Quarry owner Larry Mosler and county regulators are moving toward a resolution that could allow his rock mine north of Ojai to stay in business.
Planning officials proposed revoking Mosler's permit to operate the rock mine off Highway 33 last fall, alleging shortcomings in his plan for reclaiming the mine and the financial assurance to pay for cleanup.
Planning Director Kim Prillhart said she expected Mosler to post the required financial document today. She said the reclamation plan should be "in pretty good shape," before a scheduled revocation hearing Thursday before the Planning Commission.
If everything is in order, Prillhart said, she would recommend that the county Planning Commission continue the hearing for 90 days.
Mosler's attorney, Derek Cole, said he hoped the resolution with the county would allow Mosler Rock-Ojai Quarry to get back on a state list of mines approved to sell rock for publicly funded projects.
"(The quarry) has not been able to sell rock for nearly two months," Cole said.
The quarry has basically been shut down since the start of the year because of the loss, he added.
Commissioners have repeatedly urged planning staff members and Mosler to try for an agreement. In her letter to the commission, Prillhart said Mosler had worked diligently with state and county regulators to meet rules governing the business.
The hearing is scheduled at 8:30 a.m. Thursday at the Board of Supervisors hearing room at the Hall of Administration in the County Government Center, 800 S. Victoria Ave. in Ventura.
Sharing a love for music
720,000 ladybugs released
Sheriff trainees put to the ...
Boy Scouts treat mothers to ...
Musician takes iTunes by storm
Sculptures come to life
Ventura County's Most Wanted May 17th
Solar spectacle
TEA Party rallies voters for elections
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 8
Strawdog writes:
Mosler may feel that he's done everything that's been asked of him and the rules keep changing, but the fact is that the submittals for the project have been inadequate, and the County has an obligation to enforce regulations. Mr. Mosley may have also been poorly served by consultants working on his project, but it's still his project and his responsibilty to comply. Unfortunately, Ventura County is overrun with facilitators, and advocates posing as technical experts that subvert the process.
Bongo writes:
So you are saying the planning commisions regulations are crystal clear and that any misinterpretation is the fault of Mosler and whomever he has hired to read them mfor him.
I am not familiar with those regulations but I am familiar with the City Planning and Permiting and I can tell you that it isnt the case for building permits.
I suppose you could be right but my expeirience with government says you are probably wrong. You could be right though.....and of course my presumptions could be wrong but I doubt it...
Strawdog writes:
I'm saying the regulations are easy to decifer, at least by professionals, and relatively easy to comply with. Problem is, not everyone wants to comply and there are lots of facilitators working political magic to get CUPs modified and approved..regardless of past or current violations. I'm also saying that some consultants knowingly submit inadequate and/or misleading documents to the County and other agencies to avoid dealing with conditions their client's project is or may be creating. Mosler is a small fish, but the process is the same all the way up the ladder.
Bongo writes:
Seems as though the cost of reclamatuion has plenty of room for subjective judgment. What was deemed to cost 25,000 several years ago now is suddenly deemed to cost 2.85 million by a new employee. Also earlier article blames supervisor Steve Bennet and the Ojai "stop the Trucks" foundation. Strawdog, I think there is more to it than you know.
Read this:
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/oct/2...
Closing this mine and trucking mine material from farther away will ultimatly increase trucking costs, burn more fuel, and raise our "carbon footprint". Very ungreen of them. Being emotional though Im sure they havent thought that far ahead. They just hate trucks and mines.
This article doesnt say why the sudden about face with the authorities but I given Star pro government reporting Im sure it isnt flattering.
Strawdog writes:
Not relying on Star articles, and not commenting on the need for the project. Just commenting on the way shady consultants ooze their way onto planning commissions and through local government to get projects approved without complete and accurate review of impacts. It is true that the County has been lax and even incompetent in their oversight of this and many other projects, but at some point you have to say enough is enough and not repeat past "mistakes"...
Bongo writes:
Mosler, his employees, his customers, and his lawyer would certainly like to know if this over 10,000 percent increase imposed by the commision to 2.85 million isnt just another sad mistake in a long line of sad mistakes..
Strawdog writes:
I think your passion is misplaced and I have to assume you are among the crew of "victims" noted above. But if you want to know where the "mistakes" start...they start with an incompetent consultant - often an engineer with no training or experience in the matter at hand - who is politically connected, ethically challenged and often working for an attorney. The attorney/consultant shops around for someone who will sign off on whatever nonsense they wish to present and when the find what they are looking for they present it to the County. If County staff objects, the politically conected attorney/consultant goes above staff to the head of the department and gets pressure applied to the obstinent staff...and that's when the magic happens. In Mosler's case, it was probably a gross underestimation actual impacts delivered in in an unitelligible format based on idealized conidtions that did not reflect reality...such as mining outside of permit boundaries and below permitted depths. All this may be okay in some places, but when conflicts arise such as public safety, encroachment on neighboring properties, etc. you have to take a closer look at what's going on.
Moonlighting writes:
The Financial Bond that the Quarry is going to be required to put up is not the $3 million the owners have been throwing around to con the public into having sympathy and support. In fact it is only about $250k.
And I agree with much of what has been stated above. You have an owner who just doesn't want to comply with the rules and laws that govern his industry.
It's a bit like having a guy who wants to always drive the wrong way on a one way street because its the shortest way to get from here to there despite the fact it endangers others.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.