2009 and earlier Stop the Trucks documents

From the Ojai Valley News

Coalition Continues Stop Trucks Effort

Ozena granted permit extension as Ojai Quarry appeals violation notices

By Sondra Murphy

     As Ventura County planners sift through 100 complaints about gravel truck travel through the Ojai Valley, the Stop the Trucks Coalition keeps adding to the load.

     Since county enforcement is often complaint based, the coalition continues to serve as a catalyst to the process of holding mine companies along Maricopa Highway to their conditional use permits. But with government and attorneys involved, language interpretations for mining operations are in dispute, halting the process in appeals.

     Besides STTC’s perpetual concerns about gravel truck travel during prohibited school peak hours on highways that merge into main Ojai Valley thoroughfares, new grievances against Ojai Quarry include supplying materials outside permitted work days.

     “There were two days, Jan. 15 and Jan. 16, during which the Ojai Quarry supplied to the Ventura County Watershed Protection District and we received a couple of complaints regarding that project,” said Dan Klemann, manager, commercial and industrial permits section for the Ventura County Planning Division. “One involved the Ojai Quarry operating on a Saturday when the conditions state they may only operate Monday through Friday and they may operate outside that providing they get planning director’s approval. The problem was the Ojai Quarry did that without getting the planning director’s approval.”

     A possible misinterpretation of a letter given to Mosler Rock Products, the quarry’s owner, appears to be at the heart of that complaint. VCWPD operations and maintenance manager Karl Novak supplied the letter to Mosler for project clarification purposes, not as authorization. “We had some slope instability problems with an impending storm and needed to get rock out to stabilize the slope as quickly as possible,” said Novak, who stated in the letter that the project would be completed by Jan. 16. “It wasn’t finished in two days,” he said.

     The number of trips it took to bring the materials to the project site is also being investigated. “Another complaint was that the Ojai Quarry exceeded the number of truck trips they may go in any one day,” said Klemann. “We issued a violation notice and the quarry has appealed it … They say we’ve gone beyond our authority and they point to the California Vehicle Code. But those conditions don’t come from the California Vehicle Code, they are our local zoning and ordinance requirements.”

     Klemann was referring to a letter dated March 10 from Mosler’s attorney, Derek P. Cole. In it, Cole states, “As no provision of the California Vehicle Code authorized the county to impose this restriction, it is void and unenforceable.”

     When investigating such complaints, the county requests weigh tickets to help them determine the number of trips a mine makes during periods in questions. “They provided the tickets for product, not spoils, transported from the quarry,” Klemann said.

     In dispute is the language defining the “product spoils” of quarry productions. Cole cites Surface Mining and Reclamation Act definitions in his letter. “When the term ‘product’ is used … it is only reasonable to conclude that a ‘product’ truck means one carrying the actual commodity produced — in this case, hard rock. As I noted in my previous letter, a contrary reading would render the use of the word ‘product’ superfluous.” Cole continues to argue that mining waste known as overburden is not traditionally considered mining product. “If trucks hauling these materials are now included in the 20-trip truck limit, quarry operations may be rendered economically infeasible. The result would be considerable inverse-condemnation liability to the county for the taking in that situation.”

     Cole goes on to say that because this condition, “cannot properly be interpreted to apply to trucks hauling mining waste or overburden, trucks carrying that material are not weighed prior to leaving the quarry. As no weigh tags are required, we accordingly cannot provide any such tags for your review.”

     The county disagrees with Cole’s assessment. “Basically what they’re arguing is that limitations only apply to trucks hauling hard rocks,” said Klemann. “Our interpretation is (that it includes) product truck trips and non-product truck trips.”

     Analyzing the quarry data is complex. “We knew the grading project for which the Ojai Quarry was providing. We contacted our grading inspector. We know how much these trucks can transport and we calculate how many trips would be required,” said Klemann. “We also know how many trips went to the Watershed Protection District on Jan. 16 and determined that they exceeded it.”

     Klemann said the county also confirmed that the quarry exceeded the number and types of equipment allowed at Ojai Quarry properties.

     “It’s just the latest of a sad history of noncompliance and chronic, grotesque violations,” said STTC Chairman Michael Shapiro. “What has been happening at the Ojai Quarry under Mr. Mosler’s management is unfortunate and, tragically, quite typical of what rock quarries are getting away with.” Shapiro said such practices are an “oversight of the Ventura Planning Division.”

     That quarries continue to openly operate regardless of their conditional use permits continues to frustrate STTC. “Mr. Mosler hasn’t even tried to hide the violations of the CUP or what equipment he’s using,” said Shapiro. “That means to me he has adopted a culture of ‘I can do what I want and planning is not going to do a damn thing about it.’ If he really holds that point of view, I charge the Ventura County Planning Division and their utter, gutless and toothless authority for both monitoring, enforcing and penalizing violators, thereby giving Mr. Mosler carte blanche to do whatever he wants.”

     While STTC provides the raw complaints necessary for enforcement efforts, the county must be more precise in its procedures, especially when legalities are in question.

     Steve Bennett, 1st District supervisor, pointed out that there is a vast difference between seeing a truck driving through the valley and proving a quarry operations violation. “Whenever the county can document evidence that can stand up in court, they move forward,” said Bennett. “That’s what you see happening.”

     “County counsel has been involved with this and all of our actions are following their advice,” said Klemann. “In this case, there are a number of options, but what we have been advocating all this time is Mr. Mosler needs to get down here. It’s making it very, very difficult for him to mine in compliance with his CUPs. However, this doesn’t let him off the hook about operating however he wants.”

     Klemann added that to modify the CUP would mean the quarry representatives would need to appear before the Planning Commission and any appeals would go to the Board of Supervisors, affording opponents of the mining operation the opportunity to speak out in a public forum. While this has been avoided thus far, Klemann said Cole recently contacted his office about meeting to discuss such a modification.

     But for the time being, efforts by the county to enforce Ojai Quarry’s CUP are on hold pending the outcome of legal appeals for the notices of violation regarding equipment, transport and January’s VCWPD activity, as well as complaints that the quarry exceeded its CUP while supplying materials to Sine Qua Non Winery last summer.

     To add to the complexity of the situation, Casitas Municipal Water District issued a letter last month to the Army Corps of Engineers addressing allegations that Mosler Rock Products placed fill material into the North Fork of Matilija Creek, causing degradation of designated critical habitat by impacting water quality and in violation of the Clean Water Act.

     “Casitas Municipal Water District is very concerned that the utility of our fish passage facility at the Robles Diversion is being undermined as a result of the unregulated activities at the Mosler Rock Quarry,” wrote CMWD board president in the letter. “Our board strongly urges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to investigate the deliberate fill into the North Fork Matilija Creek as a potential violation of Section 404 of the Act, and further, to take the necessary regulatory or enforcement actions to implement mitigation measures to prevent or reduce impacts to migrating and spawning Southern California steelhead trout.”

     Attached in the letter are photographs of the blockage and adult steelhead apparently attempting to navigate around it.

     “I think Mr. Mosler should be shut down and his CUP revoked,” said Shapiro. “He’s lost all right to continue operating because of his numerous and egregious violations and for the negligence of causing a significant rock slide into the North Fork of the Matilija Creek which remains today.”

     Klemann said there are time factors involved with the appeals process and he expects it to be several weeks before staff reports are complete, then a hearing date will be set and noticed for a Planning Division hearing.

     The slow pace of enforcement only fuels speculation by STTC that governmental agencies weigh mining concerns over public concerns, but the county Planning Division continues its processing efforts as resources allow.

     “Mines are supposed to keep everything contained,” Klemann said, adding that any possible violation from rocks or debris blocking the creek falls under county jurisdiction. “You must conduct mining operations pursuant to current conditions.”

     Not forgotten by STTC is Ozena Valley Ranch Mine’s request for an extension on its CUP renewal, which the coalition called “irregular and inappropriate.” On June 9, the coalition sent a letter to Chris Stephens, director of the county‘s Resource Management Agency, saying STTC is “strongly opposing the county’s verbal extension of time granted to Alliance Ready Mix, Inc. to allow the Ozena Valley Ranch Mine until June 28, 2010 to complete its long-languishing application for renewal of a conditional use permit that expired four years ago. The coalition is also putting the county on notice that, if it grants any further extension past June 28, 2010, the coalition may seek injunctive and/or declaratory relief that the CUP is expired, and that the county is illegally permitting the continued operation of the mine.”

     It is not just Ventura County that STTC is criticizing. “Caltrans seems to be 100 percent supportive of business and commerce even when such business and commerce are in violation of their CUPs and it seems to be the mind set to ignore citizen complaints about issues of safety and danger, turning Highway 33 into a massive, industrialized truck transit shipping zone,” said Shapiro. “There are many personnel in Caltrans that apparently look the other way. There’s a lack of due diligence, a lack of procedure when it comes to citizens filing complaints. I would like an investigation to find out why.”

Stop the Trucks effort continues...

By Sondra Murphy

     It is a question that comes up randomly in conversation or whenever a 30-ton tractor-trailer grinds by. “What’s going on with the gravel truck efforts?”

     Stop the Trucks Coalition was formed about three years ago when residents were disturbed by gravel truck traffic along Maricopa Highway and began complaining to each other. Looking into the matter, they discovered Ozena Valley Ranch Mine trucks were one of four companies contributing to the disturbance and found conditional use permits that restricted the hours for deliveries. Since then, the coalition maintains that there have been numerous violations by gravel trucks traveling along this Highway 33 corridor during forbidden hours.

     According to Dan Klemann, manager of the commercial and industrial permit section of the Ventura County Planning Division, Ozena delivery trucks are limited to traveling through the Highway 33 restricted route between 6 to 7 a.m. and from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on weekdays and 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. They are further limited to 50 round trips during any given 24-hour period and may not exceed 10,197 trips in any given year.

     Stop the Trucks Coalition Chairman Michael Shapiro spoke to the Ojai City Council recently regarding its continuing work to reduce gravel truck travel through the Ojai Valley. Shapiro reported that the group had been meeting with representatives from Ozena Valley Ranch Mine.

     “It seemed like we were in agreement to (eliminate all valley deliveries) except for two locations: Copus Concrete Ready Mix and Ojai Lumber,” Shapiro told the council. “We thought that sounded fair, but we wanted to know how many per week or month, and they said they would get back to us.”

     That was November. Shapiro reports no further contact from mine representatives has been received despite coalition efforts to continue discussions. “So we began to challenge and had complaints investigated by the county,” said Shapiro. “We’ve tried our very best to settle this. The other side is just not ready, I guess.”

     Shapiro later said besides Ojai Lumber and Copus Concrete Ready Mix, Ozena representatives requested they be allowed to deliver to Concrete Express on Ventura Avenue near Brooks Institute. “I immediately objected because I don’t consider that local. I indicated that I could not speak for the coalition, but was confident I could enter into negotiations on what constituted ‘local,’” Shapiro said.

     Shapiro said he met with representatives of Ozena and Alliance Ready Mix, Inc., who has subsequently leased the Ozena mine site, on two more occasions, “to try and iron out small points. This led to a willingness to have a formal settlement agreement meeting.” This meeting included Alliance President Brandt Robertson, Ozena consultant John Hecht, Kate Neiswender, attorney for the Virgilio family trust that owns Ozena, and the Stop the Trucks attorney, Jan Chatten-Brown.

     The coalition thought it was on the verge of a settlement. “Just as we had made a settlement with Troesh Materials and Diamond Rock Mine, we thought maybe the Virgilio family might have realized the cost of challenging the conditional use permit and environmental impact reports was not cost effective,” he said. “I pointed out to Mr. Hecht that instead of having the Virgilio family trust and Alliance paying lawyers and consultants to defend against our legitimate challenges of operations, that we were more than willing to sit down and negotiate a settlement agreement.”

     The snag at that final meeting appears to be the Concrete Express deliveries. “We did not agree that the customer down on the Avenue constituted ‘local delivery’ and, until we could agree, we would be open for them to continue supplying delivery to Ojai,” Shapiro said. “We just wanted to know how many days a week or how many days a month the deliveries occurred … We felt those numbers were reasonable and put it out to them that there was a good possibility that a settlement was in reach. John Hecht assured us that they would get back to us right away. That was early November.”

     According to Shapiro, attempts to follow up resulted in surprise by Hecht and Neiswender that the data had not been received. “It was obvious to us after waiting all those weeks that it was not happening,” he said. “This led the executive committee of Stop the Trucks to conclude that there is no desire for them to negotiate a settlement and we had no choice but to move forward with a very aggressive and timely challenge of all aspects of the Ozena-Alliance operations, including to challenge their EIRs when they are available for us to do so.” Shapiro said the coalition sees an “abundance of areas of deficiencies that will allow us to challenge every step of the way.”

     Shapiro reiterated that the coalition is not anti-truck or anti-gravel. “The coalition understands that local businesses need to have a ready supply of gravel. We totally recognize the need for these materials —- for example, the No. 1 use for these aggregates is for the construction of new septic systems, and we certainly don’t want to interfere with that,” he said. “We would just like the other side to give us a good faith estimate on the number of trips they will make.”

     The coalition works under an explicit ideology. “We believe that Highway 33 is completely unsafe and utterly unsuited for the kinds of widespread and large-scale industrial use such as is being proposed by both Diamond Rock and currently by Ozena for massive and heavy-duty trucks of this weight and speed, as well as the trip numbers,” said Shapiro. “Stop the Trucks is continuing to challenge the safety of Highway 33 for this kind of industrial use,” Shapiro said, “while at the same time always being open to resuming honest, ethical negotiations to work out a settlement agreement, if that’s possible.”

     Shapiro praised Neiswender and Hecht for their willingness to meet with the coalition but is puzzled by the sudden halt in the process.

     “We can never talk about negotiations,” said Neiswender when she was contacted for this report. “All I can say is the application is still with the county and they’re processing it. The county takes a long time to process these things, so we’re just waiting. There’s not much going on right now.”

     Klemann said the application is still incomplete. “There have been some changes in the project description that had some consequences in the processing of the application,” said Klemann. “Late last summer, the applicants approached us and informed us they were taking out certain components. All they’re looking to do is expand their operations.” Dropped from Ozena’s application is an aquaculture plan, while they seek to expand mining operations to an area adjacent to that currently being mined.

     Since the Stop The Trucks Coalition was initially organized, an executive committee representing some broad interest and leadership from throughout the Ojai Valley has led it. “Howard Smith was the first chairperson and I’m the second,” said Shapiro. “In the coming weeks and months, we’re planning on expanding the executive committee to encompass representatives from Meiners Oaks, Oak View, and Mira Monte.”

Scoping Meeting Follow-Up

Kim Rodriguez, Director
Ventura County Resource Management Agency, Planning Division
800 South Victoria Ave., L#1740
Ventura, CA 93009
(Fax: 805-654-2509)

cc: Matt Carroll; Dan Klemann; Ojai Stop The Trucks Coalition

Dear Kim Rodriguez:

     We would like to again reiterate our thanks and appreciation for holding both a Scoping Meeting in Ojai and for also meeting with the Executive Committee for the Stop the Trucks Coalition several weeks earlier.

     It is our earnest hope that the expressions of concern made by the citizens of the Ojai Valley in regards the prospects of a permit renewal for the Ozena Valley Ranch gravel mine were both appropriate in regards the legal issues and the manner and tone with which they were communicated to the Planning Division.

     As part of our follow up to that meeting there are a number of questions, issues and additional concerns that we would like to bring to your attention and hopefully gain your office's response.

     1) Can you,

A) confirm that the conversation between Dan Klemann and one of our executive committee members, reflects the most current and accurate information regarding the timetable going forward? And

          B) will you formally notify "Stop The Trucks" precisely when the work plan noted below is received from the consultants and presented to the Board of Supervisors?

     "Dan Klemann at the Planning Division estimated that we won't see the draft EIR until February 2010 at the earliest. They have forwarded all the comments to the consultant, then the consultant puts together a work plan based on those comments, forwards the work plan to the County and the applicant for review, changes are made, then the County drafts a contract that must be approved by the Board. Then work on the draft EIR begins, which takes several months itself."

     2) Stop the Trucks did a review of the County's one month random sample of weigh tickets and we have some additional concerns on this topic as well.

     Although we had originally hoped for the County to review one full year (2008) of weigh tickets, we were informed that County staff would only pick a month at random. We then suggested that the County look at February or March of 2008 when the trucks were running full steam. Instead the County picked November 15th through December 15th when traffic was at a seemingly all time low due to the recession, bad weather and the holidays.

     Although truck traffic was indeed very low, what we found was still very disturbing.

     First, the sample was missing all tickets from November 15th through 3:00pm on November 18th. Given daily averages of around 15 trucks total a day, that would amount to about 45 missing tickets from those days.

     Next, after reviewing all of the additional documents turned over to the Coalition, we found that from November 18th through December 15th, there are still about 13 tickets completely missing from the sequence. The combined total of missing tickets amounts to about 20% of all tickets for the month, a fairly significant percentage.

     Third, and most significant, of the thirty-three (33) trucks that supposedly came and went through the Ojai Valley, twenty-two (22) were most likely in violation of the time restraints for the Ojai Restricted Zone as described by the County. That amounts to 2/3 of all trips that were in violation. Most of these violations were on the first northbound trips of the day which County staff have so far refused to consider as violations because they claim there is insufficient evidence on the weigh tickets to determine where they came from or where they were going.

     Please bear in mind though that despite the fact that all of the weigh tickets list Ojai as the point of origin, not a single double hopper gravel truck makes it's home overnight in the Ojai Valley. All of these trucks come from somewhere else, be it Oak View, Ventura, Oxnard, etc. And all of them have to travel through the County's restricted zone in order to reach the mine and then return to Ozena. By any reasonable standard these would all clearly be seen as probable violations.

     Although we appreciate the fact that Dan Klemann has recently instructed the operators to clearly identify both the addresses from which the trucks depart from and head to, we sincerely believe that this new instruction should not give the operators and drivers yet another reason to avoid bearing the responsibility for this potential violations during November and December of last year.

     We are asking the Planning Division to re-inspect these weigh ticket and act in a judicious manner in regards potential violations.

     3) The "Stop the Trucks" coalition and our legal representatives appreciate the depth and breadth of our concerns over the draft EIR - nevertheless - we continue to be deeply troubled over what we suspect are continuing and ongoing violations of the current and "expired" CUP regarding truck traveling through the Ojai restricted zone during restricted times. Given that the County has a complaint based review and monitoring system, we are once more compelled to call your attention to several ongoing and potentially serious permit violations of the existing EIR that need to be addressed and reviewed by County staff.

     During the two weeks of June 8th-13th and June 15th-21st, a fleet of between five to seven double hopper, bottom dumping trucks began making multiple runs every day up and down Route 33.

     During those two weeks these trucks began running up Route 33 and through the Ojai Restricted Zone (as defined by the County) as early as 3:30am. They also consistently rolled through the zone on each day between the 7:00am to 9:00am black out time period and were often seen returning down Route 33 after the 3:00pm black out period. The vehicles were also observed traveling not only through the zone and up the mountain, but also coming southbound through the zone on round trips to Oxnard on the 101.

     Not only were these vehicles in possible violation of permit restrictions, the trucks used also give rise to several concerns regarding public safety.

     All of the double hopper, bottom dumping trucks (which were run by several different independent trucking firms) were extremely old, banged up and rusted out. (Very different from the new fleet used by Valley Bulk in the past).

     Trucks of this age are dangerous. They may have older and more polluting engines; potentially unsafe brakes; have a greater tendency to leak gravel onto the highways due to rust, dings and gaps in their seals; and all of them, at 44 feet in length from king pin to rear axle exceed the Route 33 Road Advisory that recommends no trucks over 30 feet from king pin to rear axle travel up and over the mountains of the Los Padres Forest.

     We are requesting that the County pull the weigh tickets for those two weeks for a full review and that those tickets be shared publicly with the Stop the Trucks Coalition.

Thank you,

Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Ojai Stop the Trucks Coalition

March 28, 2009

Dear Kim Rodriguez,

In accordance with the expressed written wishes of the Deputy CEO of Ventura County, Matt Carroll, we are forwarding all of our current complaints directly to you for adjudication. We therefore ask that you add these latest incidents below to our list of formal complaints:

As a preface, please note:

A) That all of the complaints below apply only if the vehicles in question were either going to or from the Ozena Valley Ranch mining operation.

B) Further, none of the fully loaded double hoppers gravel trucks spotted were covered. Although County staff has echoed John Hecht, the agent for Ozena, and his claims that loaded trucks do not have to be covered under the State Highway Code, a simple reading of the C.U.P. clearly indicates that there is a higher standard in the C.U.P. that Ozena continually fails to meet.

On Page 13, of C.U.P. 5170, Condition 30, (Prevention of Construction Material Spillage) states:

"Before loaded trucks travel outside the processing area (i.e. before crossing the Cuyama River) as identified on the Site Plan (Exhibit 4), the permitee shall ensure all trucks leaving the area are constructed, covered, loaded to prevent any of the contents from dropping, sifting, leaking blowing, spilling or otherwise escaping from the vehicle onto private or public roadways or the Cuyama River."

     We fully believe that any truck coming from Ozena must comply with the C.U.P. as written.

C) The existing C.U.P. for Ozena indicates that all vehicles must follow Caltrans and the State of California Advisory Guidelines in regards truck length (King Pin To Rear Axle) on rural highways. The 2001 C.U.P. for Ozena incorrectly suggests that this length for Route 33 is 38 feet. In fact, as can be seen from the attached photo, the posted length at the start of Maricopa Highway is actually only 30 feet.

     According to Brent Beall, manufacturer of the bottom dump trailers that Valley Bulk, Ortiz and other companies use, the measurement from the King Pin of the semi to center of the rear axle of the pull trailer is 535". This translates into 44.4 feet.

     If this is correct, then it would appear that the trailers used by Ortiz, Valley Bulk and other bottom dumpers for all of these years on the Ozena runs over the mountains through Ojai would be in violation not only of the 30 foot advisory posted by CalTrans but also of the 38-foot length incorrectly listed in the 2001 C.U.P. for Ozena.

D) All of the sightings and complaints below occurred in the narrow definition of the Ojai restricted as was recently promulgated by the Planning Director in a map she created in October of 2008. (see attached) As we discussed at our recent meeting earlier this month with County officials, the Coalition does not accept this narrow interpretation and feels that the discretionary judgment and arcane interpretation of the English language used by County officials to make this claim runs contrary to interests of the public, as it effectively removes safety protections from Nordhoff High School, the Ojai Hospital, a church preschool, our main shopping center at the "Y", several senior citizen housing complexes and the community of Casitas Springs -- a neighborhood so destroyed by traffic that they have been begging for a Route 33 by-pass for years.

Click to see or download the Hecht map
(excluding Ojai)

     In the records turned over to us in response to our second Public Records Requests, we finally learned the source of this narrow re-definition of the restricted zone, a map created by none other than John Hecht, the agent for Ozena, and handed out to drivers last year. (see attached) As Michael Shapiro, our Chairman, noted in regards weigh tickets, allowing Ozena to create this most absurd definition that runs contrary to the interests of public safety and health is a bit like "letting the fox guard the hen house."

E) We believe that the question of whether or not Ozena in regards their C.U.P. has been either , “(A),” a good corporate citizen or, “(B),” they have not been good citizens, can easily be answered by one simple and absolute documentary test of Weigh Tickets.

     However, in a meeting last July between Matt Carroll and a representative of the Coalition in which we complained about possible violations, the Deputy CEO, indicated that he thought there had only been few recent complaints about Ozena. Our representative disagreed and said that these violations were occurring on a daily basis and should be looked into.

     Had the County Planning Division taken that complaint seriously last summer and had become proactive about investigating Ozena, rather than becoming defensive, there would be no need for "Stop The Trucks" to resort to filing individual complaints.

     Ozena would have either been proven to be “(A),” a good corporate citizen or, “(B),” not a good citizen. All of the time, effort and expense generated by all parties since then, would have been completely unnecessary had the Planning Division taken a "proactive" effort to ascertain the truth.

     We again urge the Planning Division to take the necessary - and well justified - steps to obtain a full year of Ozena Weigh Tickets and work cooperatively with the public to find the truth.

F) After reviewing the documents Stop the Trucks received from the County several weeks ago, we found:

     - Of the thirty-seven (37) specific days that we have made complaints about and requested investigations, the County has only provided us Weigh Tickets for sixteen (16) of those days. Twenty-one (21) days are missing.

     - The County also failed to enclose any weight tickets from their supposed "One Month" sample from 2008. At six (6) days a week, that is at least another twenty-four (24) weigh tickets they have failed to turn over. This remains a violation of the Public Records guidelines.

     - Of the sixteen (16) days for which they did send weigh tickets, eight (8) days have probably violations, including Bob Walker's complaint of last year.

     - Eight (8) of sixteen (16) days show violations fifty percent (50%) of the time. Of the days that did show violations, most were multiple for that day and constituted a majority of the trips through Ojai.

     In other words, of fifty (51) potential days to review, the County has only provided us with seven (7) that show no violations. That's 14% with no violations and 86% either missing or showing probable violations.

     How is it that the Planning Division keeps excusing Ozena's violations as "minor?"

G) In response to our complaints, John Hecht, the agent for Ozena, provided a Weighmaster Certificate for Alliance but failed to provide one for Tony Virgilio. We have documentation from the state that indicates Mr. Vigilio's certificate may have lapsed for several months prior to Alliance taking over the operation. If this is true, it would indicate serious gap in the credibility of any record keeping by Ozena in regards Weigh Tickets. We challenge Ozena to offer physical proof that Mr. Virgilio's weighmaster license was in full compliance between June of 2008 and October of 2008.

Weighmaster Licensed Locations
Suspense/Delinquent Status

Ventura County

Division Of Measurement Standards
6790 Florin-Perkins Rd. Ste. 100
Sacramento, CA 95828-1812

License	Status	Location Type	License Name	City	Telephone	Businesss Class
009889	D	Principal	OZENA VALLEY RANCH SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY		(661) 766-2521	56
			HWY 33 LOCKWOOD VALLEY RD.	OZENA VALLEY	93704

Additional Complaints:

#60: On March 9, 2008 an uncovered turquoise Swader double hopper truck was seen cutting east through El Roblar on it's way to Route 33 south. Vehicles of that size are prohibited on El Roblar.

#61: On March 11, 2009, a Swader double hopper truck was seen entering in the restricted zone heading north at 7:17 am, a possible time violation.

#62: On March 13, 2009, a Swader double hopper truck was seen entering the restricted zone heading south at 3:45 pm, another possible time violation.

#63: On March 14, 2009, an uncovered Swader double hopper truck was seen entering the restricted zone heading north at 8:30 am and south at 10:30 am. More possible time violations.

#64: On March 16, 2009, a Swader double hopper truck was seen entering in the restricted zone heading north at 7:33 am, a possible time violation.

#65: On March 17, 2009, a Swader double hopper truck was seen entering in the restricted zone heading south at 3:15 pm, another possible time violation.

#66: On March 18, 2009, three double hopper trucks passed through the restricted zone and headed north towards the mines between 4:00 am and 4:30 am. Later that same day two double hopper trucks were seen entering the restricted zone heading south at 3:45 pm. All are possible time violation.

#67: On March 19, 2009 an uncovered Lawson double hopper truck was seen speeding as it passed the high school and then entered the zone at 1:15 pm, another possible coverage violation.

#68: On March 20, 2009, four double hopper trucks passed through the restricted zone and headed north towards the mines between 3:45 am and 4:45 am. Later two of those double hopper trucks were seen re-entering the restricted zone from the north fully loaded and uncovered between 7:10 am and 7:20 am. The trucks then traveled all the way down the 33 and 101 to Oxnard. Later that same day two more uncovered double hoppers were reported traveling south through the restricted zone at 1:30 pm. We have possible multiple time and coverage violations for this day.

#69: On March 23, 2009, two double hopper trucks passed through the restricted zone and headed north towards the mines between 5:00 am and 5:15 am. Two double hopper trucks, one of which was an Ortiz bottom dumping style, passed through the restricted zone and headed north towards the mines at 7:15 am. All of these would be time violations as well as possible king pin advisory violations.

#70: On March 24, 2009, two fully loaded and uncovered double hopper trucks coming south at 7:55 am in the morning drove past the high school and turned south onto Route 33 and then entered the restricted zone. The lead truck (see photos attached) was a turquoise Swader double hopper. The second truck was a white Neilson double. The trucks were tracked going down the 33. They turned south onto the 101 south bound and followed all the way to Oxnard. These were not "local deliveries," and would be clear time violations.

#71: Also on March 24, 2009 at the above vehicles were spotted south bound, three north bound double hoppers vehicles were also seen entering the zone. One - at 8:00 am - was the same frequently seen Ortiz bottom dumper, white with green trim, that was spun out in an accident on upper 33 several years ago. The second was a dark blue double from Lawson at 8:10 am and the third was a Swader at 8:20 am. All would be time violations as well as a possible king pin violation.

#72: On March 25, 2009, three double hoppers violated the zone heading north between 4:30 am and 5:00 am. At 6:04 pm that evening, a fully loaded Swader double hopper may have also violated the zone heading south.

#73: On March 26, 2009, a white double hopper was spotted violating the zone heading north at 4:35 am and the same vehicle was spotted entering the zone heading south two hours later at 6:40 am. That same afternoon another fully loaded and uncovered white double hopper was spotted going south in the zone at 3:27 pm. A Swader double hopper was also spotted in the zone going south at 3:43 pm. More time violations.

Thank you for reviewing these complaints

Sincerely,

Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop The Trucks

March 11, 2009

Dear Kim Rodriguez, Daniel Kleeman, Chris Stephens and Matt Carroll,

Thank you for meeting with our Executive Committee last week. Despite the cordial nature of the meeting, the reality on the roadways through Ojai has only deteriorated since then. We therefore ask that you add these latest incidents below to our list of formal complaints:

#52: We did a quick review of the Reponses to the limited number of our prior complaints that were included in the County's response to our public records request. Unfortunately we found that in almost all cases, blatant and obvious violations of the C.U.P. time schedule existed in almost every instance - and were totally ignored by Planning staff. We will have a more detailed response to all of these Weigh Tickets in the near future.

#53: Although County staff's echoed John Hecht, the agent for Ozena, and his claims that loaded trucks do not have to be covered under the State Highway Code, a simple reading of the C.U.P. clearly indicates that there is a higher standard in the C.U.P. that Ozena continually fails to meet.

On Page 13, of C.U.P. 5170, Condition 30, (Prevention of Construction Material Spillage) states: "Before loaded trucks travel outside the processing area (i.e. before crossing the Cuyama River) as identified on the Site Plan (Exhibit 4), the permitee shall ensure all trucks leaving the area are constructed, covered, loaded to prevent any of the contents from dropping, sifting, leaking blowing, spilling or otherwise escaping from the vehicle onto private or public roadways or the Cuyama River."

Is there some other meaning to "covered", that we have failed to understand here?

#54: On March 3, 2009, the Ventura County Planning Division delivered a large number of documents and records to the Ojai Stop the Trucks which will take the members of the Coalition some time to review. Seemingly missing however from this delivery was the one category of records that could help settle this ongoing dispute, Weigh Tickets from 2008.

The documents and the accusations on either side are actually just a distraction from the bottom line of this conflict which boils down to one or two very simple questions. Has Ozena in regards their C.U.P. been, “(A),” a good corporate citizen or, “(B),” have they not.

Fortunately the answer to this question can be easily be determined by one simple and absolute documentary test of Weigh Tickets.

For example, the one set of weigh tickets that the County has shared with the Coalition so far, the ones for February 8, 2008, show that Ozena was in likely violation that day. In other words, 100% of the weigh tickets now show a 100% probability that Ozena has been in violation, a fact recently confirmed by senior Planning staffer, Dan Kleeman.

Therefore it is easily deduced that any thorough and public analysis of the weigh tickets for Ozena will show whether, (A), they’ve been good corporate citizens, or ,(B), they have not.

If the records show that Ozena has operated properly over the last year since being informed by the Planning Director, Kim Rodriguez, that the rules will be strictly enforced, then the County will have irrefutably demonstrated that Stop the Trucks has been off base with its complaints. If, however, it turns out that Ozena has been a regular violator of the C.U.P., then the Coalition’s stance will have been shown to be justified.

It is for this reason that the Coalition has repeatedly made requests for a full year’s worth of weight tickets. Let the simple truth be known. Is the answer, (A) or (B)?

We have asked for a full year of data – as opposed to the County’s desire to analyze only one month - in order to get a clear picture of what has been going on up at the mine. Trucking volumes have decreased over the past 12 months due to the recession.

A one month sample could easily skew the results if the selection included a recession month and a couple of snow storms – such as the month of December 2008, which Kim Rodriguez suggested she might just pick. It might also miss the three - four months between the time this past summer and fall when Tony Virgilio’s Weighmaster Certificate apparently expired and Alliance took over daily operation. Who, for example, was weighing and certifying truck loads in July, August, September and early October? Was it Tony with a possible expired certificate or was Alliance doing it prematurely and in possible violation of the C.U.P. they swore to uphold?

Yes, we’d like for the public to see and be able to analyze one full years worth of weigh tickets from 2008.

And why wouldn’t the individual staff members of the Planning County Division, the Resource Management Agency, senior administrators, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors also want to settle this dispute once and for all by a simple review of the actual facts embodied in a full years worth of records?

Everything else before us, every other opinion and document, is merely a distraction based on whether or not one feels that (A) or (B) is correct.

We hope the County government will join us in seeing that this very real and simple test is undertaken and the real truth will become know for all to judge.

#55: On Friday, February 27, 2009, a white double hopper truck from Swader left the north end of the restricted zone just after 1:00pm (okay) but them came back down the mountain fully loaded and entered the restricted zone at 3:20 pm. If this truck had been coming form Ozena, this would be another probably violation.

#56: On Monday, March 2, 2009 a red double hopper passed through the zone heading north at 7:05 am. At 7:15 am another Swader double hopper entered the southern end of the restricted zone heading north towards Ozena. At 4:05 pm yet another Swader double hopper was spotted going south through the zone while uncovered. If these trucks here traveling to and form Ozena, this trips would also be potential violations.

#57: On Thursday March 5, 2009 a Swader double hopper truck was spotted headed south bound at 3:30 pm in the restricted zone. Yet another possible violation...

#58: On Monday, March 9, 2009, there were multiple reports of bottom dumping double hoppers beginning to move through the restricted zone and on up the mountain toward Ozena as early as 3:30 am!!! Several of the trucks spotted were from Ortiz trucking and several others were familiar "rust buckets' -- beat up old double hoppers frequently seen traveling between the mountains, Ojai and Oxnard on Route 33 and the 101 to Vineyard.

#59: On Tuesday, March 10, 2009 trucks again were noted passing north through the restricted zone and elsewhere on 33 in the Ojai Valley heading north. At 7:10 am an Ortiz bottom dumper double hopper was spotted entering the restricted zone form the north fully loaded and uncovered. Just a little over an hour later at 8:05 am the same Ortiz truck was spotted empty running north through the zone.

Between 4:00 pm and 4:30 pm, three more of these bottom dumpers - all of which probably violate the Route 33 "King Pin to Rear Axle" advisory of 30 feet - were spotted going south through the restricted zone while fully loaded and uncovered.

The existing C.U.P. for Ozena indicates that all vehicles must follow Caltrans and the State of California Advisory Guidelines in regards truck length (King Pin To Rear Axle) on rural highways. The 2001 C.U.P. for Ozena incorrectly suggests that this length for Route 33 is 38 feet. In fact, as can be seen from the attached photo, the posted length at the start of Maricopa Highway is actually only 30 feet.

According to Brent Beall, manufacturer of the bottom dump trailers that Valley Bulk and other companies use, the measurement from the King Pin of the semi to center of the rear axle of the pull trailer is 535". This translates into 44.4 feet.

If this is correct, then it would appear that the trailers used by Ortiz and other bottom dumpers for all of these years on the Ozena runs over the mountains through Ojai would be in violation not only of the 30 foot advisory posted by Caltrans but also of the 38 foot length incorrectly listed in the 2001 C.U.P. for Ozena. 535 inches translates into 44.4 feet.

If any of these vehicles had been coming or going to Ozena, their trips would constitute yet additional potential violations.

Sincerely,

Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

February 21, 2009

Dan Klemann, M.A., Senior Planner
County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency, Planning Division
800 S. Victoria Avenue, L#1740
Ventura, CA 93009
(805) 654-3588 phone
(805) 654-2509 fax
daniel.klemann@ventura.org

     Dear Daniel Kleeman,

     The Ojai Stop the Trucks Coalition categorically rejects your dismissal of the Bob Walker, February 2008 complaint which Mr. Walker submitted in conjunction with the Coalition and is hereby officially re-submitting the original complaint, at the bottom of this letter.

1. In the second paragraph of your February 17, 2009, letter to Mr. Walker, you seemingly dismiss the validity of his complaint because his residence is outside the Ojai restricted zone. You wrote, "Therefore, it cannot be determined from the information in your complaint that the trucks you observed did in fact travel through the ORR and, if so, at what time they did so." Your analysis not only disregards the obvious fact that a truck traveling past Mr. Walker's house between the Ozena Valley and Oxnard MUST pass through the ORR because there are NO other usable roads between those points, your time analysis completely contradicts the "Sample Travel Times for the Ozena C.U.P." that you helped create on January 6, 2009.

     Furthermore, your statement also confirms the very point Stop the Trucks has been making for two years: The Planning Division does not have any ability to monitor compliance with this C.U.P. and therefore it should never have been granted or even considered for renewal.

2. If any one had bothered to look closely at the sequence of Weigh Tickets provided by Ozena for that day, the very first thing an analyst would notice is that the tickets are stamped out of order and several are filled in by hand. THESE ARE BOTH SERIOUS VIOLATIONS IN AND OF THEMSELVES.

13157 8:58 am
13158 9:13 am
13159 9:56 am
13160 9:57 am
13161 9:56 am
13162 9:57 am
13163 9:56 am
13164 10:46 am (handwritten)
13165 10:50 am (handwritten)
13166 11:22 am
13167 11:22 am

Although these errors are considered violations in an of themselves, there are often indicative of a much greater violations: Other than the fact it is physically impossible to load and weigh five 80,000 pound trucks in two minutes, it may well be tickets 13159 through 13163 were all held and stamped independent of the actually weighing and loading time, rendering them unacceptable evidence. We have raised this question before in 2007 and 2008 and no one in Planning ever came up with an acceptable rational for this behavior.

3. Handwritten tickets are also completely unacceptable because weights and hours can be completely manipulated at will. Because the information on these tickets appears to be fungable, we also consider it highly questionable that the Planning Division is going back to Ozena and/or Alliance and/or West Coast Environmental & Engineering for evidence of compliace. Given that the mine operator and their agent, West Coast Environmental & Engineering (aka John Hecht) have much at stake in possibly concealing any suspected violations, we would insist that the only acceptable copies weigh tickets are those that come directly from the state office of Weights and Measures

Again your examination only reinforces our point: You have no ability to monitor this C.U.P.

4. The existing C.U.P. for Ozena indicates that all vehicles must follow Caltrans and the State of California Advisory Guidelines in regards truck length (King Pin To Rear Axle) on rural highways. The 2001 C.U.P. for Ozena incorrectly suggests that this length for Route 33 is 38 feet. In fact, as can be seen from the attached photo, the posted length at the start of Maricopa Highway is actually only 30 feet.

     According to Brent Beall, manufacturer of the bottom dump trailers that Valley Bulk and other companies use, the measurement from the King Pin of the semi to center of the rear axle of the pull trailer is 535". This translates into 44.4 feet.

     If this is correct, then it would appear that the trailers used by Valley Bulk and other bottom dumpers for all of these years on the Ozena runs over the mountains through Ojai would be in violation not only of the 30 foot advisory posted by Caltrans but also of the 38 foot length incorrectly listed in the 2001 C.U.P. for Ozena. 535 inches translates into 44.4 feet.

     In other words, potentially every single Valley Bulk double hopper in use for deliveries from the Ozena mine has been in possible violation of the state highway standards for safety by almost 50%! This would potentially include each and every Valley Bulk truck in Bob Walker's February 2008 complaint.

     According to the C.U.P., Ozena must insure that all vehicles they laod are safe for the roads they will use.

     It is little wonder that accidents such as these pictured below have occurred with such alarming frequency:

     In categorically rejecting your response, the Stop the Trucks Coalition also formally requests that the Planning Division immediate take the necessary steps to suspend the Ozena C.U.P. because of a total lack of ability of the county to monitor this operation and because of numerous possible violations of the existing C.U.P.

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

cc: Kim Rodriguez, and Carole Aragon, Board of Supervisors, Matt Carroll, Marty Robinson

Formal Ozena trucking complaint of February 8, 2008

Ojai, CA. 93023

February 13, 2008

Carole Aragon
Patrick Richard, Acting Director
County of Ventura
Planning Division
800 South Victoria Ave.
Ventura, CA 93009

Dear Carole and Patrick:

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.

February 21, 2009

Dear Kim Rodriguez, Daniel Kleeman and Carole Aragon,

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

#48: The exisiting C.U.P. for Ozena indicates that all vehicles must follow Caltrans and the State of California Advisory Guidelines in regards truck length (King Pin To Rear Axle) on rural highways. The 2001 C.U.P. for Ozena incorrectly suggests that this length for Route 33 is 38 feet. In fact, as can be seen from the attached photo, the posted length at the start of Maricopa Highway is actually only 30 feet.

According to Brent Beall, manufacturer of the bottom dump trailers that Valley Bulk and other companies use, the measurement from the King Pin of the semi to center of the rear axle of the pull trailer is 535". This translates into 44.4 feet.

If this is correct, then it would appear that the trailers used by Valley Bulk and other bottom dumpers for all of these years on the Ozena runs over the mountains through Ojai would be in violation not only of the 30 foot advisory posted by Caltrans but also of the 38 foot length incorrectly listed in the 2001 C.U.P. for Ozena. 535 inches translates into 44.4 feet.

In other words, potentially every single Valley Bulk double hopper in use for deliveries from the Ozena mine has been in possible violation of the state highway standards for safety by almost 50%! This would potentially include each and every Valley Bulk truck in Bob Walker's February 2008 complaint. (This is on top of the Planning Division's incorrect analysis of the time stamp data on the weigh tickets.)

It is little wonder that accidents, such as these pictures that are attached, occur with such alarming frequency:

#49: On February 10, 2009 at 7:14 am, a double hopper gravel truck heading north on Route 33 were tracked going through the restricted zone. If this vehicles had been going to Ozena, the trip would constitute yet additional potential violations.

#50: On February 11, 2009 at 7:25 am, and 7:31 am two double hopper gravel trucks heading north on Route 33 were tracked entering and going through the restricted zone. If this vehicles had been going to Ozena, the trip would constitute yet additional potential violations.

#51: On February 12, 2009 four double hoppers were tracked entering the restricted zone from the north in apparent violations for failing to have their loads tarped between 1:17 pm and 1:37 pm. The first and thrid were from Swader. The second was a dark black or brown cab with white trailers. The fourth was a blue cab with blue stripped trailers. If any of these vehicles had been going to Ozena, their trips would constitute yet additional potential violations.

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

lso 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

#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.

#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.

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

Dear Marty Robinson, Matt Carroll & Noel Klebaum,

     On January 7, 2009, representatives of the Ojai "Stop the Trucks" Coalition, including Chair, Michael Shapiro; Vice Chair, Howard Smith; and committee members, Stan Green; and Craig Beam, met with senior Ventura County executives, including County CEO Marty Robinson, Deputy CEO Matt Carroll, and County Counsel, Noel Klebaum. A number of generalized questions, concerns or issues were raised by the Coalition in regards both the annual and ongoing reviews of the Ozena Valley Ranch Gravel Mine C.U.P.

     The Coalition promised a good faith effort to create a more specific list of those concerns with the hope that the County would also make a good faith effort to consider those issues as it undertakes its various reviews and audits of the Ozena permit and renewal.

     What follows below is the Coalition's first attempt to present those concerns as regards to monitoring the original C.U.P. Although the Coalition has attempted to make the list as thorough as possible, it is quite possible that we've overlooked additional issues that we may wish to review as we discover them at some future date. Furthermore, the list does not yet contain items specific to either the renewal of the C.U.P. now currently under consideration, nor does it deal with a number of ongoing concerns the Coalition has had with the performance of the Planning Division.

The notations, numbers and pages cited refer to the original C.U.P. #5170 on the approval document dated, July 19, 2001.

The full document is attached for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Howard Smith,
Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

(copies of the original Ozena C.U.P. as well as all other referenced documents are available electronically upon request from Stop the Trucks.)

STOP THE TRUCKS! COALITION
Ojai, California

Concerns Regarding the Annual & Ongoing Reviews
of the Ozena Valley Ranch Gravel Mine C.U.P.

January 13, 2009

     On January 7, 2009, representatives of the Ojai "Stop the Trucks" Coalition, including Chair, Michael Shapiro; Vice Chair, Howard Smith; and committee members, Stan Green; and Craig Beam, met with senior Ventura County executives, including County CEO Marty Robinson, Deputy CEO Matt Carroll, and County Counsel, Noel Klebaum. A number of generalized questions, concerns or issues were raised by the Coalition in regards both the annual and ongoing reviews of the Ozena Valley Ranch Gravel Mine C.U.P.

     The Coalition promised a good faith effort to create a more specific list of those concerns with the hope that the County would also make a good faith effort to consider those issues as it undertakes its various reviews and audits of the Ozena permit and renewal.

     What follows below is the Coalition's first attempt to present those concerns as regards to monitoring the original C.U.P. Although the Coalition has attempted to make the list as thorough as possible, it is quite possible that we've overlooked additional issues that we may wish to review as we discover them at some future date. Furthermore, the list does not yet contain items specific to either the renewal of the C.U.P. now currently under consideration, nor does it deal with a number of ongoing concerns the Coalition has had with the performance of the Planning Division.

     The notations, numbers and pages cited refer to the original C.U.P. #5170 on the approval document dated, July 19, 2001.

(1) There's a requirement that prior to any renewal application that the Planning Director must authorize, in writing, that all prior permit conditions have been reviewed and have met conditions set-forth in the original CUP. Our first point of concern, therefore, is whether or not – according to the guidelines in Item #2-b-2 on Page 2 - there was ever the appropriate determination, in writing, by then Planning Director Chris Stephens, prior to July 19, 2006.

     So far, in the Coalition's review of all the Public Records obtained from the Ozena file, we have found no such written determination and are therefore concerned as to whether such a review was ever undertaken in the first place, or whether or not such a document was ever even written. Indeed, given the extremely high percentages of daily violations of the permit schedule that were found in a two month sampling of data from 2007, one has to wonder if such a review had ever been done prior to the 2006 authorization. If the review had been done, what were the results? And if no review had been done, how was the agency able to determine that the mine operators had been in continuous compliance?

(2) Item 2-c on the same page begins to look at the "Final Reclamation." We note that the Planning Agency should be assessing annually whether or not a current final reclamation plan (and not a proposed Aquaculture solution that may or may not be approved in the future) is in existence; whether or not there is any sort of confirmed financial assurance guarantee; and whether or not such a guarantee had been properly adjusted for possible past inflation, etc., on an annual basis.

Additionally -- has there been an annual survey to determine if the site, as originally approved and/or modified, is still properly staked and marked? Or have the boundaries been improperly modified as has been alleged by several unconfirmed sources?

(3) On Page 3 - item 3-b reiterates the need for proof of insurance; to delineate the boundaries of the excavation pit; and also the concept of "truck trip record keeping" in condition 27. Elsewhere in the permit the maximum number of daily trips, annual trips and the average number of daily trips are delineated. We remain particularly concerned about this last item as there seems to have been no attempt whatsoever by the Planning Division to calculate any of these actual numbers of trips.

     Given that the Planning Director is required to determine that all conditions have been continuously met prior to granting an extension, how is it possible to then conclude that conditions have been met without an actual count of trips and a review of the weigh tickets?

     Was there ever any count at all -- either prior to the approval, or since -- that has actually determined either the average or maximum number of total trips for the year?

     Further, how is it possible to establish any of the required Environmental baselines for an adequate EIR review required of any CUP renewal without any documentation of the actual number of truck trips in any one year?

     It should be noted here that both the original application and the subsequent 2003 modification were accomplished by means of Minimum Negative Declarations (MND's) and that there was never any independent review of the applicant's EIR. Given the well documented inability – in court documents and otherwise - of the Planning Division staff to handle matters even as basic as communicating and enforcing hours of operation, or to read, decipher and properly interpret data obtained from the weigh tickets, how can anyone claim that any planning staff ever conducted either a proper or adequate environmental review that thoroughly and diligently meets all CEQA standards?

(4) Continuing onto Page 4 - Condition 48 requires hazardous Materials Permits; Condition 58 requires Storm water Quality Conditions and Condition 62 requires Annual Financial Assurances for site reclamation. Have all of these permits been reviewed annually for compliance? Have the conditions actually been met? For example, the Coalition read Carol Aragon's recent report that old concrete and road wastes are being stored on site. Has anyone from the planning staff asked why these materials ended up on site? Is the mine illegally processing road waste or dumping it on site?

     Given that the site may be partially leased to another firm - Alliance Trucking - what knowledge, if any, does the County have that all guarantees, permits and assurances are being met by Alliance?

     Furthermore, does the storm water run-off plan meet current 2009 State and Federal standards that have quite possibly changed since 2001? Please keep in mind that the Ozena mine sits right in the middle of a flood plain.

(5) Section c, on Page 4 - lists a number of annual requirements, specifically conditions 24 through 65. Is there any documentation that these annual requirements have actually been met? These would have to include all the necessary updating, such as increasing financial assurances to keep pace with inflation; proof of insurance; and annual SMARA reviews. Is there evidence to present that all of these were in fact conducted at the legally mandated time and are now in existence for review?

     Has each and every annual review included reviews of weigh tickets to determine compliance both as to numbers of trips and time compliance? And if so, where is the documentation of those reviews? Further -- given the complete failure of the Head of the Industrial sector to correctly interpret this data in 2007 -- what proof is there that if such reviews and counts were undertaken, that they were handled with even a modicum of competence by the staff assigned to these tasks?

     On Page 4, item 5 requires consultation with other agencies if there have been any modifications to the permit. Given that substantial changes were implemented in the spring of 2008, it is appropriate for us to ask for written proof of all the legally mandated agencies that were consulted and for the written responses from those agencies. Can this verification be forthcoming?

(6) On Page 5, item 7, everyone involved in the operation of this permit must be informed of the permit conditions. What proof exists -- in writing -- that this was ever done? Or, done correctly? For example, since August of 2008, the Stop The Trucks! Coalition has twice requested documentation that would confirm whether or not such notice was ever made. Through another Coalition PRR that same month, we learned that flyers being distributed by Ozena to rock and gravel transport drivers were supposed to be turned-over for review and inspection. Apparently these flyers – which remain in the hands of the Planning Department and referred to regularly in emails – were completely incorrect when listing hours of operation - including driving through the restricted zone in the Ojai Valley. And if the hours of operation were consistently interpreted incorrectly, how is it possible that the Planning Division, at any time in the past, could attest that the operator has been in continuous compliance with the C.U.P.? To date, the Planning Department has yet to turn any of these flyers over as required by law.

(7) In item 8, on the same page, the owner must sign off on any Notice of Land Use Entitlement etc. Was such a document ever filed? Was a new one filed when Alliance took over the lease?

(8) In item 9, also on Page 5 and 6, all costs for SMARA, etc., are to be charged to the permit holder to insure Condition Compliance for CEQA. How is it then possible for the applicant to turn down a review of their application for a continuance by an outside firm selected by the County, in a bid process, because the Applicant has determined that the cost is too great? CEQA requires an adequate review, not the cheapest review. In fact, CEQA does not allow the applicant to determine costs. How is it that Planning Staff has allowed the applicant and/or the agent representing the applicant to apparently manipulate and/or significantly control the review process? Again, it's clear that CEQA does not allow the applicant or his agent to determine costs, but does require an adequate review and not the least costly one. How is it that Staff has allowed the applicant's opinion regarding costs to apparently control the review process?

(9) Page 6, item 2 at the top, refers to the annual SMARA inspections. Can the work of the SMARA coordinator be documented beyond a shadow of doubt? Has this compliance work been done regularly, completely and properly each and every year? These are documents the Coalition would like to see and if we have not yet been given access to them via prior PRR, they will be certainly included in future requests.

(10) Further down on Page 6, item 6, (2), requires a signed reimbursement agreement. Is such an agreement current? And if it is, is the agreement with Ozena or with Alliance?

(11) Further down on page 6, item c - regarding Monitoring and enforcement costs, see references to County Code 8114-3.4.

     The county is in the midst of a budget crisis, yet the Planning Director made an arbitrary decision in December of 2007 that Ozena would not be responsible for "past" violations. Her justification was that there was a misunderstanding of the conditions of the permit. Was there in fact a "misunderstanding" or was it staff incompetence and a failure of supervision? Wasn't the mine was allowed to engage in extensive violations – as proven in the two month review as well as having been extensively commented upon in the recently concluded *Virgilo vs. County of Ventura Court Case? Additionally, and also apparently due to this alleged negligence and incompetence of the Planning Division staff -- the Planning Director's actions here may not only have been an abuse of her discretion as noted by the judge on that case, but may have also cost the county – and, ultimately the citizens of this county for whom the Planning Director works -- hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential and/or actual penalties.

     *County government attorneys acknowledged that a number of Planning Division staffers had made numerous errors with regard to improperly understanding, interpreting and enforcing the Ozena CUP, and that "planners have no power to change the terms (of the CUP) approved by the Planning Commission." County lawyers further noted that "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." Additionally, County council went on to argue that "….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." Furthermore, that the County Planning Division has "the clear and present duty" to apply and enforce the Condition as written and approved by the Planning Division and re-adopted in Modification #1."

     Finally – County lawyers made such a good case noting that with regard to both Ozena's apparent CUP violations as well as Planning Division's failure to enforce the CUP guidelines, that Judge Reiser expressed the following in a footnote attached to his findings: "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 of discretion for the Planning Director to authorize such an extension."

(12) Pages 7 & 8 - items e & f - These require the operator to indemnify the County. Given that the facility has now been leased, have all of these financial indemnities been met at an adequate degree, including any past or future inflation? Is there written proof of such? Has the new operator, Alliance, also satisfactorily participated in such indemnification?

(13) Section 13 on Page 9 deals with the resolution of complaints. Isn't the Planning Division clearly delinquent here on several levels? For example, there's still an open complaint from February of 2008 filed by the Coalition and Bob Walker of Ojai that was dropped in the middle of processing by the SMARA coordinator and the head of the industrial section.

     And just last week, didn't the Planning Director attempt to invalidate a number of complaints filed in November and December of 2008 without even so much as providing the Coalition with a single weigh ticket to back her claims of Ozena's innocence? And given the fact the Coalition has filed multiple public record requests asking the Planning Division turn over such weigh tickets, shouldn't this latest failure to cooperate also be considered a possible abuse of her discretion?.

However, the issue of complaint response goes beyond the division's narrow interpretation that complaints are just about trucks. The C.U.P does not differentiate between types of complaints. And while the Stop the Trucks! Coalition has, on numerous occasions, mailed and/or e-mailed complaints about the lack of compliance monitoring -- to date, these complaints have yet to be addressed by the Planning Division. According to CEQA standards, monitoring with regard to compliance must be reasonable and feasible. However, the failure of the Planning Division to take responsibility in assuring that such monitoring takes places with regard to the Ozena rock and gravel mine operation, was amply presented at a meeting of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors as far back as Spring / 2008. It appears as if the Planning Division continues to ignore many of these complaints as if they did not exist. Tragically, they do.

(14) Item 16, also on Page 9, requires that prior to granting of any CUP, the Ozena operation must also be in compliance with all other Federal, State and Local authorities and agencies. Is there any written proof that such consultation has been accomplished by the various agencies in question and Ozena?

Where is the paperwork from SMARA, APCD, Cal water agencies, Fish & Game, etc. that indicates that the mine has meet all conditions for operation?

     And why have trucks coming from the mine been regularly allowed to flaunt requirements that their loads be covered to protect other drivers, etc., on the highways? Even one of the Ojai City Council members has been among the many citizens whose windshield has been smashed by rock and gravel falling off uncovered loads. Did any compliance monitoring even assess something as basic as this?

(15) Item 19 on Page 10 allows the county to request aerial photographs to determine whether the mine's boundaries, etc. have been altered or modified. Do these exist? Have any aerial photos ever been taken? And if they have, when were they taken and how many exist? And if they exist, where are these photos?

(16) Item 23 on Page 11 - regarding changes of ownership of lessee also appears to have been violated. Our PRR in August of 2008 did not turn up any such required documents, i.e., such as any ten-day notice prior to any change of operators together with a letter acknowledging that the new operator will comply with all conditions of the existing CUP. Either the Planning Division failed to turn over these documents or such documents do not exist. In either case, someone is at fault here. And if it is the latter, then once again could not the Planning Director rightfully be accused of exceeding her discretion in allowing such a lapse of regulations to take place?

(17) Item 24 follows right on the heels of the above in requiring Insurance: Has the operator and/or lessee provided the necessary proof of insurance that is fully up-to-date and covers for inflation, etc., or has this also been neglected an/or ignored?

(18) Item 25 - The days and hours of operation brings us to one of the greater points of contention, with the first being the issue of hours: When has the division demonstrated any ability under CEQA requirements to monitor hours, especially of truck traffic?

     There exists a well documented public record that indicates that staff has never known or understood the C.U.P. requirements; that they have in fact publicly mis-stated the requirements; that they either don't know or understand how to apply the only tools – weigh tickets – that may be used to determine compliance or prove non-compliance. Indeed - aren't these tools fundamental to the job requirements of a Planning staffer or supervisors? If Planning staff and supervisors can't correctly handle some of the basic functions of their job and use some of the basic tools at their disposal, how can they be trusted with responsibilities of making decisions which may impact the health, welfare and safety of an entire County?

     Following the question of hours there appears to be yet a new twist on the English language as evidenced by the Planning Director's January 2009 letter. This letter was also accompanied by what appears to be a "revisionist" map sent to the Coalition. The Planning Director contradicts prior wording used by Planning staff and administrators in their 2003 C.U.P. modification approval letter, and, in doing so, provide additional evidence of a possible abuse of discretion.

   The Planning Director created a new map on November 17, 2008, indicating her determination of what constituted the restricted zone along Route 33 in the Ojai Valley. Her statement accompanying the "Day and Hours of Operation" Chart in condition 25, and reads as follows: "Trucks Traveling on Highway 33 between Casitas Spring and City of Ojai." Astonishingly, are we to believe that the Planning Director actually believes the word "between" allows her to exclude both Casitas Springs and the City of Ojai from the restricted zone?

     Such an interpretation would mean, for example, that the American Civil War -- also known as "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 involve either party, just the space "between" them.

     The current interpretation by the Planning Director eight years after the approval of the C.U.P. as to the actual area of restricted truck transport travel is unacceptable. When one adds to the above "interpretation" the additional documentation that Ozena and their agent have been consistently and forcefully demanding a need for additional hours; Ozena's demands for a stay of the 12/07 ruling on hours; and Ozena's filing suit against the County (and losing) to overturn these conditions; and finally – factoring-in a Planning Division that has avoided any pro-active attempts at monitoring despite numerous red flags, then what do we end up with? Are we to believe that we have a Planning Director who appears to be going out of her way to appear predisposed to insuring that no violations be recorded against Ozena that will in any way impact their current or proposed new C.U.P. request? Shouldn't such blatant and obvious bias in favor of an applicant and against the public interest, be considered patently outrageous and thoroughly unacceptable? Should this be tolerated by any public, tax-payer funded agency?

(19) Again, right on the heels of the chart in item 25, we have items 26 & 27 - regarding the number of truck trips and record keeping. Has the Planning Division ever made annual and daily counts of truck volume? Where is the documentation of these truck trips? And if the department has such records on hand for any portion of 2008, why have they still not been turned over to the Coalition as part of our August or December PRR's?

(20) Item 29 on Page 12 refers to the staking of permit boundaries. Have these actually been checked each year? Has mapping been undertaken to insure compliance? We understand - again through unconfirmed sources - that these markers may have been moved or possibly removed altogether. And if so, how would the county know?

(21) We have already noted the requirement in item 30 on the next page about the covering of trucks, etc. -- an area of concern that seems to have been completely neglected in eight years of operation.

(22) Occasionally, trucks with excessive king pins have been spotted going up Route 33. What abilities has the County demonstrated under CEQA to insure that oversized vehicles are not traveling up this dangerous road?

(23) Item 37 on Page 14 requires annual SMARA compliance and documentation. Has this ever been done?

(24) Item 41 on the same page reiterates the need to obey state vehicle codes to avoid spillage, etc. Again, what documented steps has the county taken to insure compliance?

(25) Now that there is a new lessee on site, what assurances relative to item 58 on Page 17 have been made, met, or documented?

(26) Item 60 deals with road maintenance fees. If the department has not monitored the actual number of trucks, how can the department determine whether or not they have been short changed in fees? Have fees been properly calculated and documented?

(27) Section f, 62 – 65: SMARA related conditions beginning on Page 17 deals with a number of critical issues, such as annual financial assurances for reclamation. Have these been met – or is the Division simply allowing Ozena to skate on this one until their Aquaculture proposal is passed?

     - Is there genuine, official documentation of financial security in place? Or, if the new proposals are defeated, will the public be stuck with the costs of reclamation?

     - Have all the conditions of SMARA been met annually?

     - Has the surety been adjusted annually to match current reclamation costs? This requires the actual determination of current costs along with a needs assessment. The bond protects the public.

     - Has there been an independent review to determine the value and cost of such a guarantee?

     - Have all of these conditions been met and documented on an annual basis, including maps?

- end -

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

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

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

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

Dear Kim and Carole,

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

#19: On January 13., 2009 around 2:20 pm another UNCOVERED but fully loaded Swader double hopper gravel truck heading south on Route 33 was spotted in Miramonte. 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 5:00 pm and 5:23 pm. It looked like the same vehicle spotted yesterday 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

Dear Kim and Carole,

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

#18: On January 12, 2009, a white double hopper gravel truck heading north up Route 33 passed through the Ojai Valley between 5:00 pm and 5:30 pm. It looked like the vehicle in the picture below (taken earlier). If this vehicle had been going to Ozena, would that not constitute yet another potential violation?

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

Dear Kim and Carole,

Thank you for your latest follow up.

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

#17: Once again, on January 12, 2009, a fully loaded Swader double hopper gravel truck heading south down Route 33 passed through the Ojai Valley between 2:15 pm and 2:45 pm. While the truck did not violate the time schedule, it was UNCOVERED.

A little later that same afternoon, between 2:42 pm and 3:12 pm another UNCOVERED but fully loaded Swader double hopper gravel truck heading south, entered the restricted zone, went past the high school, turned right at the "Y"," and then continued down Rt 33 towards Ojai View and Casitas Springs. If this vehicle had been coming from Ozena, would that not constitute yet another potential violation, particularly since it was - as always - traveling during the restricted time zone and with an uncovered load?

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

Mr. Smith:
Attached please find copies of the Alleged Notice of Violation letters to Ozena Valley Ranch Mine for Complaint No. 14 and No. 15. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Regards,
Carole Aragon
SMARA Coordinator
County of Ventura - Planning Division
carole.aragon@ventura.org
(805) 654-2462

Dear Kim and Carole,

We look forward to seeing the responses to our prior complaints. Thank you.

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

#16: Once again, on January 8, 2009, a Swader double hopper gravel truck came north up 33 and entered the restricted zone in Casitas Springs at about 7:32 am then continued north towards town and then past the high school. (This would put it on the same daily schedule as the vehicle complaints #13 & #14.) If this vehicle had been going to Ozena, would that not constitute yet another potential violation?

That same afternoon, at about 3:55 pm a UNCOVERED but fully loaded Swader double hopper gravel truck heading south, entered the restricted zone, went past the high school, turned right at the "Y"," and then continued down Rt 33 towards Ojai View and Casitas Springs. 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?

Following upon our conversation with the County CEO and County Counsel, the Stop the Trucks Coalition has also been in touch with Ojai City Council Staff and the State Assembly regarding enforcement of this rule about covering loads. Local and State Police have now been alerted and may well begin citing gravel hauling vehicles that fail to protect the public by covering their loads.

On top of our unconfirmed reports regarding possible weigh scale irregularities at the mine, we have also see online research at the State of California's site that indicates that Tony Virgilio's weighmaster certification might still be delinquent. Would this disqualify him from serving as a weigh master?

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

Dear Kim and Carole,

Thank you once more for your prompt response to our last two complaints.

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

#14: On January 7, 2009, a Swader double hopper gravel truck came north up 33 and entered the restricted zone in Casitas Springs at about 7:38 am then continued north towards town and then past the high school. (This would put it on the same daily schedule as the vehicle in complaint #13.) If this vehicle had been going to Ozena, would that not constitute yet another potential violation?

#15: According to the C.U.P, all trucks loaded and leaving Ozena are required to have their loads covered, however, as best we have been able to determine over the past two years, none of the trucks that we have witnessed as possibly coming from Ozena with loads, appeared to be covered. If this is in fact proven to be true, then wouldn't this also constitute a pattern of repeated violations?

We are also have also heard multiple -- but unconfirmed reports -- that Ozena may not actually be using the automated truck scale weighing system for each weigh ticket and might possibly be avoiding this system by writing out many tickets by hand. And the rumors are that these tickets do not have either the actual real weight or the correct time. We don't know if this is true or not, but isn't this something that can be easily confirmed by comparing weigh tickets and billing records as was done last year? We raised this question at our meeting this afternoon with the County CEO and County Counsel and hope you can eventually provide some clear cut answers.

Thank you,

Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

Dear Mr. Smith:
In response to your complaint #12 and #13 against Ozena Valley Ranch Mine, I am forwarding you copies of the Alleged Notice of Violation (ANOV09-0006 and 0007) that were issued to Ozena requesting the weigh tickets for the days in questions. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Regards

Carole Aragon
SMARA Coordinator
County of Ventura - Planning Division
carole.aragon@ventura.org
(805) 654-2462

Dear Kim and Carole,

Thank you for your earlier responses and for noting yet another possible violation by Ozena, that of having used concrete and other reprocessed scrap on site.
Please add these latest incidents below to our list of formal complaints.

#12: On January 2, 2009, a white double hopper gravel truck came south 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.

#13: Today, January 6, 2009, a white double hopper gravel truck with a white cab with brown trim came south down 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 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 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.

We are also wondering why, since Ozena is required by the C.U.P. to maintain copies of all weigh tickets on site, the Planning Division did not simply obtain the weight tickets for these incidents (and for the entire year) while Ms. Aragon was up at the mine site in December, rather than making multiple requests by snail mail?

Thank you,

Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

Good Afternoon Howard~

I wanted to let you know that our review of the complaints that you filed are expected to be completed by the end of the week. I will send you a formal written response of our findings at that time.

I would also like to set up a meeting where we can discuss issues such as baseline (that you discussed below) the scoping meeting to be held in Ojai and the EIR consultant selection process. Any specific dates/times that would work for you? The earlier the better~

I look forward to our meeting.

Kim

Kim Rodriguez, AICP
Planning Director
County of Ventura
805.654.2481
kim.rodriguez@ventura.org

Dear Kim Rodriguez & Carole Aragon,

#11 There appears to be no let up in possible violations by gravel trucks going to and from Ozena. 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 "Y" at Ojai and 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.

If correct this would represent another in a possible series of ongoing violations.

To date, "Stop the Trucks," has twice filed Public Record Requests 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.

As was noted in a separate letter to you this week about meeting, the consensus of the Executive committee was a strong, "yes."

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss how your office intends to respond to our ever growing list of complaints, as well as anything else you wish to discuss.

Sincerely,

Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

Dear Kim Rodriguez & Carole Aragon,

I hope you are both enjoying your holidays and am glad to see you are both checking emails as it appears there has been no let up in gravel trucks.

Today, Friday, the day after Christmas, two double hopper gravel trucks came south on Route 33 and past by the Ojai Hospital and Nordhoff High School at 3:45 pm. If they were coming from Ozena, that would be yet another violation of the C.U.P. At least one, if not both were from Swader Trucking. We are asking you once again to investigate this possible violation of the Ozena C.U.P.

It is now over one month since we first began reporting possible C.U.P. violations on a semi-regular basis and we have still heard nothing back from the Planning Division regarding the results of your investigations.

We have also queried the executive committee about the possibility of meeting with you but due to the holidays have not yet been able to determine when that might be.

Sincerely,

Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

Dear Mr. Smith,

We are currently in the investigation process of your prior four e-mails. I'll ask Carole to open up an Alleged Notice of Violation on for the 18th. I expect to have a response to you shortly.

As to the issue of the RFP, it was sent to many firms and we had three responses. The firm will be chosen prior to the scoping meeting so that they will have the benefit of attending. As we discussed earlier, the scooping meeting will be held in Ojai. I'll ask staff to review the issue of this document not being included your public records act request as it is a part of the record

I believe it is important that we meet to discuss the other items that you brought forward in your e-mail. If possible, during the first week in January. Please let me know if you or a representative from Stop the Trucks will be available. I'll be out of the office until the 5th of January but I'll be checking my messages.

Sincerely,

Kim

Kim Rodriguez, AICP
Planning Director
County of Ventura
805.654.2481
kim.rodriguez@ventura.org

Dear Kim Rodriguez and Carol Aragon,

#7)   It appears that the enforcement work of the prior weeks with Ozena has been to little avail. 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 by Nordhoff High School just as students were arriving heading north at 7:37 am, in apparent violation of the allowed hours of travel through the Ojai Valley.

#8)   The Stop the Trucks Coalition has 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.

Documentation of all of this is openly available in your own files.

#9)   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. These are among the many, many issues the Coalition will be bringing to the attention of County executives and County Counsel when we meet in early January.

Is it too much to ask that you clean them up by then?

And for Carole Aragon's benefit, a copies of all the other recent complaints, including Bob Walker's from last February follow below.

Sincerely,

Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

Dear Kim Rodriguez,

This was perhaps the first morning in many months that none of our Coalition truck spotters were awakened by the sound of gravel trucks at 4:30 am. Perhaps your investigations are beginning to have an impact. Thank you...

And thank you for you note - copied below - in which you inform us that Carole Aragon, the SMARA Coordinator, will be investigating our six (6) recent complaints. (also below)

I do not know if you are aware of it or not, but while you were on leave last February and Mr. Richards was overseeing Ms. Aragon, a complaint was filed about Ozena by an affiliate of the Coalition, Bob Walker. This complaint was never fully investigated or responded to in any form. 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.

As weigh tickets are the only CEQA tool the Planning Division currently has to ascertain compliance with the C.U.P., we trust you will take the necessary administrative steps to rectify these oversights.

With sincere thanks,

Howard Smith, Vice Chair
Stop the Trucks

Re: Thanks & More Complaints (5) & (6) about Ozena, December 10,2008
From: Kim Rodriguez <Kim.Rodriguez@ventura.org>
To: Howard Smith <smythe@ojai.net>
cc: Carole Aragon <Carole.Aragon@ventura.org>

I received your complaint. Ms Aragon from our office reviews these complaints. I see that you forwarded this to her also so she will be getting back with you. Please call me directly if you have any questions on the process~

Kim

Dear Kim Rodriguez,

Thank you for your response to our prior complaints. Unfortunately we have two more to add.

#5: This morning at about 4:40 am a double hopper truck apparently passed 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 heading south left the restricted zone near Casitas Springs at about 7:10 am.

This afternoon, at precisely 3:24pm two more double hopper, both white in color, came south from Ozena and again passed by the high school and hospital. If correct, all of these would have be potential violations.

#6: 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 Virgilo 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?

We appreciate your efforts in investigating these matters.

Sincerely,
Howard Smith, Vice Chair
"Stop the Trucks"

Complaint (#4) on Gravel Trucks Violating the C.U.P. on Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Dear Kim Rodriguez & Chris Stephens,

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 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.

Your department's attention to this urgent matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Howard Smith

From: Kim Rodriguez
To: Howard Smith
Cc: Carole Aragon ; Chris Stephens ; Patrick Richards
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Another Complaint (#3) on Gravel Trucks Violating the C.U.P. on Monday, December 8, 2008

Good Morning Mr. Smith -

We have received your complaint and will follow up. We will keep you posted on our findings.

Kim Rodriguez, AICP
Planning Director
County of Ventura
805.654.2481
kim.rodriguez@ventura.org

Complaint (#3) on Gravel Trucks Violating the C.U.P. on Monday, December 8, 2008

Monday, December 8, 2008

Dear Kim Rodriguez & Chris Stephens,

On Monday, December 8, 2008 I spotted two more Swader double hopper gravel trucks apparently violating the C.U.P. by traveling south bound 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.

Your department's attention to this urgent matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Howard Smith

Complaint (#2) on Gravel Trucks Violating the C.U.P. on Wednesday, December 3, 2008

From: Smith, Howard
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 8:37 AM
Subject: More Gravel Truck C.U.P. Violations on December 3, 2008

Dear Kim Rodriguez & Chris Stephens,

Thank you for your response to our earlier complaint. We appreciate your quick action.

Please add this to our prior complaint about C.U.P. Violations in conjunction with gravel tucking and the Ozena mine operation.

Today, December 3, 2008, a double hopper truck went 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 (apparently one of the most regular possible violators) also went 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.

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.

It is 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.

When I met with Matt Carroll in July of 2008, I noted that violations of the time schedule were still occurring on essentially a daily basis. Many of us have not only witnessed these violations but have filmed some as well.

These apparent ongoing violations were confirmed recently by the spouse of a former Planning Department employee who during a four day stay at the Ojai Valley Community Hospital, was repeatedly awoken as early as 4:00 am each day by gravel trucks accelerating as they headed north out of the traffic light at the"Y" and past the hospital and/or when coming south, braking at the same intersection.

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.

Wouldn't it make sense given all that has transpired to require Ozena and Alliance to turn over all of their weigh tickets for the last 12 months to confirm compliance? And if not for the last 12 months, certainly as of August 4th? Doesn't this makes far more sense than doing it piecemeal?

From the OVN

Sand Truck Overturns On Maricopa