Page 8 - laco_cemexpermit060204

The Honorable Board of Supervisors
June 2, 2004
Page 8

The FEIR concludes that all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the
Project can be reduced to a level of less than significance through the application of feasible
mitigation measures with the exception of project specific air quality and visual quality impacts
and cumulative air quality and biotic impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Exhibit B) describes overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of
the Project warranting its approval. Your Board has adopted similar statements of overriding
considerations for significant projects, including the recently approved Spring Canyon
residential project which is located across the Antelope Valley Freeway from the Project site.

The FEIR concludes that no significant new information was received during your public
hearing process on the Project so as to require further recirculation of the environmental
documentation under CEQA. The discovery of the federally endangered southwestern arroyo
toad on the subject property following your April 24, 2001 , public hearing session was the
subject of a supplemental biological assessment and opinion at the federal level. A discussion
of the discovery of the toad, and the inclusion of additional mitigation measures imposed by
the federal government, as well as additional mitigation measures recommended by the
County staff biologist, have been included in the FEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan. The draft environmental impact report for the project had already identified
the Project site as having habitat that could be suitable for the toad. In approving the Consent
Decree, the federal court agreed with the County's previous conclusion that the discovery of
the toad on the Project site and the inclusion of the federally and staff proposed additional
mitigation measures did not require recirculation of the FEIR.

As previously indicated at your Board's November 27, 2001 , public hearing session on the
Project, DPW indicated that the traffic methodology contained in the environmental
documentation as it relates to impacts on Soledad Canyon Road should be revised to more
accurately reflect DPW's opinion regarding such impacts. Your Board received written and
oral testimony from Cemex and its traffic engineers indicating that the traffic methodology
which was in the environmental document was adequate and was reasonable under accepted
traffic engineering principles, and that Project would not result in significant traffic impacts. At
that time, Cemex declined to cooperate in the preparation of an additional traffic report and
environmental documentation which would have been necessary to reflect DPW's desire to
revise the traffic methodology. County Counsel advised your Board at that time that you could
find that the information presented by Cemex constituted substantial evidence to support the
original traffic methodology, but that such decision would involve rejecting DPW's position.
Your denial of Cemex's application on April 23, 2002, was in significant part based on the fact
that Cemex had refused to cooperate in the preparation of that additional documentation.

HOA.236756.1