-
MemorandumCounty of Ventura . Resource Management Agency'
Plenning Division8()O S, Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740'
(805) 654-2478'ventura.org/rnt
DATE: September 4,2012SUBJECT: Additional Comments for Minor
Modification No. LU09-0158 (Modification of
Conditional Use Permit No. 4577); Located at 1000 S. Ventu Park
Road, in theVentura County Unincorporated are of Thousand Oaks on
various AssessorParcel Numbers
Please be advised that the following information has been
submitted to be included asan exhibit to the Planning Director
Staff Report of September 5,2012 (Exhibit 7).
Planning staff received three letters regarding the proposed
project. These letters wereinadvertently omitted from the staff
report that was posted on the Planning Divisionwebsite prior to the
September 5, 2012 Planning Director Hearing. Below is a list of
theletters that were received.
lf you have any questions please contact Kristina Roodsari at
654-2467 orkristi na. rood [email protected].
Letter from Robert Wallace and Janice Johnson, dated September
3,2012
Letter from Robert McMurry, of Counsel to Gilchrist and Rutter
Law Firm, datedAugust 22,2012
Letter from Melissa Barron, dated August 22,2012!
-
Robert Wallace & Janice Johnston582 5, Ventu Park Road
Newbury Park, CA 91320
September 3.2012
Ms. Kristina RoodsarÌCase PlannerCountv of VenturaRMA-Planning
Division t #1740800 S. Victoria AvenueVentura, CA 93009,1740 ,
.j
RE; Case No. LU09-0L58
Dear Ms. Roodsari
We are the property owners and residents of 582 South Ventu Park
Road and have lived herecontínuousfysince1985.
OurpropertyislocatedontheprivatesegmentofsouthVentuparkRoad/Ventu
Park Fire Road ("SVPR/VPFR"), which serves as the access road to
the above referenced projectarea,
In the early years of our residency here, the pr¡väte segment of
SVPR was unpaved, and access to thearea was unrestricted. Our
roadwaywas afavorite destination for motorists of all types, day
and night,many for the purpose of intoxicating themselves with
drugs and alcohol. Confrontations withbelligerent motorists and
groups of motorists were frequent here, especially on nights and
weekends.Cleaninguptheaftermathoftheseactivities,i,e., disposingof
emptybeer&liquorbottles,usedcondoms, and fastfood trash was â
common chore for us a'nd the other early residents of this
area,
Four new homes have been built along the private road during the
time we have lived here and theRasnowfamily developed their
business and instalfed a controlled gate just beyond our homes, As
thenew homes were bgilt, the pavement on SvPR was extended to a
poínt just beyond our home, Nearly allofthe early residents are now
gone, so there are few who can offer an accurate record of the
changes tothis neíghborhood over an extended time period.
There is no question that traffic along the private section of
SVPR has signifícantly decreased over tirne,in spite of new
residents who have moved into our neighborhood and the creation of
the Rasnowbusiness' The blight of nuisance traffic ín our
neighborhood has been virtually eliminated, largely due tothe
Rasnow's aggressive enforcement of trespassing restrìctions and
their construction of the electricgate on upper SVPR,
Ïhe dust along our dirt road has always been a part of the price
we residents chose to pay to live ín thisneighborhood' lt existed
when we purchased here and it exists today, but, in our experience,
the
dustproblemwasgreatlymitigatedbytheextensionofthepavedroadsurfaceintheearlylgg0,s.
ltisour
-
understanding thät mäintenance of our prívâte road is the
responsibìliiy of all of us who use it and wefeet it should not bè
used as leverage äga¡nst the interests of anyone of us.
ln the fíre of October 1993, ianice was an eyewitness to the
fire's approach from the southeast. lt wasthe Rasnow's flre
cle¿ring efforts that ultimately turned the advancing flarnes away
from ourneighborhood.fnrecentyears,
theRasnowshaveincreasedthebrushclearedarea along theirrÍdgelíne,
improving our neighborhood's defenses from fire coming from that
direction. Their weed andbrush abatement progråm utilizes grazing
animals rather than power tools în an effort to reduce airpollution
and greenhouse gãses.
The Rasnow famíly have been excellent stewards of the property
they own for many years, We are notawere of any legitímate negative
Ìmpacts to anyone ín our neighborhood resufting from the
businessthey operate. Cl¿ims of concerns of greenhouse gas
emissions in connection with this business are sounreasonable that
they would seemingly call into question the motives of those who
make them.
Respectfully,
W/u,¿t** M-.-7/s/tz/Janîce John"ston./nobert Wal[ace
-
vv|LSHIRE PALISAOEA BUILDINOl20e ocEAN AVENUE, AUIÎE eOO
aANTA MONtcA, CALIFORNIA eoao'r-1qX)
Ms. Kristina Roodsa¡i, M.M.P,A., PlannerVentura County Planning
Division800 S. Victoria Ave.Ventura" CA 93009
LAwoFFtcÊsGILCIIRIS|Ddz RIITITER
PROTEI'SIONAT, OORPORA1TION
August 22,2012
IELEPHONE (3lO) 3eMdloFAOS|MTLE (3rO) 3ea{7OO
E+IAIL:
I Ji;i,! ;ì1r t¡j t¡.- l_ . t ¡-
Re:(CaseNo. LU09-0158)
Dear Ms. Roodsari:
'We represent l\¿ts. Melissa Baron, who owns the property
located at 566 South VentuPa¡k Road. Ms, Baron's property is
located on the private segment of South Ventu Pa¡kRoad/Ventu Park
Fire Road ("Private Road"), which seryes as the access road for the
cell towerscurrently installed on Rasnow Peak. On behalf of Ms.
Baror¡ we wriæ to express her oppositionto the above-referenced
proposed Minor Modification of Conditional Use Permit No.
4577("Project"), submitted by applicants Harmon and Eleanor Rasnow
("Applicants"), and commentson the above-referenced Negative
Declaration prepared by the County of Ve,lrtura ("County").
Ms. Baron's additional comments a¡e included in her August
22,2012 comment letter$rith attaohed exhibits ("Baron Lett€ru),
submiüed conctrrently with this letter. Due ûo thenumber of
exhibíts attached to the Baron l,ette\ rve are sending only the
Baron Letter and theindex of the exhibits attachedto the Ba¡on
l,ettsr via ernail. A full copy of this letter, the BaronLetter and
the exhibíts to the Baron Lelter will b€ sent to you via Federal
Express.
l. Timeliness of the Apolication
CUP 4577's two 1O-year terrns expired in June of 2010 (see Baron
Letter, Ex. 8.2,Approval lætter for Approval Date of June 25,1990
["CtfP Approval"], Planning DivisionConditions 2a and b), although
there is some indication that the cr¡rrent term expired onDecember
31,2010 (see Baron Letter, F;x.7, Planning Director StaffReport
andRecommendations for Hearing on January 25,2011 ["2011
StaffReport"], p. 3). A slightlydifferent application for a minor
modification" with the same case number, was heard in Januaryof
2011, but a decision was not made at that time, ostensibly due to
the submission of newinformation of substantial importance made on
behalf of the Applicants (see March 4,2071 letterfrom Mr. Daniel
Klemann, for the County, to Ms. Julie Bulla" Baron Letter, Ex.
19.l).
-
r-Aw oFFrcEs
GILCIIRISII! & RUITTEIRPROFEES¡IONAL CORPORAIFÍ ON
Ms. Kristina Roodsari, M.M.P.A., PlannerAugust 22,2012Page2
The staffreport prepared for the January 2011 hearing very
carefully described thetimeline for the prior application (see 2011
StatrReporq pp. 4-6). Notably, by contrast, theNegative Declaration
does not state when the current term of the CUP ends. Since this
Project ismaterially different from the previous application, it
appears that, rurder the terms of the CUPApproval @lanning
Condition 2b), this Application is a new application and has been
made toolate.
2, I4adequate hoject Descriptio+
The Project Description in the Negative Deolaration fails to
describe what Projectactivities will result from the installation
of the additional long-term new equipment listed atpage2, In
particular, it cannot be daemnined from the desoription what
environmental impaotswill be created by the future activities that
will resulg directly or indirectly, due to the installationof this
equipment. For example, if this equipment will, as is likely,
enable the owner of theProject to increase its business, that
increase in business will íncrease the number of tips on thePrivate
Roa{ and, in furn, increase the traffrc, circulation, hazârds, air
qualþ, greenhouse gasand noise impacts resulting from those trips.
Having failed to include all of the Project's directand indirect
activities within the Project Description, the Negative Declaration
has failed todescribe the whole of the Project under CEQA (Pub.
Res. Code $ 21065; Title 14, Cal. Code ofRegs $ 15378) and,
concomiøntly, has failed to analyzn all of the Project's impacts.
The amountof equipment to be added in the future provides
substantial evidence supporting a fair argumentthat the Projeot
could have a significant impact on the environment, including,
withoutlimitation, on traffrc, afu qualþ emissions, greenhouse gas
emissions and noise.
Additionally, no explanation is provided as to whether buildings
A and G, referred tormder Visual impacts $ry.9-12), are new
structures, although as described here they appear to benew. If
they are new structutts, then this information, too, should have
been included in theProject Description.
Moreover, the Applicants continue to advertise to increase the
number of customers fortheir cell towers. It is reasonably
foreseeable that, as a result of their advertising activities,
thesize and scope of the Project will increase in the future, and
these future activities must beamlyzrd no\il as part of the
Project. As the California Supreme Court insfircted, "An EIR
mustinclude an analysis of the future expansion or other action if:
(l) it is a reasonably foreseeableconsequence of the initial
project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant
inthat it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial
project or its environmental effects."(Laurel Heights Improvement
Assn. of San Francisco, Inc. v, The Regents of the Universíty
ofCalifornia (1988) 47 Ca1.3d376,396.) Here, the further expansion
of the Project is readilyforeseeable given the expansion presently
requested and the Applicants' ongoing advertising
greater and more adverse traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas
and noise impacts.
-
LÂVv OFFICES
CIILCIIRIF|IIT d¿ RflItrIlERPRO[ETIEIONAL CÐRPOIIA'IION
Ms. Kristina Roodsari, M.M.P.A., PlannerAugust 22,2012Page 3
As a resulg the County is required to prepare an EIR that
includes a complete hojectDescription and that analyzes all of the
Project's potential impacts, and then circulate the EIR forpublic
comment and otherwise comply wittr all of CEQA's zubstantive and
procedural
requirements applicable to EIRs prior to considering the Project
for approval.
The Negative Decla¡ation purports to address regional and
localized air quality impacts
and the air quality impacts resulting from an emergency
generator, although there is no evidence
that it in fact has donè so (it merely refers to, but does not
attach "inforrration provided by theApplicants). Hou,ever, its
discussion contains no supporting information based on which
thep.rUti" can assess the acctracy of its conclusions. In fact,
there is no indication whether these
õonclusions address the Project's constn¡ction activities,
operational activities, or both. Instead,
the Negative Declaration states only that the Applicants
provided inforrration, based on which ithas be.en concluded (p. 4)
ttìat the Project would have no significant regional impacts:
"airpollutant emissions will be below the 25 pounds per day
threshold for reactive organiccompounds and oxides of nifrogen as
described in the Ventr¡ra County Air QualityAssessmentGuiáeünes."
Similarly, based on "information in the project application"
(id.),the Negative
Declaration concludes that the Project will have less than
significant local air quality impactswith the implementation of
fugitive dust control regulations and the requirement to obtain an
aír
distict permit to operate the emergency generator. These
conclusory süatements do not containthe substantial evidence
required to support them under CEQA.
Moreover, the Negative Declaration fails to contain material
analyses critical to an
assessment of the Projectb impacts. A major sor¡roo of the
Project's air quality emissions will becreated by Project-generated
fafhc. However, as discussed above, the Negative
Declarationcontaíns no analysis of the Project's traffrc impacts
and, therefore, contains no data or
information based on which the air quality emissions from
Project-generated traffrc oan be
estimated. There is no analysis of the number of fips that the
Project's proposed new uses andequipment will create (see table at
top of p.2) and certainly no analysis of the number of tripsthät
ihe "anticipafed long-term future installation of other new
equipment on Tower A" willcreatg. Even though the Negative
Decla¡ation fails to include this analysis, it is patently
clear
that the Project would create a number of new trips on the
Private Road. Only a portion of that
road is paved; the majority of the Private Road is a dirt
road.
The emissions from the vehicles making these trips are not the
only air qualþ impactsthat the Project will create - these üips
wilt also exacerbate existing adverse fugitive dustimpacts. Rs the
attached Ba¡on Lettpr states, although the Applicants have
acknowledged their
obiigations to maintain the Private Road under the mitigation
measures imposed by the County
of Vintura in connection with the issuance of the original
conditional use pennit in 1990, the
3.
-
l-Aw crFFlcEa
GI ILCHRISíIì & Rt.]ItrIfERPROT.¡fIS¡ONAL CORPORÁTTON
Ms. Kristina Roodsari, M.M.P.A., PlannerAugust 22,2012Page 4
Applicants' have failed to fulfill their obligations properly
for the twenty-plus years since 1990.As a result, the Private Road
is and has for years been poorly maintained, and taffic on the
roadcreates a substantial a¡nount of fugitive dust in dry weather.
A number of the residents areseverely affected by and suffer the
ill effects of the dust. Additionally, the clouds of dust and
thegravel and rocks that the traffic along the Private Road stirs
up create a nuisanoe for the propertyowners.
Further, because the Applicants arc currently violating the
existing mitigation measr¡resrequiring them to maintain the hivate
Road, the Applicants' activities arc creating thesignificant
impacts that the fugitive dust mitigation measr¡re recommended by
the NegativeDeclaration is designed to address. The Applicants'
failure to comply with existing mitígatíonmeasures constitutes
substantial evidence that imposing a similar mitigation measure on
theProject to reduce what the Negative Decla¡ation has concluded is
apotentially significant impactin fact wlll not reduce the level of
rhís tmpacl to a less lhøn sígníftcønt level. As such, there
issubstantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project
could have a significant airquality impact due to fugitive dust,
requiring the preparation of an EIR.
Without the dat¿ supporting the Negative Declaration's impact
conch¡sions, and without asuffrcient analysis of all of the
Project's air quality impacts, the Negative Deolaration does
notcontains subsøntial evidence supporting its conclusions that the
Project's air qualþ impacts willbe less than significant.
The Negative Declaration's failu¡e to include these analyses is
a material omission, as aresult of which the County of Ventura has
failed to proceed in a manner required by law.Further, there is
substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project
could have asignificant impact on the environment, including,
without limitation, on haffìc, air quality andnoise. As a result,
the County is required to prepare an EIR to analyzn the Project's
potentialimpacts, circulate the EIR for public comment and
otherwise comply !\'ith all of CEQA'ssubst¿ntive and procedural
requirernents applicable to EIRs prior to considering the Project
forapproval.
4.
The Negative Decla¡ation consludes that the installation of the
27 arûpnnae at a ñ¡tr¡¡edate on Tower A would not have any
significant visual impacts, but offers absolutely noevidence,
whatsoever, in support ofthis bald conclusion. There is no
descripion of theappearance of these facilities, their height,
their bullç the location on the cell tower at which theywill be
affixed, or any other such descriptive information from which an
impact determinationcould be
-
LAW OFFICEA
GILCIIRI$ITd, RUIEIIDRPROFEÊÊ¡ONAL CORFORÄTION
Ms. Kristina Roodsari, M.M.P.A., PlannerAugust 22,2012Page 5
Additionally, the Negative Decla¡ation reports (p. l1) that the
Applicants intend to paintbuilding A and building G with a
carnolflage desigr¡ since these buildings are visible frompublio
iõcadons, and that the remaining buildings will continæ to be
painted in earth tone colors.These assr¡rances arise from the
determination in the 1988 EIR prepared for a proposed cell
communication facility (including 9 existing faoilities, only 4
of which were authorized at that
time, and the proposed 5 additional facilities) that the
communication facilities would h¿ve a
significant adverse aesthetic effect on the environment, and its
recommendation of six mitigation
-éas,yes that were ultimately adopted in 1990 (see Baron Letter
Ex. 6.3, Áddendum # 2, FinalEnvi¡onmental Impaot Report for CUP
4ll,RasnowPeak Communications Facilþ[,'Addendum No. 2"¡ atpp. 4-6).
However, the Negative Declaration purports to justiffàttmtnotng
these previously adopted and still mandatory mitigation mear¡ures
simply because
the existing facilities arc currenllypainted in earth tones and
apparently new facilities will bepainted *ittt a camouflage design.
There is ¿o evidenoe in the Negative Declaration
justifringãliminating these mitigation measures, which also became
conditions of approval fo¡ CUP 4577.
Without these mitigatiãn measures, and in particular mitigation
measures 5 and 6, there is no
assurance that, simply because these facilities will be painted
in e¿¡h tones or in a camouflagedesign now, they wili be maintained
as such in the futu¡e. Therefore, there is za substantialevide,nce
supporting the Negative Declaration's conclusion (at p. I l)
that
',maintaining the buildings in such a manner would avoid the
creation of the
additional visual impact than what [sic] was previously
identifie.d in the EIR and
Addendr¡m prepared for cuP case No. 44112 and cuP case No.
4577.Therefore, ttre mitigation measures that were adopted under
the previous EIR and
Addendum are no longer required to be implemented.u
Moreover, given the lack of analysis of the additional
facilities planned in the fufire, thepotential exists that the
significant vizual impacts identified in the 1988 EIR \ilill b€
intensified,
þarticularly if the previously adopæd mitigation measures are
eliminated.
For these rearnns, there is substantial evidence supporting a
fair argument that the Projectcould have a significant visual
impact and, as such, an EIR must be prepared. The County must
prepare an EIR to analyzn that impac! along with the Project's
other potential impacts, ciroulatethe EIR for public comment and
otherwise comply with all of CEQA's substantive andprocedural
requirements applicable to EIRs prior to considering the Project
for approval.
5.Circulation and Fire Hazards
The Negative Decla¡ation contains za analysis of the hafnio and
taffic-related impacts ofthe Projec! despite the fact that these
are the most severe of the Project's impacts and those
thatpotentially could adversely af,tect not only the environmenÇ
but also the very saÍety of theresidenß along lhe Prtvate Road.
There is no existing setting infonnation regarding the number
-
LAW OFFICËS
GIIJCIIRISIId! RTJITTERPROFEAÁIIONAL OORPORÀIIION
Ms. Kristina Roodsari, M.M.P.A., PlannerAugust 22,2012Page ó
of trips on the Private Road or the public roads, no description
of the Private Road, its geometry,or its condition, and whether it
cunently meets Fire DeparEnent requirements. Also lacking isany
projection of the number of nips that the Project will ge,nerate,
including future trips due tothe future installation of the
additional facilities so vaguely described, or of the
Project'scumulative taffic and access impacts. Without this
information and these analyses, the NegativeDeclaration cannot
¡eøch any lmpact conclusions, whaßoeven
Moreovetr, the Negative Declaration fails to acknowledge the
fact that the Applicantscontinue to advertise for new customers for
their communícations facilities (seehtþ
://www.rasnowpeak.conr/rasnowpeaVU4EA_Ranch_Enterprises.htnl) ;
should theApplicants obtain new customers, the taffïc on the
Private Road will further increase, which isanother fact that is
not taken into consideration in the Negative Declaration's impact
analysis.
The Negative Decla¡ation's failure to include the baseline
information and these analysesare material omissions, as a result
of which the County of Ventura has failed to proceed in amanner
required by law.
Rather than containing analyses of the fraffrc and oirculation
impacts that the Project'sproposed new facilities will cÍeale,the
Negative Declaration instead íncludes an inaccurate andmisleading
recitation of the 1988 EIR's conclusions in an improper atûempt to
justiff elímínøtingthe mitigation measures that were adopted in
1990, including, without limitation, the Applicants'responsibility
to maintain the Private Road in accordance with the Fire
Department's PrivateRoad Guidelines, as lhe Applìcanß' sole
responslbllþ (with the right to assess their lesseesshould they
choose to do so). (Addendum No. 2 at pp.6-7.) The only "evidence"
supporting thisproposed elimination are purported unauthenticated
"trip logs" provided by the Applicants forthe years 2009,20L0 and
2011, ostensibly reporting trips through their private gate at
thetermination of the Private Road. Clearly, at best these logs
contain only existing tips, withoutprojected Projecl tríps and,
withottl cumulalive lrips onthe Private Road.
Although the Negative Decla¡ation acknowledges @.22) that the
1988 EIRrecommended mitigation measules that were ultimately
adopted in order to reduce significanttraffic impacts and emergency
service personnel access impacts, the Negative Decla¡ation doesnot
accurately describe how those impacts arose. Contary to the
Negative Decla¡ation'sassertior¡ the 1988 EIR and Addendum No. 2
determined that the cell communications facilitywould have
significant oumulative traffic impacts on the Private Road (1988
EIR at pp. 44-46;Addendum No. 2 at p. 6), not on the public roads
as the Negative Decla¡ation states (at p,23).As such, the
Applicants' trip logs, whìch are not authenticated, of trips
through the gate at theentance to the Project site that a¡e offered
to indicate the lessening of the burden of trips on theloealpublic
roads do not support eliminating these mitigation measures, which
were adopted to
authenticaæd (which they have not been), trip logs including
only the Applicants' customers'
-
LAWOFFICES
GILCHRIF¡{I d, RUIIIIDRPROBtrSÊI¡ONAL OORPORAITION
Ms. Kristina Roodsari, M.M.P.A., PlannerAugust 22,2012PageT
actual trips during 2009,2010 and 201I would not provide any
indication of the proie'ct Proiect-relaled or cumulative wíúh
Proiect trips on the Private Road.
As the Baron Letter states, the Private Road is shared not only
by the Applicants and their
business interests and customers, but also by nine additional
homes and an undetermined number
of undeveloped lot olvneñ¡. Assuming just these nine homes
generate six trips per weekday,which is a lõw assumption, adds a
total of 54 trips $er weekday, or270 trips per five-day workweek.
The 1988 Final EIR's concem with cumulative impacts on the Private
Road, speeding cars
and the Private Road's unimproved condition remain serious
concens today' as the Baron Letter
states.
Because the Negative Declaration fails to inoluile any
disoussion of the existing setting, italso fails to describe the
current condition of the Private Road. As demonstated by the
Baron
Lette4the Private Road is generally in a deterioraæd condition
during most of the year due to the
Applicants' failure to maintain the Private Road, in violation
of previouslf imngsed mitigationnleasures. In fact, the condition
of the Private Road is generally so deteriorated that the
Ventura
County Fire Deparfinent notified various residents along the
Private Road that, due to the
condition of the-Private Road, the Fire Depoilment couQ not
gu.ørantee that they would protect
or delend them or their properties in the event of aJire,' even
though, as the NegalíveDecùrafion acknowledges (p. 17), the Project
is located ìn a hightire hazt¡d arca. Given thefact that the Fire
Department has refi¡sed to guarantee service to the residents and
properties
along the Private Roa{ it is inconceivable that the Negative
Decla¡ation can conclude Gp,24'ZS) thøtthe Project will not
adversely impact fire access, or that mitigationaddressed to
theaeiign of new private roads and the maintenance of on-site
private roads will eru¡r¡re ttrat theProject will not adversely
impaot taptioal aßoess.
Consequently, it is clear that, even wilh the mítlgation
m¿a:Íutes ln place, the Applicantshave failed to fulfill their
obligation to maintain the Private Road to Fire Departnent
PrivateRoad standards, and the County has failed to fulfill its
legal obligation to monitor the Applicanls'compliance with the
adopted taffic mitigation measures, and lhat thesefaílures have
c¡ealedsøßty hazørds that are jeopørdízing the salety of the
residenß llvíng along the Prívale Road,øs nbU as causing them gteat
lnconvenlence. To remove these mitigation measures no\4r
wouldsimply ensure that the current significant impacts on the
Private Road and on the safety of the
residents and their properties due to the condition and
confrguration of the Private Road wouldbe furtt¡er exacerbated.
For all of these reasons, there is substantial evidence
supporting a fair argument that theProject could have a significant
impact on the environmelrt including, without limitation, on
¡ lronically, despite the fact that the Fire Departnent will not
guarantee to prot€ct or defend the residenb or theirproperties
along the Private Road, both the Fire Departnent and Sheriff have
and/or are placing facilíties in theProject.
-
LAw crFFtcEa
GILCI{RIS|II & RUITÏTDRPROTTESAIONÁ,I, CORFOR]{TION
Ms. Kristina Roodsmi, M.M.P.A., PlannerAugust 22,2012Page 8
naffic, circulation and fïre hazards. Further, therc ís
absoløely no justìfrcalbnfor illegallyelíminating mitígatíon
mcusures requÞûng the Applícanß to ¡naíntaín the Prívat¿ Road Ûn
asøte condilíon, æceptable to the Fíre Depaúment so lhat il wtll
resume prctecling theresidenß ønd theír properlics. CEQA mandates
that the County prepa¡e an EIR that fullyanalyzes the Project's
potential taffic, circulation and haza¡ds impacts, oiroulate the
EIR forpublio comment and otherwise comply with all of CEQA's
substantive and proceduralrequirements applicable to EIRs prior to
considering the Project for approval.
6Impacts
The Negative Declaration does not even purport to include a
proper analysis of theProject's noise impacts, as it entirely
ignores the most adverse Project -related noise: noisearising from
Project-generated fraffic. Instea{ the Negative Decla¡ation
contains only ananalysis of the noise that would be generated by
the emergency generators on site.
As discussed immediately above, the Project will generate
additional traffic on thePrivate Road. However, in violation of
CEQA, the number of tips and the impacts of those tipshave not been
analyzed. Consequently, the Negative Declaration contains no
information basedon which the noise impacts of incremental trips
generated by the Project can be assessed. TheNegative Declaration's
failure to include this analysis is also a material omission, as a
result ofwhich the County of Ventura has failed to proceed in a
manner required by law.
For this rea¡¡on, as well, the County must prepare an EIR that
frrlly analyzns the Project'spotential noise impacts, circulate the
EIR for public comment and otherwise comply with all ofCEQA's
substantive and procedural requirements applicable to EIRs prior to
considering theProject for approval.
7Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts
The Negative Declaration does not contain a prcper greenhouse
gas ("GHG") emissionimpacts analysis and, for these reasons, as
well, violates CEQA.
The GHG discussion does not even purport to contain an analysis
of the Project's GHGemissions, but instead relies on the Negative
Deolaration's essentially non-existent "analysis" ofthe Project's
air quality emission impacts (see discussion above), and an
improper "ratio theory"analysis, the Negative Declaration
concludes, without any substantial evidence, that the Project'sGHG
impacts will be less than significant.
Once again" however, the Negative Decla¡ation's failure to
analyzn, the Project's trafficimpacts results inafatal omission
from the Negative Declaration's analyses. According to the
-
t-.Aw oFFlceê
GILCIIRISIIT d, RIIIIIIERPrIOE'EEA¡ONÁ,I, OORFORATION
Ms. Kristina Roodsari, M.M.P.A., PlannerAugust 22,2012Page 9
California Air Resources Board's 2009 GHG Emissions Inventory by
Sector(http://www.atb.ca.govloolinventory/daø/gnphlgraph.htm), 38
percent of all GHG emissions inttriJsøte are generated by the
transportation sector. Since the Negative Declaration has
notanalyzndthe Þroject's taffic impacts, it clearly could not have
used the Project's üaffic data toamlyæthe Projecfs air qualþ
impacts, on which it purports to rely in concluding that
theProject's GHG impacts will be less than significant.
For these rea¡¡ons, as well, the County must prepare an EIR that
fully analyzes theProject's potential GHG impacts, circulate the
EIR for public cornment and othenrise comply
witfr aU of CBQ¡,'s substantive and procedural requirements
applicable to EIRs prior toconsidering the Project for
approval.
In summary, for the reasons stated above, the Application is
untimely, there is substantial
evidence supporting a fair argument that the hoject could have
significant impacts on theenvironmenCand the Negative Declaration
lacks substantial evidence supporting its conclusions
that the Project's impact witl Ue less than significant and that
the elimination of prior mitigæionmear¡ures will have iess than
significant impacts. The County must prepare an EIRthat
fullyanalyznsthe Projept's potential impacts, circulate the EIR for
public comment and othen¡vise
ro-ily with all ôf CBQn's substantive and procedural
requirements applicable to EIRs prior toconsidering the Projeot for
approval.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIST & RUTIERProfessional
Of the FirmACN:djEnclosures
Supervisor Linda Parks, Supenrisor, Second District il Encls. -
Via Federal ExpressMs. Melissa Baron w/o Encls.
3 14586_3.DOC/5 I I 8.00 I
co:
-
Melissa Baron566 S. Ventu Park Road
Newbury Park, CA 91320
August 22,20t2
Ms. Kristina RoodsariCase PlannerCounty of VenturaRMA-PIanning
Division L #I7 40800 S. Victoria AvenueVentura, CA93009-1740
t.r-,,- '',=i: '.r ir' , lLi,)l.i4:.: , _!. i- -I
Re: Case No. LU09-0ls8/Negative Declaration
Dear Ms, Roodsari:
I own the property located ât 566 South Ventu Park Road. My
property ls located onthe private segment of South Ventu Park
Road/Ventu Park Flre Road('SVPR/VPFR"), whlch sentes as the access
road for the cell towers cunentlyfnstalled on Rasnow Peak, I am
writing to express rny opposltion to the above-referenced proposed
Minor Modification of Conditional Use Permtt No. 4577("Profecl'),
submitted by applicants Harmon and Eleanor Rasnow
("Applicants"J.Thls letter will serve as my comment on the Negative
Declaration prepared by theCounty of Ventura ("County"), which
analyzes the environmental impacts of thatProject. For your
reference, I am attaching a number of documents as exhibits to
thisletter, together wlth an index.
This letter is provlded along wÍth a letter from my legal
counsel, Gllchrist & Rutter,Professional Corporation. My legal
counsel's letter focuses upon the many defects ofthe Negative
Declaratlon. My letter focuses on the historical aspects of
theAppllcants' performance under the permits and the proposal under
the NegativeDeclaration to eliminate the Transportation/Girculation
mitigation rneasuresimposed on the Applicants when the permit was
originally issued in 1990.
Please note that references to Exhibits are to the Exhlblts
submitted with this letter,and listed on the atrached Exhibit
Index.
t
-
PERSPECTIVEs. VENTU PARK ROAD/VENTU PARKFIRE ROAD
The area ofVentu Park dates to the earliest cabins ofthe 1920s
built sparsely on themountain-side, each ratìer indiscriminately
placed on.parcels that preceded theCounty of Ventura initial zoning
ordinances and uniform building codes of 1947.
Rasnow Peak is on the ridgeline above Ventu Park. ln order to
arrive there, onemust drlve SVPR/VPFR, a slngle lane and no extt
road (other than an emergency fireroad on the opposite slde of the
mountain than SVPR/VPFR). Likewise in exÍting,one must leave via
the same one-lane road. To be clear, all traffic ascending
mustdescend the same road, a round.trlp travel usage ofthe
road.
Ihe use of SVPR/VPFR wlthout a proper and properly
monltored'maintenanceprogram is problematic. There are multiple
enterprises atop Rasnow Peak, and oneroad ls used for access and
egress forthese business operations. The road is notunder the sole
ownership of the Applicants, but is shared in ownership with 9
otherroad owners wlth homes along the road and an undetermined
number of roadowner.s who have vacant land that abut the road.
All nine hornes on SVPR/VPFR below the Applicants'gate have an
unoffìcialneighborhood watch, jolned in some interests, but one
most signlflcantly ... lhe road.
As aptly described bythe County of Ventura on March 14, 1988,
Errata Sheets tbrDraft EIR for CUP-4411, Traffic Assessment
"Existing Conditions" [Ex. 1],SVPR/VPFR is
"rather steep, winding [see Ex. 2], ln poor condition [Ex. 3]
andpartlally surfaced [E t 41,'
In addition, there is a bllnd curve [Ex. 5] on SVPR/VPFR, and
there is an adjacentmountainslde that is a priorÌty concern for the
Ventura County Fire ProtectlonDistrict Now, some 24 yeats after
road owners voiced Eheir concerns at the time ofthe Applicants'
first CUP, the same concerns still exfst, but have now
exacerbateddue to poor maintenance and repair, the lack of
implemerìtaLion of the traffic andcirculation mitigation measures
and a failure by the County to monitor theApplicants'
performance,
2
-
COUNTY MEASURES TO PROTECT THEHEALTH, SAFETYAND PROPERTY OF THE
ROAD OWNERS
The County records relating to the current application for
CUP-4577 provide thehistory of Applicants'past CUP documentetion.
However, to bring into perspective
the updated rhetoric, lt is important to understand that when
they obhined theirinitial permit, the Applicants became solely
responslble for developing andmaintalning SVPR/VPFR in an
appropriate condttlon as a mttigatlon measure andthat the County
was responsible for enforcing that mitigation measure:
"The Final EIR for CUP-4411 [Ex. 6.1] identifle¡! a
-eafficlmpacl¡ndLdc¡gEed-rnit¡gÈtign-ErcêEufeË...The
permittee...will assume soleresponsibllity for carrying out the
proposed implementationmeasures to the satisfaction of the County
ofVentura...lmplementation of the above mitigation measures must
beaccepted by the Planning Director prlor to the issuance of
ZonlngClearance for any new permils ...." [Ernphasis added](Exhibit
6.3, Addendum No. 2 to Final EIR for CUP-4411, III(B).)
Applicants chose Option 2, [Ex. 6.3,p.7]
The Department of Public Works stated in Addendum'No, 2 to the
Final EIRfor CUP-4417,p.6, [Ex 6.3, p.6]
"The private access road will be developed in accordance with
FireDepartments Prlvate Road Guidelines."
and
"The cumulative effect of trips to all communications facilities
onRasnow Peak l¡ havlng an lmpact on the privately owned portionof
Soutlr Ventu Park Road." [Emphasis added]
Although CUP-44tLwas denied, tbe 1988 EIR and lts addenda were
used asthe EIR for the later application. Applicants submftted an
application forCUP-4501, which was ultimately granted in fune 1990.
The Section C lnltialStudy Checkllst for CUP-4501 [Ex. 6.4], pp.
2-3 reiterates the requirementsand implementãtion of the mitigation
measures referenced in the 1988 EIRfor "q¡¡¡ new permits .,.." It
goes on to say,
"With the fmplementåtion of these mltlgation measures, no
significantcumulative Ímpacts upon the private portion of South
Ventu ParkRoad should occur."
It can, therefore, also be said that wftlroutthe implementatfon
of the above,signlficant cumulative impacts would occur,
3
-
a)b)c)d)
Owners of SVPR/VPFR received a Notice of a Planning Director
PublÍc Hearlng onfanuary 25,20L1, regarding the Appllcants'
requested CUP 4577.The Countysubmitted Ventura Planning Director
and Staff Report and Recommendations [Ex.71, which were fn error
factually. The document restates the May 1988 EIRrequlrements and
states that a required mitlgation measure was to "establish
arideshare program between homeowners and other sellce vehicle
operators". [Ex.7,p.51
However, in reviewing the fune 1990 County of Ventura Approval
Letter [Ex. 8.2, p,6 B (25)1, it ¡s SPECIFIC as to the prlvate road
portion of SVPR/VPFR requirementsimposed upon Applicants, and a
rldeshare program was not one of them, However,the Applicants'
compulsory mitigation measures were:
a roadway mafntenance program;signage and other means of
policing the road;a controlled gate; andspeed bumps, mirrors or
other means of policing the road.
There is yet another lnaccurary in restating the May 1988 EIR
requirements [Ex. 6.1,f 17J. A controlled gate "to reduce
cumulative traffic impacts along Vennr ParkRoad" was a mitigation
measure. However, tle placement by the Applicants of a
gatebordering their property, to beneflt them along was not the
intent of EIR, and
il_d_idrìglspcci&.:et-tLe-en@qce--tg-theRasno¡¿Egpef
-qflasindicatedinthef anuary25,2011 County documentation [Ex.
7,p.5f.
The purpose of a gate was to reduce unwanted traffic for all the
residents ofSVPRÆPFR; that could onþ have occurred if the gate were
located at the entranceto the prlvate road. Now, however, with the
gate placed at the entrance to theRasnowproperty, any unwanted
traffic travels the enrire length of the private roadto the
Applicants'gate. Their securlty guard booms through tlre speaker
systemnegotiating entrance witÀ the person Ín the vehicle whose
englne continues to run,creatf ng unnecessâry noise and air quality
impacts on the residents at that end ofthe road.
Likewiss tlre signage reflected in Ex, 6,1 (Final EIR CUP
44Ll),118 was lntended tobenefit all residents along SVPR/VPFR by
deterring unwanted traffic and waywardhikers. However, tlat
bene,fìt now fs enjoyed by the Applicants, alone,
TheApplicants'interpretatlon regarding the installatlon of a
controlled gate and signagebenefits only the ApplÍcants and their
property, At the same time, they and theircustomers continue to
use, for commercial purposes, the private road that belongingto
otlers, which use is necessary in order for Appllcants to perform
their businessenterprises, and yet the Applicants conHnue to fail
to comply with their county-mandated obligations to properly
maintaln and repair that same road, and prevententrance to unwanted
traffìc and hikers.
+
-
The last paragraph of E¡
-
mitigatíon measures and conditlons, and attempt to distance the
Counly from themoniloring requirements set forth ln the 1990
Approval Letter [Ex. 8.2].
The 1990 approval language is quite differentthan that of
today's PlanningDepartmenb which has chosen to relnterpret the 1990
Approval Letter to includemeasures more convenfentto the County and
the Applicants. There was a momentof hope related to Exhibit
9.7,which is an email dated February 22,20Ll,inwhichPlanner
Roodsari admitted that the County had required that a
roadwaymaintenance plan be completed by Applicants, but that lt had
not been completed.The email then went on to say,
nBased on the Public Works Agenry TransportaÈion
Divisionprofessional Ínterpretation of what constitutes a
roadwaymaintenance plan currently, tlris includes resurfacing the
road, flxingpotholes, etc. The condition for the subject modiñcaHon
has beenrevised Èo reflect this clarification. Thereforg the
private portfon of S.Ventu Park must be improved to through a
roadway maÍntenanceplan, whlch includes resurfacing tlre road
fixing potholes, etc,
To ensure Compllance with the mitigation measures and
permitconditíons for the subject project, the project has been
conditloned torequire that the applicant set up a conditfon
compliance monitoringaccount. This wilì allow the Planning
Department to conduct a fullrevlew of the proJect lncluding
compliance with the project'scondltlons, several times throughout
the life of the permit. The AccessRoads improvements
condition...has been revised to require thatdocumentation of the
road improvements, in the form of color photosand receipts be
submitted to the County every two years during thelife of the
perrnit to ensure that the maintenance work is
performedregularly,"
After this email, you wfll not find thÍs compliance language in
any CountydocumenÈation related to CUP-4577. The assurance was only
presented in an email,The County of Ventura would like to use the
road, yet absolve ltself from anyresponsibility.
The County was .to perform a monitoring program, paid for by the
Applicants, ttrinsure that the Applicants dld their job. Apparentl¡
when Ex, 8.2 was created, thecounty had the foreslght to belleve
that without a county monitoring system,Applicants would not
perform, or would minlmally perform,
"(d.) THE RESULTS OF THE MONTTORINC PROGRAM "$HA*tL[EMPHASIS
ADDED] BE REPORTED TO THE VENTURA COUNTYPLANNING DTVISION, WHICH
WILI BE RESPONSIBI,E FORMAINTAINING THE CORTESE REPORTING FIIES...
(3) The appticant'sfull compliance ,.. will be reviewed and
approved by.,. dre Resource
6
-
Management Agency, and as such, will satisfy the proposed
mÍtigationmeasure."
[Ex.8.2, p. 6 (emphasis added)]
The County relies on a 1988 EIR, an EIR that dates back 24years
and notes thatthere have been no significant changes since that
timq though there are moreresidents both below and above lhe
ApplÍcantl gate, and new business enterprises,both commercial and
charltable and orBanlzational meetlngs, atop Râsnow PeakCertalnly
over those 24years,without proper maintenance and repair, the road
lsno better. The reason is simple, KnowingthaE the County was not
monitoring theiractions, the Applicants performed poorly and
minímally any malntenance below theApplicants' gate. Presumably,
not once in 20 plus years has the County monitoredthe Applicants'
performance of the mitigation meesures. After all these years andno
monltorlng, one must asktlte question, howhas the County acqulred
ltsínformatÍon to create the reports tbatsubstandatetlre Negatlve
Declarationand previous reports? A possible answer could be that
other than usingregurgitated material from24 years of CUP
applicadons, the County has used thedocumentation created ancl
provid ed by Applicants.
Imagfne my surprisg after ieviewing the suppordng documentation
for theupcoming hearing on the "Notice of Availability of and
Intent to AdoptNegatlveDeclaration" [Ex. 10], when I saw that the
miügation measures initiated in theorigÍnal CUP:4411 and related
1988 EIR and addenda relied upon for all CUPapplications to-date,
and discussed at lengh lastyoar between private SVPR/VPFRroad
owners, Applicants'representatives and the County of Ventura, had
beenstricken in their entlrety. All of them, every last sentence,
have vanished from allcurrent substanciating documentation for
CIIP-4S77, even after an email from theCounty with the assurance
that these rneasures had been wrltten jn to protect theroad owners.
[Ex.9.7]
Thereforg some?Z years after the County's 1990 Approval Letteç
the mitigationmeasures have never been properly implemented and are
now belng suggested forelimination fn connectlon with the issuance
oÍ CIJP-4577. This ls not only a travesty,but unconsclonable and
conlínu es a Z4-year course of neglect toward the privateroad
owners by deliberately ignoring the requÍrements and agreements
that arespecifÌc to implementation, maintenance, repalr and
monitoring of SVPR/VPFR incohnection with the existing permits.
APPIICANTS' FAILURE TO TMPTEMENT MITTGATION MEASURES,
I am a proponent of buslness enterprise, and understand that
certalnresponsibilfties and expense travels wlth a commerclal
endeavor. Presumably, thecommercial lnvestrnent of cornmunicatlon
towers atop Rasnow Peak of at least 24years ls oneworth the expense
of legal counsel, consulÈants, the permltting process
7
-
and liabilities. Likewlse, seemingly this type of venture also
merits the same by theCounty of Ventura in its need for use of
these communication facilities.
Poor maintenance and repair of the prÍvate road over a 20 plus
year period has ledto a cumulative effect of wear, tear and
dlsintegration, There are more Rasnowcustomers now and more planned
for the future. There are more licensees/enterprises and workers
atop Rasnow Pealç and more homes below and above thegate,
As nored above under'COUNTY MEASURÉS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH,
SAFETYAND PROPERTY 0F ROAD OWNERS," the Appllctnts themselyes chose
to be solelyresponsiblo for the rnaintenance and repair of the
road. It was antlcipated, even atthat tlme, that the Appllcants'
bustness enterprise would grow, increase over timeand wtth it
certain issues concerning traffic irnpact.
"There is potential for an addition to the cumulative traffic
impactsexperienced by the share-users of South Ventu Park Road
(privateportion)."(Addendum No. 1 to the Final EIR for CUP-4411
18x.6.2,lll(a)1,)
As a result of the County of Ventura Planning Director and
StaffReport andRecommendations Hearlng on fanuary
25,20L1[Ex.7l,three meetings were heldwherein SVPR/VPFR owners
[E:r-17.3|expressed each of their concerns [expandedupon in detall
ln this letter) to representatives of the Appllcants. Over a perlod
of acouple of months, the private road owners tried to understand
the nature of theroad issues and resolve them amongst themselves,
The result of the meetlngs wasdisappointlng for them, Beforq
in-between and after these meetlngs, various roadowners
communlcated dlrectly with both Planner lftistina Roodsari and
DanlelKlemann (atthe fime was the Manager of the Commercial and
Industrial PermltSectionJ, the detailed nature of their concerns
for past poor performance inmaintenance and repair of private
SVPR/VPF& the non-lmplementation of therequislte mitigation
measures, the failure of the County of Ventura to moniùor
theperformance of the applicants and the status of the multiple
meetings [Exs.9,collectivelyl.
The CUP process was delayed in order for the Planning Director
to have"sufficient tirne to consider the new information regardfng
the current traffìcconditions of the road' [Ex. 19.1 (emphasis
added)]. Applicanrs'representatives have claimed that because they
no longer have lessees, butlicensees, they cannot recoup
expenditures they make toward rhe miilgationmeasures; additionally,
they claim that, because the road was materiallyalrered during the
construcdon of two honles on the paved portlon of theroad, the
Applicants' responsibitlty to midgation measures as been
absolved[Exs. 18.1 and 18.2]. Therefore, this combined wlth the
pubtic commentconcerns was the rationale for the County to posþone
a decislon IFj,t,19,Zl,
I
-
Bluntly, ft appears that the Appltcants do not want to pay for
the business exPensesregardlng SVPR/VPFR required to keep their
enterprise in operation; they wouldlike others to incur that cost.
It has taken 24 years to bring to a head the failure ofthe
Applicants to comply with the mitigatÌon required from the original
CUP-4411documentation in 1988, in the 1990 Approval Letter and
referenced and relied uponby both the Appllcants'and the County in
each further CUP documentadon andcorrespondence to date.
ln the year and a half slnce the prlvate road owners brought
thelr concerns to light,there still has been minimal maintenance
and the road remains in "poor condition.'If there ever was a tlme
to prove the Applicants' "good intent" this last year wouldhave
been opportune, a momentto shine while under scrutiny.
TheAppllcants håvenot, which leaves little doubt as to whether they
will maintaln the road òver the next8-10 years of the permit term.
ln fact the omission of the mitigation measures fromthe recent CUP
documentatÍon Ieaves the Applicants without responsibility
towardany maintenance, repair and improvement otler than the
respon.sibility they mighthave as any other road owner between 553
to 1000 WPRÆPFR.
If the appllcants have no responsfbility for maintenance, repair
and improvement ofthe road, the County of Ventura has nothing to
monftor. Consequently, without thepresence of the existing and
perhaps stronger mitigation measures, there will be nolegal way to
insure that the Applicants perform any malntenance or road
reparationother than through a costly civil suit.
The Applicants benefÌt financ-ially ftom the continuÍng use of a
one way, no exiù,single-lane road that leads to and from their
buslness enterprlses. The County ofVentura benefits wlth
communicatlons facilitfes atop Rasnow Pealç whÍch beneñtsthe
communlty at-large. How do the SVPR/VPFR owners benefit? They do
NOT, Infact, traffÌc traverses and damages their property on the
sole road leadÍng to andfrom the multiple buslness enterprises at
the top. The County agencles andcustomers of the Appllcants have
been and will continue to be allowed to use theroad and not
contribute toward its rnaintenance/repair, and the Applicants
havebeen and will contirtue to collect revenue without paying for
the maintenance,repair and improvement forthe deterioration of the
private road.
However, whatthe SVPR/VPFR road owners, below the
Applicants'gate, endure is:
the aftermath of floating dust from the cars on the dirt portion
[Ex 11][Despfte the mitigation measures imposed on the Appllcants,
it is obvlousthat County monitoring of SVPR/VPFR has not been
performed (let alonereported) in the last 10 years or they would
have observed the floating dustturbulence each time a vehlcle
passes up or down the road on a non-wet day,regardless of whether
lt is the dirt road portJon or the paved section. TheCounty must
belf eve that dust particles landlng ln the resldents lungs,
ontheÍr bodies, on their vehicles, and coatlng the exterlor and in
the interlor of
L,
9
-
2.
their homes is the norm and harmless; and that impaired vislon
due to thedust flurries is safe.];
speeding cars traveling uphill, downhlll and around a blind
curve [Ex. 12].[The same dangerous condltlon as was noted in the
19BB EIR Errata (Ex. 1)contlnues; cars (more cars slnce that report
24years ago) drive at excesslvespeed both rip and down without one
speed bump on the prlvate SVPR/VPFRto slowthem down, Speed bumps
were a required mitigating measure 24years ago; they were not
lnstalletl, and they do not exlst today, TechnÍcianswho work the
communicatÍons facilitles have no vested interest in the road,They
care about gettlng to the tower quicldy and leaving even more
quickly,Despite the yells of neighbors to 'SL0W DOWN' and
previously calls to theApplicants' compound, speeding
continues.]
flying gravel churned from the poor maintenance of the dlrt road
portion,which dings cars and lands on the paved portion
contributlng to thecontinuing disintegration of tle paved road [Ex.
13].[The improper maintenance creates large size gravel and small
rocks, whichtravel downhill. They ding parked and passing cars,
ultimately resting in bulkalong the roadway of the first houses of
pavement downhlll from the dlrtroad. These rocks are ground along
the pavement as vehicles pass over them,and this further
disintegrates the road pavement.]
protrudlnB rocks and divols on the dirt portion, a result of
poor gradinglEx.14l.[Improper maintenance produces large projectile
rocks f utting out of the dirtportion the dirt portion, and
depressions in other areas. The travel up anddown bounces the
vehlcles drivlng atop, whlch adds to the disintegration ofthe dirt
road and vehicle damage.l
wash-boarding on the dirt portion [Ex. 15].flmproper maintenance
and grading creates wash-boarding of the road.Vehicles going uphill
build up speed before entering the dirt portion and thenas they hit
üe dirÇ the drivers "gun their engines." When the wheels
don'tcatch, they spin, creating dust and more noise. 0n the
downhill route, speedbuilds and there is mlnimal traction to stop,
Frequently, one hears thedragging sound of wheels spinning and a
car having a difficult time trying toslow down or stop,]
a road in dangerous condldon for any type of travel, let alone
as an exitin case of flre [all exhlbits, supre, and Ex, 76 and 17
.21,[The Venn: Park fire zone has burned in varlous areas
approximately every20 years since 1955. In 1993, the tìre burned
across the lop ofthe ridge anddestroyed a significant portion of
the Appllcants' properfy. It is now almost20 years since ùhe last
flre, The majortty of the shrub on tle hillside servicedby
SVPR/VPFR has not burned ln more than 50 years, It is on
Ventura
3.
4,
5.
6.
10
-
Count¡y's list of priorlty concerns. The road is the sole
ingress and egress forresidents and workers using SVPR/VPFR'I
A review of a topographical map [Þ