Caltrans that a significant portion of the proposed truck traffic was to cross out of Santa Barbara County on Route 33 and come through the Los Padres Forest and Ojai. District Seven was stunned to learn of this project, which they did from us, especially since it was too late to have any impact on the proposals. (We have these emails, which are available to you as well.)

Nowhere in the EIR work ups by West Coast or in the reviews by URS was any real consideration given to the impacts of this project on the Ojai Valley; on our air quality or air shed; on traffic impacts; or on impacts to the road bed of Route 33 through the Los Padres Forest which did eventually collapse; etc.

The Diamond Rock proposal was finally amended after a year of extensive legal battles with Stop the Trucks to essentially void traffic coming south into Ventura County.

Given these significant oversights - and despite URS' reputation as a world-wide environmental firm - wouldn't there be reason to question the validity of using this firm to evaluate a project where the parameters are nearly identical to the ones that they may have failed to notice in their prior review?

And what would an already skeptical Ojai populace or the citizens of Ventura County think if this were the type of firm chosen to once more review the work of West Coast Environmental and Engineering? How could we be assured that they'd catch every possible mistake and oversight?

And lastly, a question about Envicom. They have frequently worked for the City of San Buenaventura, where John Hecht, principal of West Coast Environmental & Engineering and the agent for Ozena, has been a long standing member of the Planning Commission. What assurances can the public be given to avoid even the perception that Envicom's possible work on the Ozena C.U.P. is not some sort of Quid Pro Quo?

#25 On 12/19/08 "Stop the Trucks," informed you that after a nearly 2-1/2 year delay, Mr. Richards finally responded to a letter from the Ojai Valley MAC regarding several key issues related to the Ozena proposals. The MAC had , expressed serious concerns regarding Ozena, including ground water standards; seismic damage to the roads, especially Route 33; and the concepts of average daily trips and maximum daily trips. Although in his response Mr. Richards assures the MAC that all of these concerns have been taken care of, he in fact ignores the actual reality.

Application, for instance of the Ventura County ground water standards could in itself cause the termination of the Ozena mine. The low cost bid for the RFP further ignores the fact that Highway 33 DID collapse this year and that no seismic review is indicated in the RFP's nor are their sufficient funds to even begin to accomplish this task.

Furthermore, the concept of average daily trips and maximum daily trips also violates CEQA standards because the Planning Division has absolutely no means to measure either of these numbers nor any ability to determine what the "baseline" is for CEQA impacts. . The only possible tool the Division might have is weigh tickets, which it has assiduously avoided obtaining for the first nine months of the year.

All of these actions are highly inappropriate and only add to the list of "theater of the absurd" practices that Mr. Richards and the Planning Division have engaged in over the eight years of the Ozena C.U.P.

#26: On 12/10/08 "Stop the Trucks," informed you that two independent sources familiar with the gravel industry have reported that the alleged new operator, Alliance had possibly moved and expanded the processing plant; had expanded the size and location of the pit; and were allegedly washing and processing old concrete. If true, all would be potential C.U.P. violations.

Further, at an October Ojai City Council meeting, the lawyer for Tony Virgilio and Ozena presented the City with a weigh ticket purportedly from October 8th, two months after the Virgilio family had allegedly leased the operation to Alliance.

That Virgilio had weigh tickets in his possession for that date leads us to wonder if in fact the Virgilio Family has both leased the operation to Alliance while continuing to fill orders separately as some means to appear to be in compliance while not actually being so. In other words, is he double dipping?

#27: On 12/3/08 "Stop the Trucks," informed you that it was almost one year since you informed the operators of the Ozena Valley Ranch and Gravel Mine in writing that they must comply with the hours of the existing C.U.P.

Last month the lawyers for "Stop the Trucks" had reported to Ventura County Counsel that as of August 4, 2008 the Virgilio Family had apparently been leasing their mining operation to Alliance, a gravel and trucking firm from up north. In our last public records request there was no indication that Alliance had agreed in writing as required by the C.U.P. to obey all conditions of the permit.

#28: On February 13, 2008 "Stop the Trucks," and Bob Walker of Ojai filed a complaint about gravel trucking incidents on February 8, 2008, that no one in the Planning Division ever responded to, despite the fact that Carole Aragon did launch an investigation. While you were on leave last February, Mr. Richards was overseeing Ms. Aragon. A copy of that complaint is below at the very bottom of this email.

According to documents that the "Stop the Trucks" Coalition obtained through our August 2008 Public Records Request, Ms. Aragon began her investigation but never completed it. To date, no one has ever responded to Mr. Walker about the issues he's raised. (And this isn't the first time a complaint from Mr. Walker regarding Ozena has gone unanswered and perhaps un-investigated.) Further, even though Ms. Aragon, in a letter to John Hecht, Ozena's agent, refers to a number of weigh tickets that she is reviewing, none of those weigh tickets were turned over to the Coalition in the course of our Public Records Request.

Given these two issues, failure to fully investigate and failure to turn over documents under the Public Records Act, and Mr. Richards own record in regards Ozena, I hope you can understand our concern that our complaints are not only taken seriously but are adjudicated fully and properly.

#29: On April 8, 2008 "Stop the Trucks," representatives made a presentation before you, Chris Stephens and the Board of Supervisors on the failure of the Planning Division to have adequate reasonable and feasible mentoring of truck traffic coming out of the Ozena mine. The Board of Supervisors instructed the RMA to come up with reasonable monitor measures. Copies of our testimony are attached. To this date however, the Planning Division and RMA have apparently done nothing to insure compliance.

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 10:31 AM
Subject: Complaint #22 From Stop the Trucks, January 16, 2008

Dear Kim and Carole,

Please add these latest three incidents below to our list of formal complaints.

#22: On January 16, 2009 around 2:19 pm another UNCOVERED but fully loaded double hopper gravel truck heading south on Route 33 was tracked in the restricted zone. If this vehicle had been coming from Ozena, would that not constitute yet another potential violation, particularly since it was - as always - traveling with an uncovered load in the middle of a Santa Ana dust storm. Dirt was clearly blowing off of the truck.

Earlier that same day, a blue double hopper gravel truck heading north up Route 33 passed through the Ojai Valley starting around 7:19 am and was tracked traveling through the restricted zone.

A third double hopper heading north up Route 33 entered the restricted zone and passed through the Ojai Valley beginning around 7:51 am. If either of these vehicles had been going to Ozena, would that not constitute yet another potential violation?

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:59 PM
Subject: Complaint #21 From Stop the Trucks, January 15, 2008

Dear Kim and Carole,

Please add this latest incident below to our list of formal complaints.

#21: On January 15, 2009 around 7:42 pm two double hopper gravel trucks heading north on Route 33 were tracked entering the restricted zone and continuing north towards the mines. If this vehicle had been heading to Ozena, would that not constitute yet another potential violation?
Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:02 PM
Subject: Complaint #20 From Stop the Trucks, January 14, 2008

Dear Kim and Carole,

Please add these latest two incidents below to our list of formal complaints as they are almost identical repeats from yesterday.

#20: On January 114, 2009 around 3:12 pm another UNCOVERED but fully loaded Swader double hopper gravel truck heading south on Route 33 was tracked traveling the entire length of the restricted zone until about 3:37 pm . If this vehicle had been coming from Ozena, would that not constitute yet another potential violation, particularly since it was - as always - traveling with an uncovered load?

Later this same day, a white double hopper gravel truck heading north up Route 33 passed through the Ojai Valley between 5:10 pm and 5:42 pm. It looked like the same vehicle spotted the two days prior at around the same time. If this vehicle had been going to Ozena, would that not constitute yet another potential violation?

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks