Page 5 - laco_cemexpermit060204

The Honorable Board of Supervisors
June 2, 2004
Page 5

Shortly thereafter, specimens of the southwestern arroyo toad, a federally endangered
species, were discovered on the Project site and your Board's hearing was delayed during
preparation of supplemental biological documentation and recommendations by the federal
government. County staff prepared additional environmental documentation reflecting
additional mitigation measures to address the discovery of the southwestern arroyo toad, and
a set of Project conditions for your Board's consideration which incorporated, in whole or in
part, some, but not all, of the project conditions which had been proposed by Santa Clarita and
other community representatives. Significantly, County staff did not recommend inclusion of
measures providing for rail haul, the use of imported water, or the prohibition against any
reduction of the ridge line on the Project site either because the proposed measure would not
significantly further reduce project impacts, did not have the legally required nexus, or
substantially interfered with the amount of federally owned materials that could be mined at
the site.

Your Board resumed its public hearing on the Project on November 27, 2001 , at which time
representatives of our Department of Public Works ("DPW") advised your Board that they had
concerns regarding the methodology that had been used to analyze traffic impacts on Soledad
Canyon Road. Although Cemex representatives testified that those traffic concerns were
unfounded, your Board continued the public hearing to allow staff to analyze DPW's new traffic
concerns. Thereafter, County staff determined that recirculation of the FEIR would be
necessary to change to the traffic methodology that DPW was contending was more
appropriate for evaluation of Project impacts on Soledad Canyon Road.

On January 25, 2002, Cemex filed its lawsuit, contending that the County was inappropriately
delaying and interfering with the proposed federal mining project, was abusing the CEQA
process, and had abridged Cemex's constitutional rights. Cemex specifically contended that
DPW's change in positions regarding appropriate traffic methodologies was legally and
factually unfounded. On February 26, 2002, your Board resumed the public hearing on the
proposal. Cemex submitted additional written testimony, oral testimony, and a videotape
supporting its position that the original traffic methodology was supportable from a traffic
engineering standpoint and adequately addressed traffic impacts on Soledad Canyon Road.
Your Board determined however, that since Cemex would not cooperate in the preparation of
additional environmental documentation to address DPW's traffic concerns, the Project could
not be approved. On April 23, 2002, your Board adopted findings indicating that Cemex had
not satisfied the burden of proof necessary for approval of the Project.

HOA.236756.1