The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutATTACHMENT C• • El • r . x . i z n entered the upper reaches of this slough and during large floods may do so again. Peak flows in this slough are associated with peak flows in the Sacramento River and apparently are more rare than M&T weir overflows. As was stated in Section 4.4.2, peak flows in the Sacramento River typically lag those in Little Chico Creek by a day or more, nonetheless, there is a- possibility that, if the project is constructed, that coincident high flows could exacerbate flooding of River Road in the impact area identified above. Although it is difficult to assess, there is the possibility that providing 100 -year flood protection to the operations and stockpile areas could marginally increase flood depths in the adjoining Sacramento River floodplain for extremely large floods with recurrence intervals of 100 years, or greater. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-4b, which would eliminate the distributary from entering the proposed pit area would increase the depth and frequency of localized flooding which would affect the Jones' parcel. Elimination of the distributary is needed to protect the quality of water in the created lake from routine, overflows from Little Chico Creek. Restricting all flows to the main channel will increase flow depths. Mitigation Measures The following measures, adopted from NorthStar Engineering's report will be implemented to mitigate flooding impacts created by providing 100 -year flood protection to operations area and by providing ten-year flood protection to the created lake through blocking off of the existing distributary. These measures mitigate impacts associated with increased flooding on River Road, flooding of the Jones' parcel, and possible impacts to the Sacramento River floodplain. Mitigation Measure 4.4-7a: Applicant shall remove the existing levee on the east side of Little Chico Creek and replace it with setback levees at the same elevation. A by-pass channel will be constructed to convey flows overtopping the new setback levees back to the creek through new, larger culverts. Plans shall be approved by Butte County prior to construction. This measure will increase the floodway width which will decrease the 50 -year flood depth by 0.6 feet (NorthStar Engineering, 2002) and with its implementation, it is expected .that there will be no impact on flooding in the Sacramento River floodplain. Mitigation Measure 4.4-7b: Applicant shall enter into an agreement with Butte County to either construct or fund the costs of raising the existing low water crossing on River Road near the gas well site by up to three feet and installing larger culverts. Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c: Applicant shall install a bypass cnannel to convey flows formerly conveyed by the distributary channel around the proposed pit area. The overflow weir and adjoining bypass channel will be designed such that elimination of the distributary will not result in increased flooding depths or M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project Draft EIR 4.4-75 duration on the Jones' parcel. The bypass channel shall maximize, to the extent possible, use of native plant materials in the design to control erosion. Plans shall be approved -by. Butte County prior to construction. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Proposed Project Without Batch Plants Scenario Placement of dikes or fill within the processing area to raise it above the 100 - year floodplain elevation could result in some increase in the _ frequency of flooding of River Road. Elimination of the existing distributary at the north end of the proposed pit for groundwater quality protection could result in increased .flooding of the Jones' parcel. These are potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures The implementation of this scenario would result in the same impact from flooding as the With Batch Plants Scenario. No new Mitigation Measures beyond measure 4.4-7a through 4.4-7c are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 4.4-8: Floodwater Storage and Groundwater Recharge Proposed Project With Batch Plants Scenario Creation of the proposed pit will result, at the end of operations, in approximately 1,000 acre-feet of available floodwater storage and the same amount of potential groundwater recharge. This will be a sustained beneficial impact. Each. acre of mining is expected to create approximately five acre-feet of available floodwater storage., since the average seasonal high water level is approximately five feet below the surface. During floods, water can flow into the pit up to the same elevation of the floodwater. Mitigation Measures 4.4-4-b and 4.4-4c provide approximately ten-year flood protection for the created lake from overflows of Little Chico Creek and from local agricultural runoff. But for flows in Little Chico Creek exceeding approximately 2,000 cfs, or for flooding from the Sacramento River which yields equivalent flood stages, floodwaters will flow into the pit. This mechanism can serve to reduce flood depths. For example, for the 10 years of available record, the instantaneous peak flow in Little Chico Creek of March 9, 1995, was 2,330 cfs, which was the third largest flow recorded to date. The mean daily flow for that :day was 1,290 cfs. Since 1 cfs creates a volume of water of approximately two acre-feet over 24 hours, the maximum available flood storage could reduce floodwater elevations for overflows equivalent to 500 cfs for a one day period. This storage of flood flows can abate the extent or duration of flooding in the vicinity of the created lake. The actual extent of the drop in the floodwater M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project Draft E]R 4.4-76 December 7, 2006 Dear Mr. Nelson, I am writing you for two reasons — first of all because you are chairman of the Planning Commission and secondly because you seemed to be very interested in getting all the facts about the proposed M&T-Baldwin mine project. Because of that, I'm hoping that you might be willing to talk to Jim Pompy at the Department of Conservation to find out for yourself if the DOC is indeed satisfied with the EIR and reclamation plan for the M & T Ranch Mine project. Mr. Pompy is the manager of the Mine Reclamation Unit there, and the last few times that the Department of Conservation has commented on the reclamation plan for the proposed gravel mine, Mr. Pompy is the one who has signed the letter. Before the last Planning Commission meeting I sent a letter to you and the other members stating that Dan Breedon had told me that the DOC was now satisfied with the EIR and reclamation plan for this project. I said that since I found this hard to believe I had called the DOC and talked with Mr. Pompy who told me that the Department of Conservation was not okay with either the EIR or the reclamation plan. He said I could quote him and that, "if they haven't received something in writing from us saying that we are okay with this plan then our comments about the reclamation plan stand as stated." After talking with Mr. Pompy, 1 could not believe it when Pete Calarco stated at the November 30th meeting that the DOC was now satisfied with the reclamation plan and that the Office of Mine Reclamation had okayed the plan over the phone. Then the comment was made by someone for Baldwin (I believe it was their attorney) that if the DOC has a problem with the plan they will tell you in writing, but if they are okay with the plan they will tell you verbally. Mr. Nelson, this is just not true, and I believe that this is not the first time that the Planning Division has been misleading. Before the Land Conservation Act committee met back in February to decide if the M & T Ranch should be allowed out of their Williamson Act contract, the Planning Division sent a memo to the LCAC filled with glowing comments about how great this project would be for Butte County and also telling them that the soils in the project site were not prime. Given this information the LCAC voted a motion of intent to allow Baldwin out of their contract. Of course, no one who opposed the project was at this LCAC meeting because we weren't even told that it was happening. The Planning Division should have realized that we would have wanted to come to this meeting but they chose not to let us know. We just happened to find out about it "through the grapevine". This is what 1 am trying to tell you: The Planning Division seems to be doing everything in their power to make this whole project fly, apparently even being willing to distort the facts. After the February LCAC meeting I contacted Dan Breedon and asked him how the Planning Division could make that statement about the soils to the LCAC. He said that the EIR stated that the soils were non -prime so they were just quoting that information. I reminded him that the NRCS, the DOC and the County Assessor all agreed that this was prime farmland. I Rt(PUTTE t . COUNTY DEC 0 8 2005 DEVELOPAMT SERVICES mentioned that, as he knows, it is the NRCS that makes the final determination as to whether or not this land is prime as far as the Williamson Act is concerned, not the guy who wrote the EIR. However, even if the Planning Division wanted to quote the EIR, they could have been more accurate if they had given the LCAC all the information in the paragraph about the soil classification on page 4.3-20 — not just the one sentence that left the LCAC members with the illusion that this was non -prime land for Williamson Act purposes. The Planning Division could have told the LCAC that the EIR also stated that the Assessor does consider the entire M&T to be prime under Williamson Act criteria. The Assessor clearly disagreed with the EIR findings about whether these soils are prime or not. So before their April meeting, I wrote a letter to the LCAC members telling them the truth about the soils as well as some other pertinent information about the project. I wish you could have seen their reaction. One of the first questions Joe Connell asked was, "Are these soils prime or not prime?" You could tell he was just stunned by this revelation that the soils had actually been determined to be prime by, not one, but several agencies. Once they realized that the soils were indeed prime and after some discussion, the LCAC did a complete about-face and voted to recommend that the M & T should not be allowed out of their Williamson Act contract. I called Mr. Pompy again this past Monday and told him what Pete Calarco had said at the meeting, and I asked him if he could write the Planning Commission a letter telling the truth but he said he couldn't. He said if they make any revisions to the reclamation plan then they can comment again but unless they ask for a comment they won't make one. So 1 went on to tell him that there had been revisions to the reclamation plan. Initially in the EIR they stated that the 1500 foot weir would be topped by a 10 -year flood,. but when the actual engineering was done only a 200 -foot section of it would be topped by a 10 -year flood and the rest only by a 50 - year flood. He reiterated that all major design changes should have been presented to the DOC for review. However, the redesigned weir, which was engineered after the DOC made their final comments, was never reviewed by them. Well, Mr. Nelson that's the predicament I'm in. Right now it's just my word against the word of the Planning Division. I realize that the Planning Commission members don't really have any reason to believe me, but if someone from the Planning Commission is willing to talk to Mr. Pompy at the DOC, you could find out for yourself the truth. That one phone might make the whole process of determining what is best in this matter a whole lot easier. Thank you so much for your time. I really do appreciate it. Ron Jones 3203 Hudson Avenue Chico, CA 95973 345-4286 Enclosures — A page from one of the DOC letters showing Mr. Pompy's phone number; and two pages from the Planning Division's memo to the LCAC about the soils sum MT DEC 08 20 DEVELOPAMT, SERVICES OFFICE OF NINE RECLAMATION :010KOSTREET MS 09-06 SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95814 PHONE .�.+-- 9,1 6.%.3 2 3_y .9_ 9 8j 7 FAX 916/322-4862 TOO 916/324-2555 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA June 10, 2004 P. JJ1A FAXEn- 1530) 533-7735 MblFIBMAAT7ON MAILED JUM 15 IDEVr 3.OYPY -I-EN I Mr. Dan Breedon SERVICE'S Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Dear Mr. Breedon: The Department of Conservation's Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) has INTERNET consrv.ca.gov reviewed the documents included for a reclamation plan for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine in conjunction with the relevant sections of the Draft EIR as ' 'referenced in the submittal.. We also reviewed the reclamation plan map A R N O L D and:operations:map,Aate stamped November 2003 by butte County. We S C H W A R 2 E N E G G E R previously ,commented on ;this project in letters •dated November ;18 2002 GOVERNOR and -October 22, 2'00'3.-',' The project will entail the establishment of a 70 -foot deep excavation and an aggregate processing site in a flood prone area along Little Chico Creek in Butte County on 235 -acres. The site will be reclaimed as open ground water pond and wetland wildlife habitat and is also intended to be used to recharge the groundwater.aquifer. The .Reclamation Plan uses the "Small Mine Prototype" format from the State Mining and Geology Board's website. The Small Mine Prototype is useful for very small operations (5 acres or less) in areas with negligible environmental issues. This format is not appropriate for a site of this size and complexity. Th -e -reclamation plan`is incomplete -and does not, meet the,minimum .� requi rner entstof„the; Surface Mihih u`and Reclamation Acfof 1975 I ? z (SMARA),(P,uklic�Resou esrCode Section 2710 et'seq) °and the State tY��•rk Y• Dy .. _. �Y i 4• -'�: e,. �. C,. '- "i.� • : xl. ; 4.,`. A, �R_ .�r^�� {'' � �� '� cis "�t -, rs V V V DEC -0.8 2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES E portion. of this land. On August 30, 1996 BCC'filed a use permit and reclamation plan application with the County to mine sand and gravel from approximately 235 acres of the Ranch. In September 2002 the County released the Draft EIR and • received the November 18, 2002 -comments from the Department of Conservation (DOC) stating that the proposed mining project was incompatible with the Williamson Act. On October 11, 2005, the applicant voluntarily submitted a Petition of Partial Cancellation (Attachment - B) for a 106 -acre portion of the land. In addition, Pac Trust filed a Notice of Partial Nonrenewal for the 106 acres to be cancelled (Attachment D). On November 28, 2005 DOC commented on the applicant's Petition for Partial Cancellation and concurred that the "consistency" findings required for cancellation could be met, (see page 3, DOC Letter, Attachment C). ` Butte County Process: _ The?`landowner's request'vlfor^partial-"catrcellation�is`:.tli&rcaddition.-to�yothereTland fuse entitlements b • rt.r Psi •1 ',•:•. -.. _ s eing requested�by�the.,applicant_y;.These.:,entitlements in6lude,,aporo�al ofia mining permit and reclamation plan, under a project EIR. The Land Conservation Act (LCA) Committee will review and assess only the request for immediate cancellation and will make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission will consider certification of the EIR and will take action on the' mining permit and reclamation plan applications. The Petition for Immediate Cancellation must be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. If the Planning. Commission's decision is appealed, then the entire entitlement «`paC. c ages al� ng with�'the •N ttcin r foe •Immediate •`Cancellation, will go before the Board of Supervisors for'`iiec isior%'�If no appeal'of Wi'Planning Commission's actions; -, Js .the Board will only take action on the—Petition .for Immediate., }.3 ! •i ",t tk f� 1'iY rY s?•[i t.,. y yt+ Cancellation, based on the LCA Comrrvttee s recommendatioris`sThe Draft Ella prepared •}"tut.�ff �1err !i>, i �r tf yrY,'slfyr ` foe, the prolect also assesses the tmmcdiatz• cancellation of tlxe Williamson Al contxact sr for environmental impacts pursuant fci` CEQA.. 2 ti,iy '..,..«:.... . . e` ?' -. ice' _ r f.t '. .,C..-Rai{,J,e ". • STATUS OF 'I AND' The •land proposed for cancellation consists of approximately 106.6 acres out of approximately 8,000 acres under the LCA Contract. , The land to 'be canceIled is located on,.Assessor's-?arcel.Numbers`("APN'):039-530'019,and 420. References to the Draft Elgin, this report µare, intended as- source of background �information.�^ The �County t. recognizes that the Planning Cginmission has=authority.to'consider'certification-of the EIR unider'CEQA`prior to acting ori the project. The subject property has a General Plane designation of Orchard and Field Crops and it is zoned Agricultural 40 -acre minimum. ` Attached -is, a Diagram Depicting the Nonrenewal and Partial Cancellation Parcels, which are adjacent to Little Chico Creek (Attachment E). Current Agricultural,Uses/Potential: The proposed cancellafion�is�locate i'In-az area generally consideredtobe productive � err ated farmland-, 10 sever, ; the cancellation gland itself is not irngated Due"to the E.. _fir 4 %r � � ( ?, ;unleveled and hummocky, terrain of the land, the- operator of'the agricultural' operation 7 ••- yt _ +ys _k" ,r. ;;s � a;'+. �N. v� I,� :sc- G.P6 � t �.: ik x ds„a; !".�.X ,, e r,.•t F^ !� r wa A '.';�s s Ti: "� ■ Butte County Depar74Ment Of D"e"velopment Services ■ r t •� , . _ . ' ■LCA Cttee M&T Ranch � Cancellafion (GANG 06 02)Qd Febniary 14;`2006 ° �G 1'1 ommi' ■ COVNTY Page'3 of 16 ■ .. DEC'0-8 2006 _ A` `, .. .. DEVEL♦0�P/1�1�lLNT SER ` ... l `i' i,l .. i.�.. _ie_ ., n.71 '«P.. . • s� .> . d d.,�!•. ..... 1. -n' re:T:y °' ... w <, ' n has considered this land to be less valuable than other lands on the M&T Chico Ranch. The -DRAFT EIR conducted ori the pioject concluded-that,"based-o_n an evaluation of the proi'ect s, oils; flooding freq a cy, cr`op�ecords_from pervious y_ears,and other data,-th 1 ite does not meet the: Williamson Act criteria for - ..prime farml-and". .Most of the project, and ali-of-the mining activities, would occur on un -graded land. The current uses on the site include infrequent dry -land safflower and wheat farming and a small, abandoned gravel barrow site. Aggregate Production Potential: Under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) (Cal. Pub. Resources § 2710 et seq.), the State Geologist/Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) is required to classify, based solely on geological factors, areas specified by the State Mining and Geology Board as areas that may contain one of the following: (1) Areas containing little or no mineral deposits. (2) Areas containing significant mineral deposits: (3) Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which requires further evaluation. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code'§ 2761(b).) The primary goal of this mineral classification is to ensure that the mineral resource potential of lands is recognized and considered before land -use decisions that could preclude mining are made. In 2000, the SMGB approved a petition by KRC Holdings, Inc., and ordered DMG to assess and classify mineral resources on the M&T Chico Ranch; including the land to be cancelled (Attachment 5, DMG Open -File Report 2000- 04, Mineral Land Classification of the KRC Holdings Inc. M&T Chico Ranch Site, Butte County, California, for Construction Aggregate Resources). The DMG classifies the land based on its value to the region as an aggregate resource. DMG evaluates the deposit and its suitability as a marketable commodity based on available tonnage, volume, and quality of the resource. The DMG concluded that, with appropriate processing, the aggregate reserve on the M&T Chico Ranch is a significant mineral reserve, and therefore, the DMG classified the property MRZ-2a. The MRZ-2a classification is defined under state regulations as follows: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 is divided into MRZ-2a and MRZ-2b on the basis of degree of knowledge and economic factors. Areas classified MRZ-2a contain discovered mineral deposits that are either measured or indicated reserves as determined by such evidence as drilling records, sample analysis, surface exposure, and mine information. Land included in MRZ-2a is of prime importance because it contains known economic mineral deposits. 0 Butte County. Department Of Development Services ■ LCA Committee — M&T Ranch Cancellation (CANC 06-02)® February 14, 2006 B i-ri-s ■ Page 4 of 16 ® CO.UN'1'y DEC 0.8-ZQQ6 DEVELOPNVM SERVICES ADDRESS TO PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2007 BY M. PHILLIPS First, I think this Commission is to be commended for its work on the M&T gravel mine project these past 11 years. That you are still deliberating and trying to decide the right thing to do is truly commendable. And we thank you for that. Having said that, we still don't know which route the gravel trucks would take, even if we could agree on the mine. All we know for sure is that this project will cause "significant," "unavoidable," and "unmitigatable" traffic problems and air pollution. Those are the applicant's words. After all these years, there is still no acceptable, agreed-upon plan for getting this material to the east side and Highway 99 in the Chico area. Until there is such a plan, there is no way yet to measure or quantify the degree of degradation that the city of Chico would be subjected to. Despite this, you are primed today to vote on the project, not knowing how the trucks will get from here to there and knowing that once begun, the process will be unstoppable and irrevocable. After all these years, the cart is still before the horse. As is now in the record, the Chico City Council is concerned about the mine's. impact on Chico and you have recently received a comment letter from the City—a unanimous comment, by the way—suggesting that there may be only one potentially acceptable route (North on River Road to Hwy 32 and then out East Avenue). Unfortunately, that is one of the two routes that avoid the middle of Chico that your own Public Works Department (Shawn O'Brien, January 16, 2007) suggests are not possible—the other is the Ord -Ferry to Chico route, also unacceptable according to O'Brien. Of course, you will consider and answer Mayor Andy Holcombe's letter but I don't think that the Chico City Councilmembers will buy the argument that jobs make acceptable the adverse environmental effects of this project on their constituents. They know that River Road gravel will not create any more jobs than gravel from sites elsewhere. When Baldwin starts extracting River Road gravel, jobs will be lost at sites where Baldwin obtains gravel now. Whether gravel comes from M&T or Orland,. or Oroville; or north of Chico off Hwy 99, more or less the same number of sand and gravel workers will go to doctors in Chico, will buy clothes and food in Chico, will drive to Chico for family outings. What Chico will certainly get more of is continually torn -up streets, increased traffic, and a big increase in road -maintenance costs. The other thing that we also know, as a local newspaper recently pointed out, is that there is not even any proof as to whether gravel from River Road is the only gravel available for long-term local needs. And I stress the word local. Non -local interests and needs are perhaps another matter. Which brings me to the long-term lease on 627 acres of the M&T Ranch that was signed by KRC on the very day that they bought Baldwin Contracting. Until April 22, 1996, both Baldwin Contracting and the M&T Chico Ranch were owned by the same company, Pacific Realty of Portland, Oregon. Then in 1996, Baldwin was sold to Knife River Corporation (KRC), a huge company itself owned by an even huge -r company, MDU Resources, Inc., both of them based far away in Bismarck, North Dakota. Only about a third of the leased land (235 acres) will be used for the mine project. Surely, the Planning Commission has seen those parts of the purchase and lease agreements that pertain to mining activity on the. M&T Ranch. So maybe you can provide the answers to these questions: "Why would KRC lease long-term 627 acres when it only intends to mine 193, along with 40 acres to be an equipment area, and 2 acres for topsoil stockpile? What is intended for the other 400 acres?" You might think that this is not any of our business. But I think it is. I think that in order to be good stewards of our land, we need local control. Well, Staff planners say in their reports that Baldwin Contracting is "locally -based". That's terribly misleading. It's like saying that Exxon -Mobil is a locally -based company simply because it has one of its 16,000 service stations here. Baldwin is one tiny appendage on a huge arm of a gigantic multi -national conglomerate based in North Dakota, whose bottom line is the satisfaction of some 2 million stockholders and not the well being of the citizens of Butte County. We have no -doubt that the local Baldwin people who have spoken here are genuinely good people who love their community. But when we're 10, 20, 30 years down the line, they'll be long gone and who knows whom Bismarck, North Dakota, will send here to look after their bottom line. What we do know is that those 400 acres or so on long-term lease someday will be utilized somehow by KRC and MDU. We need to find out how. I'd hate to think we're going to end up with a "lake" 3 times as big as what is envisioned now or perhaps with a "batch plant" after all. Although I know that any further mining would have to go through another permitting process, once precedent of this sort is established, it becomes all that much easier to proceed—witness the recent Table Mountain mine discussions. I think we need to consider what we are giving up when we give up local control, and what we are getting. It seems to me that our community is paying an exorbitant price for supposedly cheap gravel. Nothing that has been said in this room in the meetings that I have attended so far has shown me why we should accept the "significant, unavoidable, unmitigatable," and wholly negative impacts that this mine will cause if approved. Location, location, location. This mine is in the wrong place. The reason why there is no acceptable traffic plan after all this time is that one doesn't exist. Maria Phillips 884 Vallombrosa Ave. Chico CA 95926 Final EIR ERRATA Additions The following is added to the Final EIR, Section 3.0 (Draft EIR Errata). 3.2.4 Regional Environmental Overview - Llano Seco .Ranch Parrott Investment Company, owner of the Llano Seco Ranch, located South of the M&T Ranch, has requested that its land use be more accurately described in the M&T Chico Ranch EIR. Llano Seco Ranch has submitted information indicating that it has placed more than ten thousand acres under easement or have been sold as wildlife habitat since 1991. The Ranch has invested in restoration work to create such habitat, including seasonal wetland for wintering " waterfowl, riparian oak forest, and native. grasslands. (see: Letter from Ellman Burke, Hoffman & Johnson to Butte County Planning Commission, November 27; 2006). Current aerial, photography shows these wetland habitat areas, located approximately one mile south of the proposed M&T, Chico Ranch Mine. The above information, is added to Draft EIR Section 4.1.1, Regional Environmental Overview. 3.2.5 3.2.5 Williamson Act Cancellation The proposed M&T Chico Ranch Mine lies in an area which is included within Williamson Act contracted land. Exhibit A to the subject Williamson Act Contract provides a list of the permitted use on the subject property. Section 7.a. provides: "sand and gravel operation subject "to the securing of a use permit approved by the County." Government Code Section 51238.3(c)(1) provides that the requirements of 51238.1 and 51283.2 do not apply to uses that are expressly specified within the contract itelf prior to June 7, 1994. The contract, specified above, meets the requirements of Government Code Section 51238.3(c)(1) because: (1) excavation activities are defined as compatible and (2) the contract was executed prior to June 7, 1994. Both the Butte County Resolution, and the M&T Williamson Act Contract allow the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed end land use of open water/wildlife habitat/agriculture. On n October 11, 2005, the Applicant voluntarily decided to submit a . Petition for Cancellation. While the Project. is compatible with the Williamson Act, in order to address comments of the State of California Department of Conservation (DOC) and to avoid conflict between the DOC and the County, the Applicant decided to go forward with a Petition for Partial Cancellation with respect to 106 acre area of the project. M&T Chico Ranch Mine Final EIR As the proposed project is compatible with the Williamson Act .Contract in effect on the site, non❑renewal or cancellation are not required. However, . the Applicant has voluntarily filed a .Petition of Partial Cancellation for consideration . by the County Board of Supervisios if it chooses to do so. The above information, is added to Draft EIR Section 3.4, Detailed Project Description. TO : Concerned Parties FROM : Ken Reimers, Butte County Assessor DATE : Jan. 25, 2007 SUBJECT: M&T Chico Ranch Mine "Project" proposed by Baldwin Contracting Company I'd like to go on record relative to this "Project" 1. From the very inception of the Williamson Act in 1968 the primary purpose has been to protect valuable farm land. The question on this project is not "can this gravel mine legally be permitted on Williamson Act land?" There are ways to accomplish the end result of placing a gravel mine in this location. The question I'd propose is why would anyone insist on putting it in this location? 2. There are other options and frankly, other proximate lands that could be mined without the destruction of prime agricultural land that has received preferential tax treatment for many (38) years. My office has spoken with Dean Burkett from Natural Resouces Conservation Services (MRCS) in the past and again recently on Tuesday afternoon January 23, 2007 to confirm they consider Parrott Silt Loam Class I Prime Soil. To make the blanket statement that this land can not be Class I Prime Soil because it is not irrigated. is either purposely misinforming people or hopefully just not informed. I'd encourage all of you to answer this key question before you allow this. valuable resource to be lost forever. Sidebar comment: I believe the process of soil classification has, historically, purposely included my office to make this judgment call for several reasons: ✓ We can provide an objective opinion based upon field inspection and typical farming practices throughout the county ✓ The Assessor's office has been charged with making this call to keep politics out of the decision - the Department of Conservation complimented my office during the last audit of Williamson Act Administration ✓ If we allow the rules to be bent and ignore the facts; the entire Williamson Act program suffers and we jeopardize reimbursement funds 3. There is plenty of gravel available and permitted for the foreseeable future — more than a 10 year supply exists. This would allow this property to be non -renewed and come out of the Williamson Act over time. To imply there is some huge pressing economic need to cancel this contract, and treat other ranchers in the area poorly, seems ill advised and may open the county up to more litigation. 4. The county has had a lot of discussion concerning agricultural buffers (generally around 300' in width). Why would someone with thousands of acres insist on removing Prime Agricultural Soil, under Williamson Act contract, immediately adjacent their neighbor's orchard? Why expose the aquifer and threaten the livelihood of others before abandoning the project some decades later, while not planning to restore the prime farmland? The answer is simple; it is more financially feasible. 5. The thought that nearly 36 miles of county rural roads would also be heavily impacted and the applicant billed a very small share of that cost is called to question. That might not be a bad call if the roads were built with the proper base and shoulders to begin with, but they are not. The latest estimates to reimburse the county are ridiculous considering what is about to transpire if this project goes forward. I also heard the figures were revised oto add 2" asphalt without addressing the base or shoulders to the road. I think we can all visualize what the road will look like in a relatively short time. There were solid facts utilized by the Land Conservation Committee to recommend denial of the cancellation of this land. Hopefully, you will objectively consider all the input and reach a proper decision. I believe the local Butte County Farm Bureau got it right "Don't put a gravel mine on good farm land under Williamson Act contract". Please don't approve a project in the wrong area that will destroy our rural county roads and negatively effect quality of life issues in Chico and Durham when better choices exist. CC Planning Commission Board of Supervisors . County Counsel Department of Conservation Development Services Department Three hundred foot set back I've been puzzled as to why Baldwin has refused to do any engineering work on the bypass channel. It seems possible that they may have been expecting that they would be required to move the bypass channel and lake away from our property line as a condition of the project's approval. Assuming that you would be demanding this, it may not have made much sense for them to put a whole lot of money into engineering the bypass at its current location right next to our property. line. The Butte County Farm Bureau recently voted to oppose the M & T Ranch Mining project. One reason for their opposition was their contention that there should be at least a 300 -foot setback from neighboring ag properties to limit any impacts that a conversion of ag land to wildlife habitat might have on those adjacent properties.' We agree with the Farm Bureau's . recommendation and we would request that this be made a condition of approval. Of course this would be good but it still doesn't get around the fact that this bypass channel has never been engineered and the DOC says this need to be done before you approve this project (June 10, 2004 DOC letter). Thank you so much for taking the time to read this. Ron Jones 3203 Hudson Avenue Chico, CA 95973 345-4286 ronsano@pacbell.net To: Butte County Planning Commission, 25 County Center'Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 I am a Butte County resident & live at the corner of Chico River Road & Morehead Ave. I am strongly oppose the proposed gravel pit operation on Chico River Road: To dig away several feet of great Vina Loam to find gravel in Butte County seems to be a wasteful idea. With all the foothills to the east of Highway 99, there is bound to be easier sources of gravel with out ruining any of the richest farm land in the world. Trucking all the gravel on two lane county & city roads would cause terrible damage at great cost to all people in Butte County. West 5`h Street between Highway 32 & Chico River Road would be a terrible bottle neck. There are apartment complexes for college students so there is parking on both sides of the road leaving barely enough room for 2 cars to pass, let alone a big gravel truck. There are also children from Rosedale Elementary School in this area on a regular basis. Chico River Road is used extensively by local farmers on slow moving wide equipment. It is also a favorite road for college students on bicycles. We live on one of several long sweeping curves on Chico River Road and over the last 45 years, several cars and trucks have ended up in our front yard with at least 2 fatalities. If you put more large gravel filled trucks on this road, no doubt there will be more! Sincerely, Roy Pase BUM COUNW JAN 17 2007 DEVELOPMENT SERVIaS To: Butte County Planning Commission 25 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 Concerns about the proposed gravel pit on Chico River Rd. To dig down several feet on good farmland to find gravel in Butte County is not a good idea. Trucking all this gravel county & city roads would cause terrible damage at great cost to all people in Butte County. The children to and from school would be in peril fromthese many trucks. Farmers trying to move their equipment from one job to another will find the roads dangerous to their slow moving vehicles. Hundreds of bicycle riders will no longer feel safe to ride on Chico River Rd. Homes along this road will no longer be livable. Gravel trucks carrying many tons make thunderous noise. Chico River Rd. already is known for the many accidents that happen there on a regular basis. Imagine the rise in this heavy traffic and the toll it will take in this area. Gravel is plentiful in the county of Butte. At least two additional gravel pits are soon to open. Looking at the gravel needed and the amount already available, it seems we have enough. This proposed site is in the wrong area to be a good thing for any of us. Sincerely, Dixi L. Pase, p Poll Dennis Bum COW" JAN 17 2007 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 13, 2007 . TO: BUTTE COUNTY.PLANNING COMMISSION , Chuck Nelson Nina Lambert Fernando Marin Harrel Wilson. Richard Leland ; Cc: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Re: M & T Ranch Mine Dear, Members of the Planning Commission: realize that you must be. very busy, and I'm sorry"to keep bothering" you but. there seems to be so many issues regarding this proposed mine that just have to be said.. • r The Department of Conservation (in their November 18; 2002 letter) said that if the M & T wanted to do an immediate. cancellation on,.106 acres of their.Williamson Act contract there should be some form of mitigation. -They suggested that this might be a permanent agricultural easement on other.land of at least equal size. It is my:understanding that even though the Planning -Commission won't be taking up the issue of the Williamson Act cancellation, you could still make a mitigation recommendation to the Supervisors. Since this wasn't discussed at the LCAC meeting.I wasn't `sure if you were.aware of the DOC's recommendation. Here is the complete text of the DOC letter: ' "Mitigation Measures As the project does not meet the compatibility findings of the Williamson Act,- it would as currently configured, require termination of the Williamson Act contract. The CEQA Guidelines state that termination of the contract of over 100 acres is a treated as a significant environmental impact of statewide significance. Thus, the FEIR for this project must show termination of the contract as a significant environmental impact, ,and must provide -mitigation for this impact. The adoption of a Statement of OVerriding Consideration does not absolve the agency of the requirement of implement feasible mitigation that lessens a project's impacts. Pursuant to CEQAGuideline 15370, mitigation includes measures that "avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or eliminate, or compensate" for the impact. For example, mitigation includes 'Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments (15370(3)).' All measures ostensibly feasible should be included in the_ FEIR. Each measure should be discussed, as well as the reasoning for selection or rejection. A measure brought to the attention of the Lead Agency should not be left out unless it is infeasible on its face (Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angles (1997) 58 Cal: App. 4t' 1019): Mitigation should be specific, measurable actions that allow monitoring. their implementation and evaluation of success. A mitigation consisting only of a statement of intention or an unspecified future action maynot be adequate pursuant to CEQA (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1998) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296). The Department recommends mitigation in the form of a permanent agricultural conservation easement on the other land of at least equal size and quality as the land removed from the contract. In the alternative we recommend the contribution of equivalent mitigation fees to an organization, such as a land trust, for the purchase of a permanent agricultural conservation easement." Noise Also at the December 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting you talked about another mining project, the Morris Ravine Quarry, before discussing the M & T Mining project. The, same person who did the noise study for the M & T mine did the noise study on this other mine. He said that because it was so naturally quiet in the area of the Morris Ravine mine site thatthey were hoping to keep the ambient noise levels down to 35 decibels for neighbors in the area. There are currently no major sources of noise around our ranch. It a very quiet place to work and live, so it's hard to believe that it is so much noisier at our ranch than it is around this other mine. According to the noise study there is an average of 45 decibels of noise at our house. Since its very possible that this is not an accurate reading, I would request that this ambient noise level be reevaluated by a different company. However, even if it's found that this figure is correct the DEIR says that even if an 18 -foot high berm is built next to our house the noise level would still be 58 decibels. The DEIR also states that anything more than 5 decibels over the normal ambient noise level is considered a significant environmental impact So even if the noise level was reduced to 58 decibels that would be 13 decibels over the current level and that's assuming that the figure of 45 decibels is correct. I would request that Baldwin would be required to do enough mitigation so that the ambient noise level at our house is kept down to a point where it is not over 5 decibels above whatever the actual current average ambient noise level. Bypass Channel Baldwin wants to put a bypass channel next to our property line to help alleviate any. additional flooding on our property. In a June 10, 2004 letter the DOC said that there should be a maintenance agreement in place to perform repairs after the site closure. Baldwin says that they are designing this as a long term solution and no maintenance agreement will be necessary. If this channel gets plugged up it will cause more flooding on our ranch. I would request that Baldwin be required to maintain this channel and keep it clear after they finish mining. PEVzLoppaNr URVICes Mr. Tim Snellings, Director Department of Development Services , .7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Snellings, I am enclosing a copy of the letter I just mailed to Planning Commission members, Supervisors and others. It contains information I thought that you, as Director of the Department of Development Services, should have. r To say that we are disappointed with the conduct of several members of the County's Department of Development Services would be an understatement. Although we do understand that it is the job of the personnel in DDS to assist those who are trying to get projects approved by the County, we do not believe that DDS personnel should actually be proponents for the projects. It has been obvious that both Mr. Calarco and Mr. Breedon have been willing to say things that were not completely. true and to word documents in ways so as to influence the approval of this project. They have shown a complete disregard for the opinions of the DOC, the MRCS, the Butte County Assessor, the EIR and even the reclamation plan in the,wording of the resolutions that the Planning Commission members will be asked to sign in order to gain the approval of this project. ' The resolutions that the Planning Commission will be asked to sign are inaccurate and need to be reworded. The DOC's Dept. of Mine Reclamation has a lot more expertise in determining if an EIR and reclamation plan have sufficient detail in order to be in compliance with CEQA and SMARA than do the County planners. To totally disregard the, . DOC's clearly -stated position regarding these two issues, as well as all the other items which the DOC has said need to be addressed, is totally unacceptable. At the December 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting Mr. Calarco looked the Commission members right in the eye and told them that the Department of Conservation had said that they were now okay with the EIR and reclamation plan. This was not true. And it was not the first time this statement had been made. Ivan Breedon, in a conversation with me before the November 30, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, said exactly the same thing: that the DOC was now satisfied with the EIR and reclamation plan. As obvious as it was to me that this could not be true, it's hard to believe that both of these gentlemen would not have known that what they were saying was not true. Mr. Snellings, it is my hope that this matter is thoroughly investigated and that appropriate action will be taken. Behavior such as this reflects very poorly on the Planning Division and it just isn't fair to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has a hard enough time making a decision about whether or not to approve a project without having to wonder if the Planning Division might, once again, be providing them with misleading and inaccurate information. Opposing this project has been a daunting task, especially when it seems like we're doing battle with, not just Baldwin, but with the Planning Division -as well. Thank for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Ron Jones { 3203 Hudson Avenue Chico, CA 95973 ronsano@pacbell.net, 11. r 7MBUTTE - ®® COUNTY ® FARM BUREAU Serving Agriculture For- More Than. 80 Yeors r January 12, 2007 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Subject: M & T. Chico Ranch Mine Project . Dear Commissioners, The Butte County Farm Bureau (BCFB) opposes the granting of a mining permit for the M & T Chico Ranch Mine Project at this time based on the following concerns: 1) The property is under a Williamson Act contract which is intended to°preserve agricultural lands. The land has been classified as prime agricultural land by the Butte County Assessor and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. The reclamation plan calls for the conversion of this land to nonagricultural use which, according to the California Department of Conservation is not permitted under a Williamson Act contract. 2) The mine will create a new water way within 15 feet of neighboring orchards and the aquifer will be exposed within 103 feet. BCFB believes new water ways and the' open aquifer pose a threat to the continued agricultural practices to all the lands surrounding the mine. The BCFB requests that a minimum buffer of 300 feet be maintained free of new water ways and'the open aquifer. This position is consistent with our position that newly built residences on agricultural lands be kept at least 300 feet from neighboring agricultural lands.. Please contact us at (530) 533-1473 if you have any questions regarding the above concerns. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.. Sincerely, David Lundberg ' . TIZ if President �� cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors - JAN 17 2667 rai;fni-ni- 9i9h5 0 (530) 533-1473 e Fax: (530) 533-6508 o Email: buttedb@sbcglobal.net January 3, 2007 TO: BUTTE COUNTY, PLANNING COMMISSION . Chuck Nelson; Chair Nina Lambert, Vice Chair Fernando Marin Harrel Wilson Richard Leland BUTTE COUNTY BOAR® OF SUPERVISORS Bil1,Connelly Jane Dolan Maureen Kirk Curt Josiassen Kim Yamaguchi cc: Mr. Howard Ellman BUTTE COUNTY .ASSESSOR Kenneth Reimers .BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL Felix Wannamaker DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION James Pompy RE: . The M & T Ranch/Baldwin Company Mining Project Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors: This is a request for the Planning Commission to address the following issues that continue to be unresolved in order to determine once and for all ■ if the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed M&TBaldwin mine is accurate and complete and should be certified — and • if the resolutions which you are being asked to vote on accurately and honestly describe the proposed project. Although many of these issues have been previously raised, they certainly have not been adequately addressed. Issue #1— Inaccurate Information Mr. Pete Calarco of the Butte County Department of Development Services, at the December 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting; asserted that the Department of Conservation (DOC) was okay with the reclamation plan. This was misleading information. Leah Miller of the DOC's Office of Mine Reclamationwas Pete'Calarco's contact. `My contact has been Jim Pompy, Director of Mine Reclamation, who has told me more than once that the reclamation plan had not been okayed and that unless the DOC sent something in writing, their original opinion had not changed (last letter from DOC on this subject was June 10, 2004). When I spoke with Leah Miller after the December 14'h meeting, she told me that at no time in her conversation with Mr. Calarco had she said that the DOC was now satisfied with the EIR or the reclamation plan - only that they were satisfied with the "process'. In fact, she told me that if anyone was saying that the DOC, had said that they were now satisfied with the reclamation plan that this was quite an exaggeration. How can the Planning Commission make a considered judgment on the adequacy of the reclamation plan if the DOC's position's is not known with absolute certainty? My request is that someone impartial; not just someone in the Department of Development Services, calls Mr. Pompy prior to the next Planning Commission meeting on January 25 to clarify the status of.the project. Given the gravity of the situation, and to avoid the possibility of any further misunderstanding, I suggest a conference call including representatives of the various interested parties, and includingTelix Wannamaker. Issue #2 — Compatible with SMARA? While someone is talking to Mr. Pompy about the reclamation plan, they could ask if another statement in their last letter about the project still stands. In their June 10, 2004 letter they. said that, "The reclamation plan is incomplete and does not meet the minimum requirements of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 ". A few weeks ago Mr. Pompy told me, and he said I could quote him on this, that unless the County has received something in writing to the. contrary that all of the DOC's comments on this project stand as stated in their letters to. the County. In spite of this fact, Finding 5 in Attachment C that you will be asked to approve says that, "The Project complieswith the provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 ". I would request that this be changed to accurately reflect the DOC's position that this project is not in compliance with SMARA regulations and that the EIR and reclamation plan do not meet the minimum requirements of Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. L Issue # 3 — In Compliance with CEQA? You could also ask Mr. Pompy if what they said in their November 18, 2002 letter still stands. This DOC letter states that, "The project as proposed violates the Williamson Act, CEQA, and SMARA." Page 1 of Attachment A says, "Adopt the attached resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report as consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. " However, CEQA Section 15147 — Technical Detail — states that, "The information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plat plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies ... " And, CEQA Section 15151 — Standards for Adequacy of an EIR — says that, "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision -makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. " If the DOC says that this EIR and reclamation plan don't have enough information, detail, and design work to meet even the minimum requirements of SMARA then it goes without saying that these documents, almost by definition, would not have the detail required by CEQA for a project of this size and magnitude. I would request that Attachment A be revised to read that the DOC has determined that the FEIR does not contain even the minimum amount of adequacy and completeness required by CEQA; therefore, this Environment Impact report and reclamation plan are not consistent with CEQA requirements. If the DOC says that this project is not in compliance with SMARA and that it's not in compliance with CEQA; can the Planning Division just decide that it is? Issue #4 — Rule-hendinP Why has Baldwin been allowed to proceed with a permit request designed for a small mine of less than 5 acres when this mine would actually encompass nearly 200 acres? In their June 10, 2004 letter the DOC said, "The Reclamation Plan uses the 'Small Mine Prototype' format from the State. Mining and Geology Board's website. The Small Mine Prototype is useful for very small operations (5 acres or less) in areas with negligible environmental issues. This format is not appropriate for a site of this size and complexity." Baldwin's response to the DOC is contained in a letter dated September 20, 2004. Baldwin states, "BCC used the reclamation plan format selected by Butte County. " If Butte County did, in fact, select this inadequate permitting form, why did they do that? And if it isn't so, then why is Baldwin saying they did? Most of us have had to negotiate the permit process at some point in our property -owning lives and we know how slow and fiustrating it can be. Still, we do it because its part of the rule of law. Why wasn't Baldwin required to fill out the correct form? Is Baldwin being allowed to play by a different set. of rules than the rest of us? An inadequate permitting process should be unacceptable and is clearly a shaky foundation on which to base subsequent decisions. Issue #S – Withholdine of relevant data In February 2006, the Department of Development Services led by Dan Breedon provided the Land Conservation Act Committee (LCAC) with findings only from the DEIR—and from no other source—as to the nature of the soils at the site (the DEIR states that these soils did not meet Williamson Act criteria for prime farmland). However, Mr. Breedon did not also include for the LCAC other already -known assessments that disagreed with the DEIR which clearly stated that the MRCS, the DOC, and the Butte County Assessor had all come to the conclusion that the soils were prime. So in February of 2006, on the basis of this incomplete and one-sided information, the LCAC voted a motion of intent to release M&T from their Williamson Act contract. After being given the complete information prior to their April 2006 meeting,. LCAC member Blake Bailey called the NRCS and they told him that they had recently done a soil survey at the specific project site and they had determined that the soils were prime. Consequently, the LCAC reversed their decision and voted to recommend instead that the M&T people should not be released from their contract. If there is still any doubt about the proper classification of the soils Ken Reimers, the Butte County Assessor, could answer any questions since he, too, has talked to the NRCS about this issue. Why was available, official information regarding the quality of the soils of the land in question withheld from the LCAC in February 2006 when they were deciding on whether to release the M&T from their Williamson Act contract? We understand that the Board of Supervisors will be the final arbiter in this question once they review this project. However, the Planning Commission and all concerned need to know of this questionable behavior in order to evaluate the soundness of the Development Division's recommendations. Issue #6 – Lack of responsiveness Many of the issues we've mentioned have already.been raised with no credible response, and much of the information in Attachments A, B, and C is riddled with misstatements which are represented as facts. Attempts to correct these facts seem to fall on deaf ears. What I see as a lack of responsiveness on the part of the County developers can be usefully characterized by the following blatant examples: Example A If the Planning Division knows the soils are prime why do the resolutions you will be signing say that aren't? In order to approve this project the Planning Commission will also be asked to approve three separate resolutions found in Attachments A, B, and C. Attachment A says, "The project site does not meet the standard for prime farmland. Though the Project will result in the conversion of non prime farmland to open space, the amount of agricultural land surrounding the site is relatively abundant. ...In terms of prime es . agricultural land loss, no significant cumulative land use impacts are expected as a result of this Project. " I would respectfully request that this section be changed to reflect,the fact that the soils have been determined to be prime by the Assessor, the NRCS,.and the DOC and that there would be significant land use impacts. Both Attachments B and C state, "Land Reclamation — This performance standard does not apply to. the Project because it is not located on Prime Agricultural Land. " I would also request that these sections be changed to reflect the fact that this' land is prime and the performance standards for prime farmland do apply. According to the SNIARA code (section 1823.1) the performance standards for prime farmland are as follows: . . ' "The objective of this Part is to set forth those soil removal, stockpiling, and replacement operational requirements and revegetation and other reclamation standards for prime farmland to ensure both that the land will have agricultural productive" capacity which is equal after mining to premining levels and the land is not lost as an important national resource. " Example B Attachment C incorrectly states that, "The proposed lake will actually result in enhanced groundwater recharge from precipitation "and evaporation from the shallow groundwater. This finding even disagrees with the DEIR itself (page 4.4-2), which says that rainfall in the area is about 22 inches a year and evaporation from the lake will be about 52 inches a year. Obviously, if there is more evaporation than precipitation you will end up with less water in the aquifer, not more. This fact was validated in a letter from the DOC dated June 10, 2004 (page 2) where it says_, "The effect of evaporation of the pond surface wouldalso tend to negate the benefit of any enhanced recharge to the aquifer. We recommend that recharge not be listed as a beneficial end use for this project. " . Why have the misstatements on the groundwater recharge, capabilities of the lake.that would result from the mining operations been allowed to stand when they are so clearly , contradicted by the facts? I request that this statement be changed to read that the project would result in a net loss of groundwater recharge capabilities due to fact that there would be more evaporation from the lake than available average rainfall in the area Example C Baldwin Construction finally came out with a weir design in August of 2004 showing rip rap clear to the bottom of the creek bed. Yet the resolutions you will be asked to sign still say, "Little Chico Creek will not be disturbed except by the road and conveyor crossings ". When the new information was provided why weren't the documents changed to reflect this? And since this first weir was designed with rip rap, it's very likely that once the weir for the headwaters of the bypass channel is designed it too will have rip rap clear to the bottom of the creek bed. Of course, we have no way of knowing if this is true or not because the bypass channel, one of the key elements of this project, has yet to be designed. I would request that Section 3706 in Attachment B as well as Section 3706 and 3710 in Attachment C be changed to read that the streambed of Little Chico Creek will be disturbed in, not one, but possibly two locations. It should also be noted that when Baldwin completed the Reclamation Plan application form they indicated that at no time would the creek bed be disturbed. Because of this, and since not even one State agency knew that this would be part of the weir designs, no agencies have ever gone out to the site to see if there might be any negative environmental issues involved with doing such an incursion into the streambed. This is just another in a long list of reasons why the DOC says that this reclamation plan is incomplete and doesn't meet the minimum requirements of SMARA. Examples such as these suggest, rightly or wrongly, a concerted effort on the part of the Department of Development Services and its consultants to say and word things, whether true or not true, in a way seemingly calculated to influence first the LCAC and now the Planning Commission's vote on this project. If this is merely an impression, it is a sorry one that needs to be rectified. Issue # 7— The General Plan The General Plan states that the only alternate uses for ag land are those "which preserve, promote, and support agricultural areas" (page AE —14). Obviously, this project would not do that. At the December 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting Dave Brown gave a power point presentation showing aerial photos of other gravel pit projects that have been approved in other counties. His presentation left viewers with the impression that what is being proposed here is very common. However, this was just another in a long line of deceptions, smoke and mirrors, and half-truths that have permeated the entire environmental impact process. What Mr. Brown conveniently failed to tell you was that none of those other projects were extracting their gravel from prime farmland, not a single one of them. The fact is that it is not a common practice for other counties to allow mining projects out in prime agricultural land. Why isn't it common? Because other counties realize that projects like this do not belong out in the middle of prime ag land. The original writers of the General Plan would be appalled if they knew what you were thinking about approving. Conclusion The ramifications of approving this project are sobering. Giving your approval to this mine would set a precedent that could lead to literally thousands of acres of prime farmland being lost to similar operations. If this project were approved, it would be very hard to tell other gravel companies that they couldn't put a gravel pit out in prime farmland if Baldwin and M&T are allowed to do just that. The people of this County have repeatedly made it clear that they want to preserve prime farmland. Let's not let them down. o The DOC is not okay with this project; • the reclamation plan does not meet SMARA's minimum requirements; • it is not in compliance with CEQA and ■ the EIR process has been flawed, biased, incomplete, and inadequate. Please vote this project down. Sincerely, Ron Jones . 3203 Hudson Avenue Chico, CA 95973 345-4286 ronsano@pacbell.net Appendix Below are 10 specific items that the DOC said were deficient in the reclamation plan for the M & T Mining project— areas that Baldwin has definitely not addressed. Statements from the November 18, 2002 Departrnent of Conservation letter: (Baldwin's responses can be found in the FEIIt starting on page 5.1-8) (1) Page 5.1-13 — "CEQA Guidelines state that termination of a Williamson Act contract of over 100 acres is treated as a significant environmental impact of statewide significance. Thus the FEIR for this project must show termination of the contract as a significant environmental impact and must provide mitigation for this impact. Baldwin incorrectly responds that this is a compatible use under the Williamson Act. (2) Page 5.1-13 — "The adoption of a Statement of Overriding Concerns does not absolve the agency of the requirement to implement feasible mitigation that lessen the project impact. " "The Department recommends mitigation in the form of a permanent agricultural conservation easement on other land of at least equal size and quality as the land removed from the contract. " Baldwin responds again by saying that this is a compatible use under the Williamson Act so they do not need to remove this property from the Williamson Act in order to mine gravel nor is any mitigation necessary. (3) Page 5.1-17 — "The Reclamation Plan described in the DEIR does not describe how the site will actually be reclaimed, and does not give a detailed description of the open water and wetland habitat to be established... " Baldwin did not respond directly to these issues. (4) Page 5.1-18 — "Nowhere is the shoreline to be created depicted in any detail. " Baldwin has no response to this statement. There are still no detailed drawings indicating where the lake will be nor does it say where it would be in relation to our property line or to the bypass channel. (5) Page 5.1-18 — "The volumes of backfill available for .use in creating a diverse shoreline is unstated and unplanned and the slope profiles are generic and non -committal. Again Baldwin has no response to this statement. (6) Page 5.1-19 —"Reclamation procedures are not presented in suff cient detail to determine the viability of the created wildlife habitat. " Baldwin's response is that this was discussed in the DEIR. Statements from the June 10, 2004 Department of Conservation letter: '(Baldwin's responses can be found in a letter to the Department of Development Services dated September 20, 2004) (7) Page 1— "The Reclamation Plan uses the "Small Mine Prototype " format from the State Mining and Geology Board website. The Small Mine Prototype is useful for very small -, operations (S acres or less) in areas with negligible environmental issues. This format is not appropriate for a site of this size and complexity. Baldwin states that this is the reclamation plan that the County recommended that . they use. (8) Page 2 — "There is no detailed engineered design for the bypass channel or weir structure proposed to mitigate most of the floodplain impacts that would result from the placement of a deep mining pit within 100 feet of Little Chico Creek and in proximity of the Sacramento River. This aspect of the reclamation plan is totally lacking and must be addressed prior to the approving the reclamation plan." Even though the DOC says that this needs to be designed before the project is approved, Baldwin's response is that "The weir and bypass channel will bimade conditions . of approval of the project. " In other words, they will do the design work and engineering after.the project is approved. (9) Page 3 — "Reliance on natural revegetation isnot an option under the statewide . reclamation standard regulations. Proactive measures to achieve the stated end use must be described in the plan::. Baldwin says that they feel natural revegetation is allowed under state regulations and they don't need to use proactive measures. (10) Page 4 — ".....the plan needs to contain more detailed information concerning the water fluctuation levels and how this would impact the 50 foot_wide bench created for the margin habitat. " Baldwin's response is that as they excavate the lake, additional and more detailed information of water level fluctuations will be acquired. Even though the DOC wants this information stated before the plan is approved, Baldwin's response is they will get to it later. 4. i s- 14 L - f Post Office Box 2012 r Chico, California 95927 www.motherlode.sierraclub.org/yahi f ' Grace M. Marvin, Chair 1621 N. Cherry Street Chico, CA 95926-3141 gmradm@aoG com January 22, 2007 i Butte County Planning Commission c/o Butte County Department of Development Services 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 ? Re: Baldwin/M & T Mining Operation on River Road . Please be advised that at its January 2007 meeting the Executive 'Committee of the Sierra' Club Yahi Group discussed the proposed. Baldwin Contracting/M& T mining operation and voted to oppose it. We are concerned about the many environmental impacts that this mine would have. We are especially worried about what it might do to the protected Llano Seco Ranch immediately to the south. Above all, we are concerned about the potential for contamination to the aquifer which is in such close proximity to the proposed mine. The location of this project seems wholly ill-advised. It is inconceivable that a professional and unbiased EIR would give a "pass" to this project which clearly has so many unmitigatable detrimental impacts., Please vote to oppose it. Sincerely,, ,. A4 M� ace M. Marvin, Chair Sierra Club, Yahi Groupe } ` v^ _ N_ . OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 411 Main Street (530) 896-7250 P.O. Box 3420 Fax (530) 895-4825 Chico, CA 95927 http://www.ci.chico.ca.us January 17, 2007 Butte County Planning Commission c/o 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: M & T Ranch Mining Operation BUTTE COUNW JAN 2 2 207 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES At its meeting held January 2, 2007, the City Council discussed the proposed operation of the M & T Ranch Mine. Concerns were raised associated with the proposed route the gravel trucks would take through the City, particularly the Walnut and East 9°i Street sections of State Route 32. These streets pass through older residential neighborhoods where houses front onto the street and have, in many cases, fairly shallow front yards. These streets already experience heavy traffic congestion but are also heavily used by pedestrians and bicyclists. The concerns expressed include bicycle and pedestrian safety, the daily intensity and duration of truck traffic, noise and vibration from the gravel trucks, damage to the City's infrastructure, and maintenance issues associated with the clean-up of gravel that spills onto City streets. Certainly if this route is ultimately chosen, the City will want to pursue appropriate mitigations, including impact fee compensation. The City is requesting your assistance in reducing the potential impacts to City streets by establishing an alternate route for the gravel trucks. One suggestion would be a route from Chico River Road to River Road to State Route 32 to East Avenue and eventually to State Route 99 as shown on the attached map. The advantage of this established truck route is that East Avenue is located in a predominately commercial area and the road design is better suited to accommodating heavy truck traffic in combination with vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle users. We appreciate your consideration of our concerns in your deliberations and ultimate decision regarding the M & T Ranch Mine. If you need additional information or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me at 345-5442. Sincerely, , r, Andy Holcombe Mayor AH:cw c: Butte County Board of Supervisors City Council (8) CAO McIntosh BDSD SCE Mickelson Enclosure: Truck Route Map S:\CONNIE\misc\Dept Correspondence\M&T gravel trucks Itr to BC.wpd �� Made From Recycled Paper i e O dao ®®a B 5 1 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 November 30, 2006 3 4 5 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The meeting convened. at 9:00 a.m. 6 7 8 II. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Lambert, Marin, Wilson and Leland 9 and Chairman Nelson 10 11 ALSO PRESENT: 12 County Counsel Felix Wannenmacher, Deputy County Counsel 13 Robert MacKenzie, Chief Deputy County Counsel 14 . Development Services Pete Calarco, Assistant Director 15 Chuck Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager 16 Stacey Jolliffe, Principal- Planner 17 Mark Michelena; Senior Planner 18 Carl Durling, Associate Planner. 19 Meredith Williams, Associate Planner 20 Chris Tolley, Associate Planner 21 Chris Thomas, Associate Planner 22 Gwyn Benedict, Office Specialist, Senior 23 Public Works- Eric Schroth .24 Environmental Health Doug Fogel 25 Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price 26 27 28 III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA - Commission members and staff may request additions, . 29 deletions, or changes in the Agenda order. 30 31 Commissioner Lambert asked to add a Resolution for Lynn Richardson: 32 33 Chairman Nelson read the resolution for Lynn Richardson into the record; the resolution was signed 34 and adopted this day November 30, 2006. 35 4 36 37 IV. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA 38 (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Planning Commission is prohibited'by State Law from taking 39 action on any item presented if it is not listed on the Agenda) 40 41 None. ,42 .43 V. CONSENT AGENDA Consent items are set for approval in one motion. These items are'considered non - 44 controversial. No presentations will be made unless the item is pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Any 45 person may pull an item from the consent agenda. 46 47 The Chair will ask if 'any Commissioner or member of the public wishes to pull a consent item for discussion. 48 49 None ';� ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION s MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 1 a 2 VI. ITEMS PULLED FROM. THE CONSENT AGENDA. Any items pulled from the Consent Agenda 3 will be considered. 4 5 None 6 7 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS The Chair will call for staff comments. The hearing will be opened to the public for 8 proponents, opponents, comments, and rebuttals. The hearing will be closed to the public and discussion confined to 9 the Commission. The Commission will then make a motion and vote on the item. 10 11 It is requested that public initiated presentations be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes so that all interested. parties 12 will have an opportunity to address the Commission. Following your presentation, please print your name and 13 address on the speakers sheet so that the record will be accurate. 14 15 The recommendation of County staff is indicated below. It is only a recommendation and has not yet been 16 considered by the Planning Commission. Copies of the Staff Report are available at the Planning Division Office 17 18 19 A. UP 05-10 - Continued open from November 9, 2006 20 21 Name: Michael Ballon Project: Use Permit UP 05-10 22 Planner: Carl Durling APN: 041-190-051 Zoning: U, S -H 23 Location: On the west side of Clark Road, (SR -191), approximately 1.8 miles north 24 of SR - 70 25 Proposal: Use permit to allow equestrian training, education, and event park. 26 27 There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board. 28 29 Carl Durling gave a description and summary of the project, with an explanation of the changes that 30 had been made to the Conditions of Approval to strengthen the mitigation measures for protecting 31 the agricultural land. 32 Mr. Durling stated that he intended to read into the record the changes so that it was very clear in the 33 record what the changes were and why. Mitigation Measure #2 Monitoring will read: "The 34 monitoring language now requires that a report be submitted to the Department at the start of each 35 agricultural season. The report will specify the type of agricultural activity to be pursued by the 36 applicant during the upcoming season beginning each October 31St. This declared activity must be 37 fulfilled by the applicant in order to qualify for the off-season activities permitted by the Use Permit. 38 The applicant will be billed for the staff time necessary to review the report and monitof the 39 agricultural activity. The Department will consult with the. Agricultural Commissioner and the 40 LCAC as needed". This change was discussed with the Agricultural Commissioner and it was agreed 41 that the Agricultural Commissioner would bill the applicant for his time also. Next change Condition 42 # 16 to be Condition 418 on the Use Permit Conditions of Approval stating: "The ability to obtain a 43 Special Events. Permit under this use permit is dependent upon compliance with conditions of 44 approval and mitigation measures. The Permittee shall obtain a Special Events Permit for each of 45. the twelve three-day events from the Butte County Fire Department ($100.00 fee payable by check to 46 the Butte County Fire Department). Be prepared to address the following: site plan, tent and 47 canopy safety,, portable generators/heaters/lights, outdoor cooking,, campfires, outdoor electrical 48 wiring, hazardous materials (propane), emergency vehicle access, standby medical team, parking - 49. fire extinguishers, fire suppression water sources, fire breaks, smoking, standby personnel, 50 housekeeping. The Butte County Fire Department shall consult with the Department of ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 e PAGE 2 s 1 Development Services regarding compliance with conditions of approval and mitigation measures 2 prior to issuing a Special Events permit". This condition now makes it clear that the applicant must 3 have adhered to the conditions of the Use Permit in order to obtain the Butte County Fire 4 Department's Special Events Permit. 5 Chairman Nelson asked if the applicant would be able to present a calendar of events with specific 6 dates for the events and be able to obtain one permit for all of the events listed. . 7 Mr. Durling replied that each event would require a separate special events permit by the Fire 8 Department. He also mentioned that he added Condition # 1 which had previously been omitted by 9 accident from the draft conditions, and that. Condition #11 was added to make it clear that all the 10 temporary facilities would be removed by October 31" of each year. 11 Commissioner Leland responded that he was opposed to the new Condition #1, and that he was 12 under the impression that the Commission could revoke a Use Permit if the condition were violated. 13 Stacey Jolliffe agreed with Commissioner Leland and stated that the intent of the condition was for 14 the Commission to have .the ability to comeback and apply additional mitigation measures or 15 conditions of approval as necessary. 16 Commissioner Leland asked that Condition #1 be deleted. 17 Commissioner Lambert stated that she was concerned with the Motion of Intent regarding the 18 compliance with findings of the California Land Conservation Act (CLCA) meeting that dealt strictly 19 with horse riding trails, and the Commission would be approving not only the trail riding, but also all 20 of the equestrian events and included activities. She was concerned about adhering to the intent of 21 the CLCA motion. 22 Commissioner Leland replied that it was his intention to approve of all the activities as described and 23 that the horse back riding would be limited to the existing cattle trails. 24 Mr. Durling addressed the Commission and read a brief excerpt from the CLCA minutes, and 25 reiterated that the CLCA was concerned that the horse riding be kept to existing trails, and that the 26 committee was aware of all the other activities including the camping and equestrian events. 27 Commissioner Lambert read a portion of the minutes from the CLCA meeting and it did not mention 28 any of the other events of the project. 29 Chairman Nelson asked if the project was presented to the CLCA the same way it was presented to 30 the Commission, and that they approved the package with the same knowledge of activities that was 31 before the Commission today. 32 Commissioner Leland agreed with Chairman Nelson and referred to page. 32 of the CLCA minutes 33 which mentioned the camping, parking and other ancillary activities-. 34 Mr. Price stated that the biggest issue was criticism from the Department of Conservation (DOC) 35 concerning compatibility of both spatially and temporally ,events regarding impact on existing 36 agriculture and CLCA main purpose is to keep agriculture as the primary use and secondary uses to a. 37 minimal impact on the Williamson Act Contract. The CLCA was aware that ancillary events would 38 be taking place — the committee did not know to what extent those activities would be, and that they ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 o PAGE 3 1 would defer to the Planning Commission to put a cap on those potential impacts on existing 2 agricultural uses. The main concern of the CLCS was that the riding trails be limited to the existing 3 trails. Also the DOC was concerned with having an adequate monitoring plan in place. 4 Commissioner Leland asked Mr. Price if he looked at the proposed monitoring plan requiring that 5 the permit holder would submit an annual yearly report predicting what was to be planted and that 6 Development Services in conjunction with the Agricultural Commissioner and CLCA would monitor 7 the agriculture on an occasional basis. He also inquired if the report and minimal monitoring would 8 satisfy the DOC and CLCA concerns. 9 Mr. Price replied that typically when a chemical permit or operator. ID is applied for at the 10 Agricultural Commissioner, then the Agricultural Commissioner is aware of the type of crop to be 11 grown based on the permits requested. 12 Commissioner Leland responded that whatever type of monitoring program was selected, it needed 13 to satisfy concerns of the DOC and the CLCA. 14 Mr. Price indicated that his department had not yet reviewed the monitoring program, it would be a 15 new process for the Agricultural Commissioner, but as long as there was a means to recoup the cost 16 of the monitoring plan then they would be amenable to it. 17 18 Commissioner Leland read the monitoring language for Mitigation Measure #2 as follows: "The 19 Permittee shall report in writing to the Department of Development Services (DDS) which 20 agricultural activity it will pursue at the start of the agricultural season. The Butte County 21 Department of Development Services, in consultation with the Agricultural Commissioner and the 22 CLCA, shall periodically monitor the property for compliance. Monitoring and site visits will be 23 charged at the hourly rates consistent with adopted fees for Butte County." He asked Mr. Price if his 24 department was agreeing to the monitoring language. . 25 26 Mr. Price replied that he would feel more comfortable entering into a "compliance agreement" with 27 the property owners. A compliance agreement fee would be charged to the applicant that would be 28 sufficient to cover the Agricultural Commissioners cost of monitoring the agricultural production 29 and satisfy the monitoring for Mitigation Measure #2. 30 31 Commissioner Leland asked if Mr. Price would be amenable to changing the monitoring language of 32 Mitigation Measure #2 to read: "The Permittee shall enter into a compliance agreement in a form 33 acceptable to the Agricultural Commissioner to govern inspection, timing, frequency, and 34 reimbursement of the monitoring program." 35 36 Stacey Jolliffe reminded that Development Services would most likely still be required to monitor 37 the other activities outside of the agricultural production and that would need to be indicated in the 38 mitigation measure. 39 40 Mr. Price agreed with Ms. Jolliffe and replied that between the two departments they should 41 satisfactorily cover the concerns of the DOC and the CLCA. 42 43. Mr. Wannenmacher asked if it .was Commissioner Leland's intent to add the language to the 44 monitoring of Mitigation Measure #2 and not to change the existing language. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 4 s 1 2 3* 4 5 6 .8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Commissioner Leland replied that Mr. Wannenmacher was correct. Mr. Wannenmacher suggested adding a condition after Condition #9. Condition #9 deals with the location of the horseback trail riding. If the Commission: wanted to they, could add a Condition #10 that would say: `All uses other than horseback trail riding shall be confined to- areas that have no ability to have agricultural uses." Chairman Nelson and Mr. Price agreed that it would answer CLCA issues. The hearing was opened to the public. Connie Ballou addressed the Commission. She informed the Commission that there is an area designated for cross country events in the off season that would also be used for hay production during the agricultural season, which would make the new language that Mr. Wannenmacher suggested inaccurate. Chairman Nelson replied that as long as the applicant was satisfying the intent of the condition that it would be sufficient. Ms. Ballou responded that they were applying for a `Special Event Park' as described in the use permit application, but that they were being required to obtain a special event permit for each three day event they host. She understands that the Butte County Fire Department would want her to provide safety information, site plan, water etc for the first event of each season. The fire safety plan should remain the same for the entire season and that one Special Event Permit and one $100.00 fee would be adequate, and that there seem to be excessive monitoring measures and she would like to know why. Commissioner Marin spoke to Ms.. Ballou and indicated that he agreed with her on the excessive monitoring issues and hopefully at the•end of today it would all be behind her and she would have her approval for the Use Permit. Mr. Wannenmacher informed the Commission that there wasn't a representative from the Fire Department and that he could not say if the Fire Department would or wouldn't be willing to accept one special event permit for the entire event season. However, there are different types of events and that would indicate that each event would not be the same. Stacey Jolliffe addressed the Commission. She responded that each subsequent event would be easier to monitor as time goes on and as the applicant learns how to maintain the mitigation measures. The question would be if there is a problem when would you have a re -opener to say that didn't work so well in the last event and how could it be done differently at the next one. The intent of the individual Special Events Permits would be for the applicant to indicate any possible changes from the previous event and if any changes would be needed for the mitigation measures. Since the fee is only a hundred dollar fee, it wouldn't be too onerous for the applicant and it was a way of tightening up the monitoring measures to satisfy the requirements of the DOC, CLCA and Planning Commission concerns. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 5 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Chairman Nelson asked Ms. Ballou if she had a specified calendar of events and dates or if they just occur. Ms. Ballou responded that it was possible to schedule certain events for particular days, but that at any time they could be requested to schedule an additional event. Ms. Ballou indicated that perhaps she needs to contact someone at the Fire Department and see if she could get a single Special Events Permit for a series of events and then apply for additional ones as needed. Chairman Nelson inquired of staff if the Special Permits Events requirement could be made more flexible. Ms. Ballou replied that she thought that the Health Department instead of the Fire Department would be interested in the changes in the events due to the size of an event considering that there would be more port -a -potties and food trailers at larger events versus smaller events. Ms. Jolliffe asked if it would be possible for the applicant to present a schedule of events for specific dates to the Fire Department and obtain one special event permit for those events and then apply for additional special events permits as needed. Ms. Ballou wanted to know if she applied for the special events permit for 6 events at one time would she have to pay one fee of $100.00 or would she have to pay $600.00. Ms. Jolliffe replied that each special event permit was $100.00, but the Commission was trying to see if the Fire Department would be flexible and only charge one fee if Ms. Ballou came in with a schedule of events with the appropriate site plans for each event. Commissioner Lambert had a question about a reference made to a club house and bird watching that was indicated in the Agenda Report and was wondering what that was about. Ms. Ballou replied that she had no intention of having a club house or doing any bird watching and didn't know why that language was in there. She also indicated that there were not any building plans associated with this use permit. The hearing was closed and comments confined to the Commission and staff. Mr. Thistlethwaite made a recommendation to the Commission to create a condition that would specifically restrict the cross country use to an area that was specifically shown on the site plan that is included in the staff report and would be approved with the Use Permit. Ms. Jolliffe asked Mr. Thistlethwaite to clarify if the condition would be for during the off season or the growing season. Mr. Thistlethwaite responded that it was his intention for the restriction to be effective during the event season. Commissioner Leland commented that the language could state: "All non agricultural uses shall be confined to areas or times that have no ability for agricultural uses." ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 s PAGE 6. ■ 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 .15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 It was moved by Commissioner Leland, and seconded by Commissioner Marin, and passed by a vote of 4-1. Ayes — Commissioners Leland, Marin, Wilson and Chairman Nelson, Nays'- Commissioner Lambert to adopt Resolution PC06-64 approving the Use Permit for Michael Ballou subject to the findings and conditions of the staff report with the following changes: Mitigation Measure #2 add the following language to the monitoring plan - "The Permittee shall enter into a compliance agreement in a form acceptable to the Agricultural Commissioner to govern inspection, timing, frequency, and reimbursement of the monitoring program.". Delete Condition # 1; and add the following sentence to Condition #9 "All non agricultural uses shall be confined to areas or times that have no ability for agricultural uses." Lastly add a finding that the monitoring language is equal to or better than the existing language. B. UP06-0022 - staff recommends approval Name: Clearwire, LLC Project: Use Permit, UP06-0022 Planner: Chris Tolley APN: 042-070-197 Zoning: A-5 Location: 1110 West -East Avenue (on the north side of West East Avenue, 0.25 miles northeast of the Highway 32, West East Avenue intersection), on the. west side of the City of Chico. Proposal: Use Permit to collocate four panel antennas and four microwave dishes at a height of '113 feet on an existing 130 -foot communications tower and the . installation of ground equipment including radio cabinets�and a Global Positioning System antenna within the existing compound. There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board Ms. Jolliffe addressed the Commission. She wanted to point out that Item H on the agenda today was for a Zoning Code Amendment that would change the zoning code in relation to how Use Permits . and Minor Use Permits for the collocation of facilities were handled due to some changes in State law and that staff would go into more detail during that portion of the meeting today. Chris Tolley gave a description and summary of the project The hearing was opened to the public. Dave Wiltsee, representative for Clearwire LLC was present to answer any questions from the Commission. Mr. Wiltsee stated that he had some objections to Condition #12 with regards to the performance security in the amount of $2,500.00. He asked if Condition #12 could be deleted because it was not necessary. Clearwire had already submitted a RF.report on the emissions, and the emissions from this type of facility must comply with FCC standards and that the FCC standards are quite stringent. This project complies with the FCC standards, and the idea of putting down $2500.00 for each tower does add up in the long run. Mr. Wiltsee also stated that there are sufficient conditions to make sure that the facilities will be removed in the event that they are'no longer utilized. The hearing was closed and comments were confined to the Commission and staff. e BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ® MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30,2006 o PAGE 7 ■ 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Lambert inquired if the upcoming changes would only be to the processing of the permits and asked if the Ordinance would not be changed. Mr. Thistlethwaite addressed the Commission. He stated that the existing Ordinance standards would still need to be met, but that collocating antennae on existing towers would become a ministerial action and would not require a hearing. New antennaes and towers would require a hearing and would be heard by the Planning Commission. He also .stated that staff would go into detail during that portion of the hearing today. There was a brief discussion on the proposed changes to regulations on wireless communications facilities and what the upcoming changes would be. Mr. Wiltsee responded to the discussion to reiterate that his company had done several noise .emissions studies on the site and that they all met the FCC standards, and that the performance security just wasn't necessary. Commissioner Leland stated that the tests were just projections of what the noise emissions was going to be, and the performance security was to enable a test to be conducted after the antennae was erected. Somewhat similar to having a building inspector inspect your house after the permit was issued to make sure you are in conformance with the approved plans. Mr. Wiltsee replied that Commissioner Leland was correct, but he would like to see the results of some previous tests that had been conducted. He indicated that he did not think that there were any previous tests done and that the money was just squirreled away and left there. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Marin and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution PC06-65 to approve the Use Permit for Clearwire LLC subject to the findings and conditions. C. UP06-0023 — staff recommends approval Name: MetroPCS Project: Use Permit UP06-0023 Planner: Chris Tolley APN: 041-430-012 Zoning: AR -2.5 Location: 2822 Clark Rd, approximately 600 feet north of Butte Campus Dr. and 2700 feet north of the Clark Rd/Durham-Pentz Rd intersection, in the Butte Valley area. Proposal: Metro PCS requests a use permit to colocate six (6) panel antennas at the height of 42 feet on a. previously approved, communications tower and the installation of equipment cabinets on a new concrete pad adjacent to the tower. There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board. Chris Tolley gave a description and summary of the prof ect and showed a power point presentation. The.hearing was opened the public. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PAGE 8 ■ 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44, 45 46 47 48 Mr. Crouse, the applicant's representative wasp resent to speak and answer any questions the Commission might have. The hearing was closed and comments were confined to the Commission and staff. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner. Leland,and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution PC06-66 to approve the Use Permit for MetroPCS subject to the findings and conditions. D. UP 04-06 - staff recommends approval. Name: David Murray Project: Use Permit, UP 04-06 - Planner: Carl Durling APN: 063-250-039 Zoning: TM -20 Location: At the easterly end of Village Drive, approximately 0.75 miles from the intersection of Crown Point Road; approximately 1.4 miles from the intersection of Crown Point Road and Deer Creek Highway (Highway 32), south of Forest Ranch. Proposal: Use Permit to allow continuation of an existing dog kennel for 18 dogs including outdoor cable runs. There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board. Carl Durling gave a description and summary of the project, and he showed a powerpoint presentation. Mr. Durling explained that this project came to the attention of Development Services through a citation by Animal Control, and that there were several violations that needed to be cleared up before the applicant could apply for a Use Permit for the kennel. Chairman Nelson inquired if Animal Control had looked at the project. Mr. Durling replied that Animal Control has been out to the site and initially thought that the applicant would need to apply for an exotic animal permit due to the dogs appearing to be wolf hybrids. Upon testing by a veterinarian it was discovered that the dogs were of Husky or Malamute descent, therefore an exotic animal license was not needed. The applicant would be required to apply for a kennel license that would monitor the vaccinations of the dogs, within 30 days of the approval of the Use Permit. The hearing was opened to the public. Dave Murray addressed the Commission. He was here to answer any questions concerning the dogs and the kennel permit. Mr. Murray stated that it was his intention to maintain the. dogs on 20 -foot cable runs with individual dog houses, but Animal Control did not like that. setup so he was going to erect a kennel consisting of 18 cages. In addition to the cages he wanted to maintain 5-6 runners to provide exercise for the.dogs. Commissioner Wilson.asked how long the cable dog runners were. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 e PAGE 9 0' 1 Mr. Murray replied that they vary in length with the shortest one being 18 feet and longest one at 35 2 feet. 3 4 Commissioner Wilson asked if the dogs roamed on the property or if they were contained at all 5 times. 6 7 Mr. Murray responded that they were contained and if a runner happens to break the dogs usually 8 stay around the other dogs and do not roam around. 9 10 Commissioner Wilson asked the. primary breed of the dogs. 11 12 Mr. Murray replied that the vet had stated that they were a Husky mix. He also indicated that last 13 year he had a veterinarian come to his property and vaccinate all of the dogs. 14 15 Brett Gonzales addressed the Commission. Mr. Gonzales stated that he is a neighbor of Mr. Murray's 16 and that this project was brought to the attention of Animal Control by way of complaints. His 17 property is over 1800 -feet away from Mr. Murray's property and that there is considerable noise 18 from the dogs at all hours of the day. Mr. Gonzales read Mitigation Measure #2 as follows: "The 19 applicant shall modify the application by reducing the number of dog cable runs from 18 to 10, 20 limiting their use to daylight hours, and confining them to the area west of the entrance drive way 21 and north of a line between the kennel and the future "granny" house. The applicant shall revise the 22 site plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager prior to establishment of the use." He said that 23 part seemed odd due to the fact that the west side of the driveway was toward the more inhabited 24 area of neighboring properties and that to the east side there are not any inhabited parcels. He felt 25 that it would be less of an impact to the neighbors if the dogs were located to the east side of the 26 property. Mr. Gonzales stated that he was opposed to the kennel, and that when he first moved into 27 the area he was quite surprised at the level of noise created by the dogs. 28 29 Tonya Lynch addressed the Commission. Ms. Lynch indicated that she was an adjacent property 30 owner to the west of Mr. Murray and had been in residence for 14 years. She stated that the dogs 31 were on dog runners in close proximity to the joint property line. Ms. Lynch stated that she is 32 definitely opposed to the kennel; she had sent a letter with pictures to the Planning Department. Her 33 concerns are the noise level, in the Noise Study it stated that the dogs only barked at strangers or at 34 feeding time. The dogs actually bark day and night, anything will set them off — wildlife, cars, 35 anything. Another issue is the junk cars and abandoned. vehicles — the report stated that "all" of the 36 junk cars and vehicles had been removed. That was inaccurate. Ms. Lynch stated that she had sent 37 pictures to Development Services showing an abandoned bus and several junk trailers, including a 38 burnt out trailer. There is also a building directly on the mutual property line that is an eyesore, the 39 siding has been removed and the insulation is in direct view from her property. The dogs are also on 40 runners situated next to the property line. Ms. Lynch stated that she cannot go near her property line 41 without the dogs going crazy. In addition to all of the other issues, while clearing near the mutual 42 property line Ms: Lynch discovered a well that is on her property with piping running over to Mr. 43 Murray's' property; and if that is the well that Mr. Murray intends to use for his kennel then there is 44 -a really big problem. Mr. Murray does not have an easement for his well to exist on her property. The 45 Initial Study also indicates that the. runs would not be any closer than 150 -feet from neighboring 46 property lines, currently the dogs are right up to the property line. Ms. Lynch also stated that she has 47 a shallow well that is down an incline from the kennel site; she is concerned with the feces run-off 48 contaminating the ground water. The Initial Study also indicated that there would not be an odor ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ni PAGE 10 ■ 1 issue because the applicant would be required to clean the kennels daily; she said that is not ' 2 happening at this time. 3 4 Ms. Lynch also stated that she has personally witnessed some of the dogs that have gotten loose from 5 the cable runners, stalk and kill several of her chickens inside her chicken coop. She also indicated 6 that she is concerned about the dogs getting loose and coming onto her property as she has small 7 children and is concerned for their safety. - 8 9 Mr. Wannenmacher asked Ms. Lynch who she had sent the letter and pictures to. 10 11 Ms., Lynch indicated that she had the letter with her and had sent the letter and the pictures to Butte 12 County Planning Division at 7 County Center Drive in Oroville. 13 14 Commissioner Leland asked Ms. Lynch if the letter stated anything different than what she had 15 discussed today. 16 17 Ms. Lynch stated that it did not; the letter was basically the same and went into greater detail about 18 her opposition to the kennel permit. 19 20 Mr. Murray addressed the Commission. He referred to the vehicles on his property; he stated that the 21 tanker vehicle was running and would be used in the construction of the kennel; the school bus was 22{ also a running vehicle and that there weren't any burnt out trailers anywhere. Mr. Murray also stated 23 that he was not finished with the cleanup process. He also stated that he did have the property lines 24 surveyed and the survey showed that the well was on the neighbor's property, and he is trying to find 25 a new source of water. Mr. Murray also stated that his intention was to try to consolidate all of the 26 kennel and dog runners towards the central area of the property. His goal was to keep the dogs for the 27 rest of their natural lives and to avoid having them go to the pound or be put to sleep. 28 29 Commissioner Lambert asked for a description of the type of cable runners being used. 30 31 Mr. Murray replied that it was a plastic coated cable tied between two trees with a 20 -foot chain 32 attached to the cable and then the chain was attached to the dog's collar. 33 34 Commissioner Lambert asked if it would be a problem to move the runners to the east side of the 35 driveway instead of the west side. 36 37 Mr. Murray responded that it was his idea to condense the kennel area closer to. the existing, now 38 legally permitted house, and that he would use just a few runners located nearby to exercise the dogs. 39 40 Chairman Nelson asked if Mr. Murray was still collecting dogs, or intended to have more dogs on 41 the site. 42 43 Mr. Murray stated no — he was actually.hoping to diminish the number of dogs. Occasionally one of 44 the. dogs will get loose and then he will end up with a litter of puppies. He also indicated that it was 45 his intention to turn the existing structure that is situated close to Ms. Lynch's property into a granny 46 flat, but in all reality it would most likely need to be tom down and moved due to the setback issue. 47 ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION m MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PAGEI I . 1 Commissioner Marin asked if Mr. Murray had any objections to tying the cable runners on the east 2 side. 3 4 Mr. Murray replied,that he did not; he would prefer to keep them in the center of the area. 5 6 Commissioner Lambert asked Mr. Murray what alternate source of water would be available. 7 8 Mr. Murray responded that he would need to have a new well drilled, but that he is limited with 9 funds and available time. 10 11 Mr. Durling informed the Commission that Mr. Murray was cited for the junk cars by. Butte County 12 Code Enforcement, and that he conducted a site visit with a Code Enforcement Officer to verify that 13 the junk cars that had been cited were removed, and -they had been. 14 15 Commissioner Lambert stated that she would have appreciated Animal Control being present to 16 answered questions. 17 18 Commissioner Wilson asked for clarification on whether it wasAnimal Control or Code 19 Enforcement that brought this issue to light. 20 21 Mr. Durling indicated that it was both agencies. 22 23 Ms. Jolliffe asked Mr. Durling if Animal Control's concerns would. be addressed if the Use Permit 24 were to be approved. 25 26 Mr. Durling replied that Animal Control would be satisfied through the issuance of the Use Permit 27 and subsequently the kennel license. 28 29 Commissioner Wilson asked if Animal Control regularly inspected licensed kennels. 30 31 Mr. Durling indicated that he did not know if there were regular inspections, but that Animal Control 32 is aware of this kennel and is requiring a kennel license and a use permit be issued. 33 34 Commissioner Wilson asked if this kennel would be monitored closely to see if the applicant was 35 complying with the conditions of the Use Permit. 36 37 Mr. Durling responded that the monitoring would be done by Development Services and Animal 38 Control would be doing yearly monitoring of the dogs for vaccinations. 39 40 Commissioner Wilson asked if the monitoring would include the monitoring of the animal waste 41 clean up. 42 43 Mr. Durling replied that there was a condition of the Use Permit that would address the issue. . 44 45 Commissioner Wilson replied that cleaning up after 18 dogs would be a pretty big job. 46 ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PAGE 12 ■ 1 Chairman Nelson replied that he was not in favor of this project and that all they were doing was 2 allowing the applicant to have more than 5 dogs and calling it a kennel. He would like to find a way 3 to allow Mr. Murray keep his dogs, but not approve the Use Permit. 4 5 Commissioner Leland indicated that he would be inclined to grant the permit, and that dogs make 6 noise regardless of number — dogs bark and are noisy. 7 8 Commissioner Lambert replied that she did not see a problem with the location of the kennel, but she 9 really would like to hear from Animal Control regarding the condition of the kennels and the quality 10 of care that the dogs were receiving. 11 12 Commissioner Marin concurred with Commissioners Leland and Lambert, and the parcel was a 21- 13 acre parcel and the applicant should. be able to. obtain a permit that would allow him to maintain his 14 dogs rather than have them impounded and put to sleep. Animal Control and Development Services 15 would be monitoring the kennel to insure compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions 16 and that should be sufficient. 17 18 Commissioner Lambert stated that she would like some feedback from Animal Control on the whole 19 issue. 20 21 Commissioner Marin responded that he agreed with Commissioner Lambert that it would be ideal to 22 hear from Animal Control, but if the Use Permit was not issued Mr. Murray would be open to being 23 cited again and why would the Commission want to keep him out of compliance in the meantime. 24 25 Mr. Thistlethwaite addressed the Commission. He reminded the Commission that this project has 26 been ongoing for some time and that it would not be a problem if the project was continued, which 27 would allow for some feedback from Animal Control. Mr. Thistlethwaite reminded the Commission 28 that regrettably, the letter submitted by Ms. Lynch had not been received and therefore the concerns 29 had not been taken into account or addressed. This information could be considered additional 30 information that should have been included as part of the environmental review. It would be prudent 31 to direct staff to address the letter from Ms. Lynch, in particular the issue of the junk cars, noise and 32 especially the situation with the well. 33 34 Commissioner Marin asked what meetings were being scheduled for December. 35 36 Ms. Jolliffe responded that there was a December 14'' meeting scheduled and that a quorum had not 37 been confirmed for December 28, 2006, there was .a possibility that the December 280, meeting 38 would be cancelled. 39 40 Commissioner Marin stated that a continuation to the December 14th meeting would probably be 41 insufficient time for the applicant to remedy some of the issues, in particular the issue of the well. 42 43 Commissioner Wilson commented that it would appear that Mr. Murray has lived his life the way he 44 wanted to for many years and that progress has finally caught up with him, and now that he is in the 45 system Animal Control will not let this issue drop nor will Code Enforcement just forget about him. 46 It may take Mr. Murray some time to come into compliance, but at some point he will have to. 47 ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30; 2006 v PAGE 13 1 Commissioner Leland concurred that Animal Control will have to conduct at minimum, yearly 2 inspection of the animals and their vaccination records.. 3 4 Commissioner Lambert stated that a continuance would give staff time to include the letter from Ms. 5 Lynch in the environmental review. 6 7 Mr. Thistlethwaite responded that Commissioner Lambert was correct, and that quite frankly he was 8 concerned that there was testimony heard today that indicated there was a serious issue with the well, 9 and it was an important part of this project that the applicant now appears to need a new well. 10 11 There was a brief discussion on the fact that there was an illegal well for the project site. 12 13 Doug Fogel addressed the Commission. He said there is information in the Environmental Health file 14 that Mr. Murray and his department was aware that the well was insufficient prior to this hearing. 15 Mr. Fogel stated that since Mr. Murray admitted that the well was not his and the neighbor has 16 confirmed it is on their property, he will need to drill his own well to provide water to his parcel. He 17 also said that a continuation would be appropriate since Mr. Murray would need the water for the 18 animals as well as his personal residence. 19 20 Commissioner Lambert commented that it was relatively hard in that area to find a good source for 21 water. 22 23 Mr. Fogel responded that to ensure a good supply of water that Mr. Murray might need to drill up to 24 700 feet deep, and that will be a considerable expense. 25 26 Commissioner Wilson asked if it was part of the Use Permit to have adequate water on the property. 27 28 Ms. Jolliffe stated that currently it was not a condition of the Use Permit, but it could be added. 29 30 Mr. Fogel replied that it would most likely be a condition'of the kennel license and that Animal 31 Control would require adequate water be available. 32 33 Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Wannenmacher if he would feel comfortable with a motion to approve 34 this project, or would he feel more comfortable with a continuation. 35 36 Mr. Wannenmacher replied that his main concern was that staff did not get comments to the 37 environmental document and could not address those comments, and he did not know if that would 38 change the document with regards to the new information about the noise level. 39 40 Commissioner Marin again asked if the December 14th meeting was appropriate or if more time was 41 needed toevaluate the project. 42- 43 Mr. Thistlethwaite indicated that it would be more reasonable to continue the project to the first 44 meeting in January which would be January 11th. He also indicated that additional site inspections 45 would be needed and his recommendation would be to continue it to the January 11th meeting. 46 47 Commissioner Lambert asked Ms. Jolliffe if the January 11th meeting was acceptable. 48 ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 e PAGE 14 ■ 1 Ms. Jolliffe replied that it would be fine. .2 3 It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Marin, and unanimously 4 carried to continue Use Permit 04-06 for a kennel for David Murray to the January 11th meeting; and 5 directing staff to take in the additional information brought forth by the neighbors including the issue 6' of the illegal well and address those issues before the January 11 th meeting. 7 8- 9 9 Chairman Nelson called for a short break. 10 11 The meeting reconvened at 11:00 am. 12 13 14 15 E. UP. 06-07 staff recommends_ approval 16 17 Name: Allen and Lisa Renville Project: Use Permit UP 06-07 18 Planner: Chris Thomas APN: 041-120-113 Zoning: "U" (Unclassified) 19 Location: 2554 Lake Hills Drive, about a quarter of a mile north of Durham -Peutz 20 Road (Butte Valley). 21 Proposal: Use Permit to allow a private hobby kennel for up to twelve dogs 22 (Australian Shepherds) owned by the applicants. 23 24 There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board. 25 26 Chris Thomas gave a description and summary of. the project; he also. showed a power point 27 presentation. Mr. Thomas also mentioned that the staff report was incorrect in regards to the number 28 of dogs on site; the maximum number of dogs on the site would be 12. He indicated that he had 29 received two calls from Karl and Valerie Robinson; they were opposed to the project due to noise 30 issues and proper containment of the dogs. 31 32 The hearing was opened to the public. 33 34 Al Renville, the applicant addressed the Commission. He gave a description of his dogs including the 35 location and condition of the kennels. He also informed the Commission that the dogs are seen on a 36 regular basis by a local veterinarian for vaccinations and health checkups. 37 38 Valerie Robinson addressed the Commission. She stated that she was an adjacent property neighbor 39 to the north of Mr. Renville and has had issues with the dogs being too close to the property line. She 40 also indicted that Mr. Renville has 8 dogs that warehoused next to her property, line and the 41 fencing is inadequate as her husband was almost bitten when they were checking the property line 42 fence. After notifying Mr. Renville of the incident with the. dog, the dogs were moved about 10' off 43. of the property line. Ms. Robinson also stated that from November 17th until after Thanksgiving there 44 'were actually 18 dogs total on the property. She also witnessed a fight between 5 dogs in one kennel 45 where one dog was left wounded and bleeding. Ms. Robinson also stated that the dogs bark all day 46 long and she complained to Animal Control about the noise and the number of dogs which started:' 47 this kennel process. 48 ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ® MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ® PAGE 15 "® .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Matt Jackson addressed the Commission. He stated that he is a colleague of Mr. Renville's, and that Mr. Renville has first quality kennels, the dogs are treated like children, and are very friendly. Animal Control has visited the.kennels and has not had a problem with the condition of the dogs or the cleanliness of the kennel. Jack Hite addressed the Commission. He thanked the Commission for ensuring the quality of life in Butte County. Mr. Hite stated that he has known the Renville's for 13 years, and their property is one of the cleanest on the street. Mr. Hite said that he does not hear the dogs barking from the Renville. property with the exception of when the Renvilles are out of town, and that his grandchildren walk up and down the street by the Renville's and they even stick their hands through the fence to pet the dogs. The dogs are very friendly and have never caused a problem. Valerie Robinson addressed the Commission. She spoke about the noise level from the barking dogs and that the Renville's do not clean up after the.dogs on a daily basis. Mr. Renville addressed the Commission. He spoke about the dogs near Ms. Robinson's property, and when.she complained about them being too close to the property line, he went out the very next day and moved the dogs 20 -feet away from the property line. Mr. Renville also stated that he tries to be very accommodating with his neighbors and sensitive to their concerns with the dogs. The hearing was closed and comments confined to the Commission and staff. Commissioner Lambert asked if Animal Control became involved due to the number of dogs, or if it was because of complaints that were received. Mr. Thomas replied that a complaint was made by the Robinsons to Animal Control, and at that time the Renville's became aware that they needed to have a Use Permit for a kennel license. He also stated that he had made three site visits, 1 announced and two unannounced; visited with the dogs, viewed the kennels and noted that they were in very cleancondition and that there was no sign of the refuse that has been indicated by Ms. Robinson. Commissioner Leland responded that he was inclined to approve the project subject to the findings and conditions. It was moved by Commissioner Leland to approve Use Permit 06-67 for Allen and Lisa Renville as set out in the Staff Report dated 11/30/06, part of which _is adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the resolution. Mr. Wannenmacher stated that there is no Mitigated Negative Declaration on this project. Commissioner Leland said Mr. Wannenmacher was correct, this is a categorical exemption and he amended his motion to reflect that. Mr. Wannenmacher said the Commission needs to make a determination that the testimony they heard in no way would require them to consider additional information. . Commissioner Leland said he .has heard nothing that would require additional environmental' examination. ■ BUTTE'COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION e MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PAGE 16 e. 1 It was moved by Commissioner Leland, and seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and unanimously 2 carried to adopt Resolution PC 06-67 and approve the Use Permit for Allen and Lisa Renville subject 3 to the findings and conditions. 4 6 7 F. UP 06-14 - staff recommends approval 8 9 Name: Don Sakal Project: Use Permit UP 0644 10 Planner: Mark Michelena APN: .065-171-043' Zoning: AR -2-1/2 11 Location: On the East side of the Skyway, 650' North of Woodward Dr. (14664 12 Skyway). 13. Proposal: A medical clinic in the Magalia area. 14 15 There is.a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board. 16 17 Mark Michelena handed out a revised site plan from the applicant, and then showed a power point 18 presentation along with a description of the project. Mr. Michelena indicated that he had a few 19 changes to the conditions of the project: Conditions #9 and #10 were to be deleted per Public Works 20 and to renumber the following conditions. 21 22 The hearing was opened to the public.- 23 ublic.23 24- Don Sakal, the applicant addressed the Commission. He provided a summary of the project. and 25 stated that his current clinic had been sold and he would no longer be able to provide medical care at 26 that site, so he decided to construct a clinic on his own property to avoid abandoning his patients. 27 28 Commissioner Wilson had a question_ about the lower driveway shown on the revised site map and 29 asked where it ended. 30 31 Mr. Sakal indicated that the driveway went across the property -and ended at Elmwood. 32 33 Commissioner Wilson asked if there would be access to the clinic off of Elmwood. 34 35 Mr. Sakal stated that the. lower driveway was gated off and they do not wish to provide access to 36 Elmwood. 37 38 Mr. Michelena responded that he had made a site visit and that particular driveway was just a dirt 39 path that did not look drivable. 40 41 The hearing was closed and comments were confined to the Commission and staff. 42 43 Commissioner Wilson asked Mr. Fogel if the existing well would serve both the residence and the 44 clinic. 45 46 . Mr. Fogel replied that the yields from wells in the area were quite high and it would not.be a 47 problem. 48 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION s MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 m PAGE 17 ■ 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 It was moved by Commissioner Marin, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution PC 06-68 and approve the Use Permit for Don Sakal subject to the findings and conditions, and deleting Condition #9 and # 10 and renumbering the rest of the Conditions accordingly. G. TPM 06-05 — staff recommends approval. Name: Gerald and Michelle Nelson Project: TPM 06-05 Planner: Mark Michelena APN: 055-370-035 Zoning: FR -20 Location: At the end of York Road, approximately 2,650 feet south of Wayland Road, south of the Town of Paradise. Proposal: Tentative Parcel Map to divide a 60.38 -acre parcel (+/-) into two parcels (30.05 acres and 30.33 acres). Both parcels will have access off of York Road (a private road). Water will be provided by on-site individual wells. Sewage disposal will be handled by on-site individual septic systems. Proposed parcel 1 is already developed with a single-family dwelling, accessory structures and access driveway. There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board. Mark Michelena gave a description of the project and showed a power point presentation. He made a correction to Condition #12 and #13- changing the .`Oroville Municipal Airport' to `Paradise Skypark Airport', he also handed out a letter from the owners along York Road, which dealt with the existing Road Maintenance Agreement. Mr. Michelena also passed out a letter that he had received the day before from Mr. Glover. Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Michelena if a second unit was allowable in an airport zone. Mr. Michelena stated that it was. The hearing was opened to the public. Tom Wrinkle, from Sierra West Surveying, addressed the Commission. He asked for an explanation of Mitigation Measure #3, which refers to the removal of trees - and there is a possibility that no trees will be removed: Mr. Michelena replied that staff had started included this mitigation measure to protect oak trees, and if in the construction process no trees were removed then this measure would not apply. Ms. Jolliffe added that Mitigation Measure #3 would come -into effect upon removing or encroaching upon oak trees at the project site. Mr. Wrinkle responded that perhaps the addition of wording that indicated the mitigation measure would not apply if no trees were removed would be appropriate. s BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 s PAGE 18 ■ 1 2 3 5 .6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Michelena read the following sentence from the measure: "Prior to issuance 'of any grading, building, septic, or well permit, or the approval of any improvements. plans, the applicant shall submit an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan prepared .....*....... " There was a brief discussion on the wording of the mitigation measure and the applicability of the Oak Tree Mitigation Plan. Ms. Jolliffe proposed that a sentence be added to Mitigation Measure #3 that would state: "An Oak Tree Mitigation Plan will only be required upon encroaching upon or removal of oak trees". Commissioner Leland suggested that the note match the language of Mitigation Measure #4. Mr. Wrinkle addressed Mitigation Measure #4-1 which refers to the Oak Tree protection measures, and that the subsection of the condition did not make sense to him. He wanted to make sure that his client understands the entire scope of the Mitigation Measures. Ms. Jolliffe read the beginning of Mitigation Measure #4, and said that the applicability of the measure was stated in the first sentence-. Chairman Nelson confirmed that if the measure was applicable then you would go on to the subsequent subsection. Mr. Michelena read a section from the measure reiterating that it was asking to put a fence around any oak trees that were close to a building site or driveway improvements. Commissioner Leland asked how it would be decided that the mitigation measure would need to be enforced.-.. Ms. Jolliffe replied that there is aerial photography available and they ask for site plans for comparison and that when oak trees are close to building sites they ask if the oak trees will be impaired upon and so forth. Commissioner Leland inquired if, when the applicant applied for building permits, the site plan was . routed through planning to check on the proximity of the construction to oak trees. . Mr. Thistlethwaite replied that Commissioner Leland was correct; and that all building permits were routed through Associate Planners. prior to issuance and that the planners will review each of the conditions of approval for compliance with the recorded map and at that time if an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan was required the applicant would be notified prior to the approval and issuance.of the building permit. Commissioner Wilson commented that Butte•County was known to be very thorough in the Building and Planning Departments. Chris Glover, an adjacent neighbor to the project site, addressed the Commission. He was present today representing the other owners along York Road and to bring their concerns to the Commission. Mr. Glover referred to his letter and that the current property owners all had a Road Maintenance Agreement attached to the title of .their property, except the Nelsons. It concerned all the other ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 o PAGE 19 s 1 .residents on York Road, and they are all requesting that the resulting parcels of the tentative map 2 have a Road Maintenance Agreement recorded on their deeds also. 3 4 Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Michelena about the Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) that he had 5 mentioned earlier. He commented that even though the existing RMA was recorded in Butte County 6 in 1986 that it still would be applicable today. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Michelena replied that the RMA stated in the conditions was applicable to the resulting parcels only and that if the existing RMA was applicable to the current parcel that it would also .be applicable to the resulting parcels. Mr. Glover responded that it would be great if the current RMA was applicable to the Nelsons' property, but it was not. Ms. Jolliffe asked Mr. Glover if it was his understanding that the existing RMA currently does not apply to the subject parcel. Mr. Glover concurred, he had researched both the recorded RMA and the title of the subject parcel and he could find absolutely no record tying both together. Mr. Michelena stated that a RMA was required for all non -publicly maintained roads to a County maintained road, and that Public Works is present to answer those questions. He indicated that he was not sure if a separate RMA would be required for the new parcels and an additional one for a fair share of the improvements and maintenance of the existing portion of York Road. Mr. Glover commented on the existing RMA, he stated that it is for 2591 -feet of York Road and basically it ends at the beginning of Mr. Nelson's property. He would like to go on , record representing all the owners along York Road in stating that their commitment to York Road ends at Mr. Nelson's property, and that if there was an extension added to the road with the. name of York Road they would not be agreeable to any part of that road maintenance agreement. Mr. Glover also stated that since the resulting parcels would be using York Road for access purposes that they should join the current RMA and assist in the maintenance of York Road. Mr. Glover also indicated that there is a restriction of a gate- approximately 600' from the end of York Road, which is actually at the beginning of Mr. Glover's property. He stated that Mr. Nelson had put the gate up for privacy during the construction of his residence, and that previously it had not bothered the neighbors, but at this time they would like the gate removed and the road to be open. Commissioner. Lambert asked if the gate was part of the RMA. Mr. Glover replied that it was not, and he and the neighbors would not mind if Mr. Nelson moved the gate to the beginning of his property. Lastly, he would like to bring up the fact that York Road is in poor repair. The majority of wear and tear has been a result of the construction on the Nelson's property.. The dust is unbearable in the summertime and Karen Painter whose house is on the opposite end of York Road bears the brunt of the dust problem. Their residence is inundated with dust from the construction equipment going down to the Nelsons. Since Mr. Glover is representing the neighbors, they wanted him to mention that this may continue for another two years after property is split and another residence is constructed at the end of York Road. He stated that Mr.. Michelena said there will be a 15 mph limit on the road for the construction equipment, which will ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING. COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 e PAGE 20 ■ 1 help, but there is no gravel on the road. The neighbors want to put new gravel on the road, and that 2 the Nelsons should contribute to the cost of building York Road up to a reasonable County standard_ , 3 and that the neighbors would like to make it a condition of the parcel map. 4 5 Commissioner Leland asked Mr. Glover where exactly the gate was located on York Road. 6 7 Mr. Glover with the assistance of Mr. Michelena pointed out the location of the gate on one of the 8 power point photos. 9 10 Chairman Nelson asked Eric Schroth if he was familiar with the RMA. 11 12 Mr. Schroth replied that RMA's are confusing to understand and the primary purpose that Public . 13 Works requires it is so that it gets on the title documents so that all future property owners are aware 14 that they live on a private road and will be responsible for maintenance. Public Works does not seek 15 to create a legally binding agreement by setting the condition. The RMA that is in effect will remain 16 in effect for the neighbors, and the new RMA will require that the new parcels created will be 17 responsible solely for the road easement on their property and also for a portion of the access of the 18 non -publicly maintained road out to the existing York Road. 19 20 Chairman Nelson stated that under the RMA that has been recorded, it is still between the parties to 21 go work out issues in court if they have problems and can't come to an agreement. 22 23 Commissioner Leland replied that it was a question of who was a parry to the existing RMA, and 24 there was only one signator on the copy that he had, and the legal description does not indicate that 25 the Nelsons property would be included in the agreement. He also mentioned that Mr. Glover had 26 researched the Nelsons title and the RMA was not an exception listed, which would indicate that this 27 RMA was not binding on the Nelsons. 28 29 Commissioner Leland asked Mr. Schroth if Public Works would require a RMA relating to the 30 stretch of road that would be used to access the publicly maintained road. 31 . 32 Mr. Schroth replied that his department does require that, and it is a condition_ of the parcel map. 33 34 Commissioner Leland asked if the neighbors would need to enter into a new agreement with Mr. 35 Nelson for the maintenance of the portion of the road under the existing RMA that is not applicable 36 to the Nelsons' property. 37 ' 38 Mr. Schroth stated that the Nelsons are not bound by the neighbors agreement to fulfill the 39 conditions of the RMA requirement to record the parcel map. 40 41 Commissioner Leland inquired how that would work, because usually an agreement is between two 42 people to agree, and if you are requiring an agreement with whom do they have to agree.. ' 43 44 Mr. Schroth stated that he had not read the County form for the RMA but that he believes that it is an 45 agreement between the County and the person dividing the property that acknowledges that they are ' 46 responsible for maintaining a share of the road. 47 ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION o MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 21 1 Commissioner Lambert thought that perhaps the RMA was an agreement to be part of a road 2 maintenance agreement. 3 4 Commissioner Leland stated that he thought it was requiring -an agreement with the other property 5 owners that rely on the access, but in fact it is an agreement between the County and the developer. 6 7 Chairman Nelson commented that if it was a condition that requires them to continually maintain the 8 road, then the County would have an RMA that the applicant would be required to sign. 9 10 Mr. Schroth stated that Chairman Nelson was correct. The main purpose being that the RMA gets 11 recorded on the title and that it is carried forward. 12 13 Commissioner Leland stated that basically they would be leaving the neighbors to their own devices 14 to allocate the cost of maintaining the road. 15 16 Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Schroth if before the parcel map could be recorded would the Nelsons 17 have to have an agreement with their neighbors for maintaining their portion of the existing section 18 of York Road. 19 20 Mr. Schroth replied that they do not have to resolve an actual agreement with the neighbors; it really 21 is left up to them to work out how the costs were to be shared. They would be required to 22 acknowledge that they had a responsibility to have.a share of the maintenance cost. 23 24 Commissioner Lambert asked if it was Condition #14 on page 15 of the Conditions of Approval. 25 26 Mr. Schroth.confirmed that it was. 27 28 Commissioner Leland asked if Civil Code Section 845 was the one that allocates maintenance 29 according to use. 30 31 Mr. Wannenmacher was not sure if that was the particular code section, he thought that perhaps it 32 was the code sections that referred to private roads. He indicated that this approach is the standard 33 way they approach this matter, and the applicant still has to prove legal access along the road. 34 35 Mr. Schroth replied that according to the title paperwork that had been presented to them, the 36 applicant had proven legal access to York Road. Mr. Schroth stated that he had been asked to 37 comment on Condition #20. The road condition that will be required is: "Gravel will only be 38 required on the parcels to be divided, the specification is gravel as needed on the road out to. the 39 publicly maintained road." 40 41 Mr. Glover addressed the Commission. He indicated that an easement had been granted to the 42 Nelsons' property that had been recorded in 1992, but there was no mention made of the RMA. He 43 also stated that he could provide Mr. Michelena a copy of the easement if desired. 44 45 Gerald Nelson addressed the Commission. He stated that he had spoken with Mr. Glover regarding 46 the new road that would be put in for the new parcels, and that they did not want to call it York 47 Road. He also stated that the new road would be on a separate maintenance agreement and that they 48 would maintain that part. As far as the gate is concerned he would be happy to remove the gate,.it ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 22 ■ 1 was put in place originally because kids were parrying down there at the end of York Road and 2 leaving their beer cans and other debris lying around. Mr. Nelson also indicated that he had no 3 objection to being a part of the RMA but that he has always tried to participate whenever someone 4 had asked him about maintaining York Road. He stated that he did not believe he was more 5 responsible for the condition of the road, but he would be amenable to paying a fair portion of the 6 costs involved in the rebuilding of the road. 7 8 The hearing was closed and comments were confined to the Commission and staff. 9 10 Commissioner Wilson asked if Mitigation Measure #1 would take care of the dust problem during 11 construction. 12 13 Mr. Michelena stated that any further development on the subject property or resulting parcels would 14 be required to follow the dust mitigation measure. 15 16 . Chairman Nelson addressed Mr. Nelson and asked him if he had anything further to say. 17 18 Mr. Nelson addressed the Commission, and said that he is just about done with the construction of 19 his residence and that if he had known there was a mitigation measure. for the dust then he. would 20 have followed it. 21 22 Mr. Michelena informed him that the proposed mitigation.measures would not have been applicable 23 to the construction of his residence and would apply to future construction after the parcel map has 24 been recorded. 25 26 Commissioner Lambert asked for clarification if Mitigation Measure # 1 would apply only on site and 27 not to the roads. 28 Y 29 Mr. Michelena responded that Commissioner Lambert was correct it would be applicable only to the 30 construction site. 31 32 Commissioner Lambert -stated that if the construction ,equipment wastraveling down the road 33 creating dust then they would not have to abide by Mitigation Measure #1 and would not have to 34 sprinkle the road. 35 36 Chairman Nelson commented that Mitigation Measure #14 reads: `Prior to or concurrently with the 37 recordation of the Parcel Map, provide a fully executed road maintenance agreement for all non 38 publicly access roads on -the County approved form. A note shall be placed on a separate document 39 which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet of the Parcel Map' 40 stating; "In accordance with Civil Code Section 845, maintenance of the road as shown heron shall 41 be shared by those properties with a legal interest in it." 42 43 Commissioner Lambert stated that the Nelsons were not sharing property with legal interest unless 44 the road qualifies as the shared property,. York Road leads up to the subject parcel and then you have 45 the mitigation measures that would apply to the new road and resulting parcels,. and traveling on 46 York Road is what the rest of the neighbors are concerned with. 47 ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION o MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ® PAGE 23 s 1 Commissioner Leland stated that the Civil Code section would address that and that everybody who 2 uses an easement has to pay a pro -rata share according to use. 3 4 Tom Wrinkle addressed the Commission. He stated that Condition #1 would cover the dust along 5 York Road, the condition reads "Dust generated by the development activities ......" and that would 6 include activities that would involve traveling along York Road and any future development on Lot 7 2. Mr. Nelson has agreed to assist with dust control and that this is a normal condition that is a part 8 of almost every parcel map and subdivision. 9 10 It was moved by Commissioner Marin, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, and unanimously carried 11 to adopt Resolution PC 06-69 to approve the Tentative Parcel Map for Gerald Nelson subject to the 12 findings and conditions with the following changes: in Conditions # 12 and # 13 change `Oroville 13 Municipal Airport' to `Paradise Skypark Airport' and changing Mitigation Measure #3 to read: 14 "Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an 15 additional map sheet that states: Prior to any development activity or the issuance of any permit or 16 approval removing or encroaching upon oak trees on the project site (this generally includes the 17 canopy drip -line of trees within the area of ground disturbance and trees subject to changes in 18 hydrologic regime) an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, registered 19 professional forester, botanist or landscape architect shall be submitted for review and approval by 20 the Director of Development Services or his/her designee." 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 H. ZCA06-0003 - staff recommends approval Name: Butte County Department of Development Services Project: Zoning Code Amendment Planner: Dan Breedon Location: County -wide File #: ZCA06-0003 Proposal: Zoning Code Amendment to Butte County Code section 24-262, which regulates wireless communications facilities. The purpose of the proposal to amend section 24-262, is to provide for a ministerial permitting process in the County, which would replace the existing discretionary permitting process regulating proposed installations of "collocation facilities" on, or immediately adjacent to a "wireless telecommunications collocation facility," as that term is defined in Senate Bill. 1627. It is necessary to replace the existing discretionary permitting process regulating proposed installations of collocation facilities on, or immediately adjacent to a wireless telecommunications collocation facility with a ministerial permitting process, in order to comply with requirements set forth in Senate Bill 1627, which was recently enacted by the State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and which will become effective January 1, 2007. The proposed ordinance would define specified terms and set forth required standards, both development standards and performance standards, with which collocation facilities, as defined in Senate Bill 1627, would be required to comply. Chuck Thistlethwaite gave a summary and description of the proposal to amend Section 24-262 of Butte County Code regarding wireless telecommunication facilities. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 s PAGE 24 ■ 1 Chairman Nelson reiterated that the process for new poles would stay the same and would be heard 2 by the Planning Commission, and that co -location on existing poles would have the same statute and 3 standards but they would become ministerial permits and not be heard by the Commission. 4 5 Mr. Thistlethwaite indicated that Chairman Nelson was correct. 6 7 Rob MacKenzie addressed the Commission. He stated that the legislation is difficult to read and 8 there are a number of places where it is vague. The goal of the ordinance is to take the two major 9 categories in the new legislation and flip them around; the interpretation of the legislation means that 10 if there are facilities in the County that have already been authorized pursuant to a discretionary 11 permit by the Planning Commission and gone through the CEQA process then any collocations that 12 are added to those facilities have to be processed through ministerial permit process with a one size 13 fits all set of requirements. If a collocation is proposed on a facility that has not gone through a 14 discretionary permit process then that whole facility would be opened up to a discretionary permit 15 process to be heard by the Planning Commission. The legislation is vague on the definition of a 16 collocation facility, and he felt that a specific definition was needed to prevent somebody from 17 bootlegging in an antennae farm. The facilities are exempt from both the Subdivision Map Act and 18 the Subdivision Ordinance; and what was provided on the proposed Ordinance was that 19 `immediately adjacent' would be defined as: `on a small piece of ground that is exempt from the 20 Subdivision Map Act." The accepted spelling of collocate would include two 1's, which matches the 21 spelling in the new legislation. Another change would be if a company stated that we were 22 precluding them from providing service which is one of the things that we cannot do, instead of 23 having a hearing by the Board of Supervisor we would have the hearing conducted by a hearing 24 officer — similar to the hearings held by the Code Enforcement Division for Nuisance Abatement 25 Hearings, which have worked very well. After the hearing the project would come before the 26 Planning Commission instead of the Board of Supervisors. 27 28 Mr. MacKenzie indicated that the Ordinance was created in a short amount of time and he has found 29 a deficiency in subparagraph (f)(3) that should have been pulled out and put into the new portion of 30 the Ordinance. If the Commission would approve this Ordinance today subject to that modification 31 so that all of the performance and development criteria were in the new part of the Ordinance instead 32 of some of them being in the new part and some in the old part, he would appreciate it. 33 34 Commissioner Leland had a question about existing antennas that were approved with a `stealth 35 design'; what criteria ministerially would be used to make sure the new one would match the stealth 36 design of the existing one. He also noted that there were some general design standards in the old 37 portion and (g)(3) that states: `The use of best available technology and/or construction to achieve 38 maximal visual unobtrusiveness is mandatory.' That criterion would _need to be added to the 39 collocation criteria. 40 41 Mr. MacKenzie stated that it was in (f)(3), (c) that Commissioner Leland's concern would be 42 addressed and that language could be changed to read "The antennas and pole shall be painted to 43 match the color of the existing antennas and pole or tower, or shall be painted and constructed to 44 blend with both the prevalent architecture and natural features existing on the subject site, as 45 determined by the Director of Development Services." 46 47 Commissioner Leland asked if the General Standards were incorporated in the (f)(3) collocations. 48 ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 m PAGE 25 ■ 1 Mr. MacKenzie replied that in the new Ordinance they refer back to the entire existing Ordinance, 2 and that in subparagraph (k) (3), (b) indicates that they have to comply with all applicable 3 requirements of the Section 247262. 4 5 Commissioner Leland inquired if it would include all of the General Design Standards. 6 7 Mr. MacKenzie replied — "Absolutely." 8 9 It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, and unanimously 10 carried to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Ordinance ZCA 06-0002 with the 11 change that the design criteria of the old section be added to the new section and on (f) (3), (c) take 12 the two" or's' out and put `ands' in, so that all of the requirements of (c) must be met instead of some, 13 of them. 14 15 ***** 16 17 LUNCH BREAK - 1:05 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. 18 19 ***** 20 21 1:30 P.M. 22 23 L MIN 96-03 —.staff recommends certification of the Final Environmental Impact 24 Report and approval of the project. 25 26 Name: M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project: Final Environmental Impact Report 27 (FEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan, MIN 28 96-03). 29 Planner: Pete Calarco APN: 039-530-019, 039-530-020. 30 Location: On a portion of the. M&T Chico Ranch approximately 1.5 miles east of 31 the Sacramento River and approximately 5 -miles southwest of the City of Chico in an 32 area north of and adjacent to Ord Ferry Road, east of and partially adjacent to River. 33 Road. Access to the site would be provided by River Road. 34 Proposal: The project consists of a long-term, off -channel gravel mining operation. 35 The mining would take place on 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site over a 20 to 30—year 36 period. Reclamation would occur incrementally and would consist of the creation of 37 open -water wetland wildlife habitat and agricultural uses. The aggregate would be . 38 processed (washed and screened) on a 40 -acre area at the site. 39 40 An Environmental Impact Report is proposed for this project. 41 42 In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), A. forty-five 43 (45) day public review period for the DEIR was previously provided. This review .44 period began on October 10, 2002, and ended November 25, 2002. The Planning 45 Commission had considered certification in 2003; however, an additional issue 46 regarding the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) needed. to be 47 addressed. As a result, the applicant filed a request for immediate cancellation from ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ® MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ® PAGE 26 e 1) 1 the Williamson Act -contract for a portion of the property. The. immediate 2 cancellation request will be considered by the Board of Supervisors at, a later date. 3 4 Copies of the Final EIR were available for review on November 20, 2006 on the 5 Butte County Department of Development Services'' website 6 www.buttecounty.net/dds/planning and various County. libraries. The Planning 7 Commission will first consider certification of the FEIR as consistent with the 8 requirements of CEQA and then take action on the project. 9 10 11 Please see attached transcript for the minutes of this item. .12 13 14 15 . 16 17 VIII. GENERAL BUSINESS - This section of the agenda is to be utilized by the Planning Commission and 18 Director of Development Services on items of interest, general discussion, or items for which staff has been 19 directed to do research and bring backto the Commission. Items_A, B, & C may not always be addressed at 20 every hearing, but will always be listed as part of the agenda. 21 22 A. Directors' Report 23 24None. 25 26 B. General. Plan/Zoning Ordinance Update 27 28 None. 29 30 C. Legislative Case. Law update 31 32 None: 33. 34 D. Planning Commission Concerns 35 36 None. 37 38 IX. CLOSED SESSION 39 40 X. MINUTES — None 41 42 XI. COMMUNICATIONS - Communications received and referred. (Copies of all communications are 43 available in the Planning Division Office) 44 45 None 46 47 ..48- 49 ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING.COMMISSION ® MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ® PAGE 27 APN . ACRES % LCA Ratinn Storie Index Soil Class t r'a Soil Name - 039-530-023 47.73 .19.68% prime 83, 200 PARROTT SILT.'LOAM, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 039-530-023 86:75 35.78% non -prime 43.. 180.F DODGELAND SILTY CLAY LOAM, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 0397530-023 107.87 44.49% non -prime- 79 177 FARWELL SILT LOAM, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED,., 039-530-023 - 0.13 • 0.05% non -prime -181 DODGELAND SILTY CLAY LOAM, 0 -TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES, FREQUENTLY. FLOODED.: ` "• Total' 242.48 100.00% 80.32% Non -prime 20.00% Prime 51201(c) "Prime agricultural land" means any of the following:— (1) All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability • _ claccificatinns . _,. � z . and fiber and which has an annual carryirig capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States r Department of Agriculture. _ t (4) Land planted with fruit or nut -bearing trees, vines, bushes or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than.five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two.hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five • - years. • �� 'PRIME F��RMLANQ 197l55�'acresf � � � ' PItiF.41- FHI2M1 HNIIIHr�S �IHF HF�I'l(]��HINA'I it)hJ OF%I'H:YSI( r�l'�ANt) C:HFP4U AI FFr1l'1112F5" r�LLL� l C) SUS Ir�IIN LUNG `I'LI2M AC,12J( LJLI'UIWL I'12f1000 l If1N , I HISfLANU HH5 I HE SUIL' C�U1L11�� tC;12f1yVING 5LA5UN �INU MUI51U12� SUl'I'L��NEEULU IU 1'IZC)UUC L;SUSFAINEU, HIf H ILLUS ,LANU P4U5.I�HAUE.'HEEN.USEU Ff�12112111( I LUK(�IZIC UL I U12AL I'ItUUU(.I UN A'SLIME' I IML L)012IN(; I HL" F o u It Y,kAi 8'M iidI2,I U'•I H.E.MAPI?INGbU ' I L. ` 'FARNILAND''OF STATEWIDE IMPORTAANCE' '2,2 324 acres FJ�RE�11 /tN� C)FST/1TF��11nF Ib1RC)kTANC'f IS SIMII`AR Tl1.PkIMF•'FhRI+AI /tNf1 BLIT tirHTH MINOR SHt)RT('C)MINGS ,SI I('H /t -S c�RF/tTFk SI 11PFS C):R I FSS'hRII JTY TU "S _F SC)II MOISTUkF` I � , �AnM1ST<HoVA RQNS SOMF TIM UIIRINHF FQIJR YFARS PRIUR-TQ THF,P.4i1'PFINU FIitTF - 11 '000FARMLAND~° 24958' -acres: I'INIliI1F FA'RMI`�1NU ('C)NSIST4 C)F I FSSF,R�ItIJ�I ITY S1111{S I ISFU FC)k!THF RR(7f)ll('TIl1N 11F; ' THF;STIITF_'S I F/If11Nh �1(RI('I11,TIIk�11�IC:kOPS.n�THIS I�NU IS 11SU111 ICY IkRIhl1TF�;`RtJT h4�1Y_ '" INC I,I1J)F N.tbNiR . 1(;ATFU;1S FOUNU IN SC}MF ('I IP.4�TI( 7l1NFS - IN; (:BVI IF01,3NIr1 rl'HNII Ml`151 HHVFrHFFIV I It(}I'I?FI) Al S(}MF I IMFx I)11121N(f I WFU[112'CFA12'i ._ .. .-. • ... +G.+rw ...r. _ r..... ...: �. :.r.- ......raR..•a.. rr ...,a r ::r r•,..t..FA i?121pit,,l '...%.ii. -'its .'• - 1..H..,P..'.I1 (� ..A. I F.r. .OVr!N AGRICULTURAL�LAND_N.OT'YET'LASSIFIED=',10,acrQs I FiIS INLLIJULS U12rLr1NLi�6_`lIN5 ANU'll{Itlt I EU I'r(51 U12t5`(lN,SUILS N�ll't�U►SLIFYING `• Ff_11,2 I'Ii wl'FA12MLA I2F/I,LANU f1F 51r(I EWIUL IMP'U);-mtc.-* 14i S i1NU (1I:HLI2 USES Ml�i'RL UE`I LIZh.41NLU`BY.'A LfJL1N I Y AGI`tIC UL1.U12HL AUV15U121 Cflhgh111 I LL'`.iINU 1 FIE-8.1AI2U" flf`5U1'LI�VIbf1115 I U XNIPRISI FAIVVILHNU f1F Lf1Lr L IMPOItIr'iNCEJIN I HL F`INriL C�.L12S1(JN',UF .� _ ., _ sz:a/ -. .r1:ry.... •.A.'�•r: , 1w,...r. cr---. 'N,i':...'. IHt'•iUU1,�UI IEGUUNL� INII'C�I2]ANl FAI2MLKNUMAI C 1:GRAZINO LAND` 4;3G84acres C;R�171Nilml.'1Nn IS I!A fib 'THF,FXISTING'dFCFTIITIC)N IS SIIITFDTQ.THF hRA71N( OF I IVF51 U( K} I HF MINIMI Ih4 M'HNf'IN(r.I1N11 IS'4I1 K(:12F5 RAN AND: B..UILT.UP LANaD..53.5.19,.-acres .•'Ydf.YSf ) n 's �.j„' " •' rq•.0 M � i . C - h,'. � {t. •A - .`i A.S ' 1112Rr(NYANI') lillll 1:'111' I V4N1} I� [l(. (111!IF'I)�FlY X1'1211( 11112F�L'�fII H 1I INC I)FNSIIY OF A I LEAS f 1,UN1 I ff l!l 5 rIC 12E5UIZ}AI!1'12UXI�AA I LLY 6.5 I ICU[ i U12E5 I fl r� TU r1C 12E't'A121r EL: C (�MMUN E'XAMI'L L5 INC}LUUF kl1-SIUEN.I,IAL INDUS Il21AL, LUMMLItLti1L INS.I I I U L,IUNAL� F�GILI I IEb `(.LMEI L121L5 A1121'UIZIS Gf1LF C t)UI,2�L5'SANI I AI21' LHNUfILLS 5EU1�►tf,E ll� I MEN I ANU ldAA LI2.CON I RUL 5 I I�UC 1 UI2E5: . h C r.O,THER UAND1 ;3'55;5.O�a'cres= C}THFR I'RNM-91 171Nf1 N(�T INC LIJf]F� IN ANY )THFk M/IPPIN(; ['ATY .� f (-tJIMC)N F:X+ti�API FS'INCI IIUF hli11U fIFNSITY Rll'ik11 UFVFI C)Ph4FNTSfiRkI1SN r < TIh�RFk bUFTI ANi?;"ANU RIPARIO1N ARF11S Nl)T fiI IITARI_ F.,FUR I IVF STC)CK CRo�171Nu- % f (7NFINFI) 1 IVESTOC K Plll II TRY;C)k r1(�l1AC 111 TURF;F11('ll1TIFS STFIIP �AINFS; {' F3(11212(}�!U I'l15 HNL) VU;4,I,�F1� F3OI}IFS 5MH1 I FI2 I HHN 411 HI 12FS� VH( r�N I HNI1� NUNIIGRICI`TUF211L L11Nd SU f1RULINDC4 ON�liLl SIDCS DY 1JF24RN DCVCLUPMCNT. 11ND URCQTCR TI IAN 4411CRCS IS_ f�'1l1PPCD 1tS UTI ICR L11ND WATLR `'2�2 acres -PFRFNNb'11 i,: AtrO R(7nIFS•'LUITH\!O%N:FXTFNT C)F /1T I'F/tST OYACRFS River Rd 039-530-025 `.._:. 039-530-023 �+ 4.0 Ord Ferry Rd �. Ord Ferry Rd t �+ i a - . le ,. �F ,Ya. •` •'k 1fa 1 , j` r { . �S diepenbrock- harrison A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION March 30, 2007 Mr. Paul McIntosh Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Butte County 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project Our File No.: 2941.002 To Members of the Board of Supervisors' k 'JACK- DIEPENBROCK :aA EN L DIEPENBROCK KEITH W. McBRIDE BRADLEY J. ELKIN EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK MARK D. HARRISON GENE K. CHEEVER MICHAEL V. BRADY LAWRENCE B. GARCIA SUSAN E. KIRKGAARD ANDREA A. MATARAIlO JOEL PATRICK ERB JON 0. RUBIN MICHAEL E. VINDING JENNIFER L DAUER JEFFREY K. DORSO JEFFREY L ANDERSON MATTHEW IL BERRIEN SEAN K. HUNGERFORD LEONOR Y. DICOICAN CHRIS A. MCCANDLESS DAN M. SILVERBOARD ANDREW P. TAURIAINEN VALERIE C. KINCAID BLAIR W. WILL. KRISTA J. DUNZWEILER DAVID R. RICE JENNIFER D. BECHTOLD SARAH R. HARTMANN MARK E. PETERSON R. JAMES DIEPENBROCK (1919 — 2001) This letter responds to the allegations raised in the appeal letters submitted to the Butte County ('County") Board .of Supervisors by the Parrott Investment - - Company ("Parrott") (Letter from. Howard Ellman to Paul McIntosh dated February 26, 2007 ["Parrott Appeal".]), and Ron Jones ("Jones") (Letter from Ron Jones to the Butte .County Administrative Office dated March 1, 2007 ["Jones Appeal"]). Both of the appeals address the County Planning Commission's ("Planning Commission") February 22, 2007 approval of the proposed M&T Chico Ranch Mine ("Project"). Based on the following, we respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeals filed by Parrott and Jones, certify the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR")., and approve the financial assurances cost estimate, Use Permit (96-03) and Reclamation Plan for the Project. (See Planning Commission Project Resolution [attached as Exhibit 1]; Planning Commission CEQA Resolution [attached as Exhibit 2].) A. Project Background Baldwin Contracting. Company ("Baldwin") proposes an off -channel construction aggregate mining operation at the M&T .Chico Ranch. The proposed sand and gravel operation would entail surface mining on approximately 193 acres of a 235 -acre site over a 20 to 30 year period for sand and gravel. Total Project reserves are estimated at over 5.5 million cubic yards. Under the. Reclamation Plan, mined areas will be concurrently reclaimed to high-quality open—water, wetland wildlife habitat. Concurrent reclamation will begin after the first five years of mining WWW.DIEPENBROCK.COM 0 400 CAPITOL MALL SUIT[ 1800 SA(RAMENTO,CA 95814 916492.5000 IAK:916 446.4535 DIEPENBROCK *,RRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 - Page 2 with approximately 600 linear feet of lake perimeter created each year. The approximately 40 -acre processing site will be reclaimed to support agricultural uses. The Project is an important component of the County's efforts to address its drastic shortage of aggregate. According to the California Department of Conservation ("DOC"), California Geologic Survey, the region encompassing the County has permitted aggregate resources amounting to seventeen percent (17%) of the region's projected 50 -year demand. (Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey, Map Sheet 52: Aggregate Availability in California (2006).) Thus, once permitted, the Project's 5.5 million cubic yards of high quality aggregate. reserves will help alleviate the County's aggregate shortage. The Project's importance to the County is magnified by its Mineral Resource Zone .designation. As required by section 2761(b) of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, the State Geologist classifies and designates important aggregate resources within the state. Areas subject to Mineral Land Classification studies are divided into various Mineral Resource Zone ("MRZ") categories that reflect varying degrees of mineral potential. Here, the State Geologist designated the Project site as MRZ-2a. Land designated as MRZ-2a is important because it contains known economic mineral deposits (e.g., construction aggregates). The County has conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"). The County's review involved a thorough investigation of the -Project's potentially foreseeable impacts, and included the preparation of a series of highly detailed environmental analyses.' In addition, between 1998 and 2007, the Planning Commission held ten public hearings to hear testimony regarding the Project .2 The Parrott and Jones appeals do not raise or introduce any substantial issue which the County has not previously addressed. ' See, e.g., AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. 1996, Aggregate Investigation Hallwood and M&T Properties. California; AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. 1997, Excavation Stability M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation, West of Dayton, California; Hydroscience, Inc., Water Quality Report,- Kelley eport,Kelley & Associates Environmental Sciences, Inc. 1997, Memorandum of Prime Farmland Soils Analysis for the M&T Chico Ranch September 24; Department of Water Resources, Northern District. 1993, M&T Chico Ranch Groundwater Investigation, Phase I, Memorandum Report, Red,Bluff, California; Deverel, S.J. 1996, Hydrology Report -for Proposed Gravel Mining: M&T Chico Ranch; Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1997, Traffic Impact Analysis for the M&T Chico Ranch Project; Kelley & Associates Environmental Sciences, Inc. 1996, M&T Chico Ranch Mine Use Permit, Mining Permit, and Reclamation Plan Application; Kelley & Associates Environmental Sciences, Inc. 1996, Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation: M&T Chico Ranch; City of Chico. 1995. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Chico Water Pollution Control Plant Expansion. State Clearinghouse Number 94112054. 2 June 11, 1998, October 24, 2002, October 23, 2003, January 22, 2004, March 11, 2004, April 8, 2004, and August 26, 2004, November 22, 2006, December 14, 2006, and January 25, 2007. ' DIEPENBROCK ARISON' ' Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 3 A. Parrott Appeal The Parrott Appeal addresses issues that the County has exhaustively analyzed over the course of an eleven (11) year review of the Project. 1: The Project is Compatible with the Applicable Land Use Designations and Surrounding Uses The first assertion contained in the Parrott Appeal is that the Planning Commission erred by relying solely on, the County General Plan ("General Plan") to support its determination that the Project is compatible with surrounding uses. (Parrott Appeal, p. 2.) As evidence for this assertion, Parrott states: "[t]he entire purpose of discretionary hearings on an application for a use permit is to determine if the specific use proposed is in fact compatible, notwithstanding the provisions of the General Plan." (Id.) As discussed below, however, Parrott's assertion grossly misrepresents the law and ignores the Planning Commission's findings and substantial evidence in the record. .First, the Planning Commission is obligated by law to ensure that development projects are consistent with the General Plan. Under California law, every county and city must adopt a "comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning." (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65300.) The California Supreme Court has described the general plan as the "constitution for all future developments" within the city or county. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 570 [citing O'Loane v. O'Rourke (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 774, 782]; Friends of 'B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 997; deBottari v. City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1212-1213 [holding, "[t]he general plan is tremendously significant in shaping future development because land use decisions must be consistent therewith"]; Resource Defense Fund v. County of Santa Cruz -(1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 800, 806 [holding, "[t]he propriety of.virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements"].) Thus, the Planning Commission was required by law to determine whether the Project was consistent with the General. Plan land use designation. In addition, contrary to Parrott's assertion, the Planning Commission also based its compatibility determination on: (1) the Project's consistency with General Plan policies, (2) the Project's consistency with the County Zoning. Ordinance, and (3) the Project's consistency with the County Surface Mining Ordinance, County Code, Chapter 13=101 et seq. (See Project Resolution, p. 4.] The Project Resolution approved by the Planning Commission states, in relevant part: !f r DIEPENBROCK F&RISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 4 1. FINDING:. LAND USE CONSISTENCY — Based on its land use compatibility analysis, the County finds that the Project is consistent with the Project site's General Plan designation (i.e., Orchard and Field Crops) as a secondary use, the Pr'oject's zoning district (A-40), and with the County Mining Ordinance. Further, the proposed mining is an appropriate use under the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan Designation, and is also compatible in all agriculturally designated lands within Butte County where minerals are known to exist, pursuant to General Plan Policies 2.6.a, 2.6.b, and 6.1.a. (Butte County, 1997.) (Project Resolution, p. 4 [emphasis added].) Thus, the Planning Commission properly relied on the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Surface Mining Ordinance to make its consistency determination. With respect to the notion of compatibility, the Planning Commission evaluated the Project for eleven years, conducted extensive environmental review, and imposed over thirty conditions to ensure the Project is compatible with surrounding uses. 2. . The EIR Adequately Describes the Llano Seco Ranch Parrott asserts that the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR ,)3 provides an inadequate description of the Project's environmental setting because it "mischaracterizes the uses of the [Llano Seco] Ranch." (Parrott Appeal, p. 2.) The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") requires that an EIR contain a description of the "environmental setting" in which the proposed project would be undertaken. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15120, 15124, 15125.) Under CEQA Gu.idelines section 15125, an appropriate discussion of a. project's environmental setting includes a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of -a project, and an analysis of any inconsistencies between the project and applicable general or regional plans. (Cal. ,Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125.) Here, the Draft EIR included an intensive discussion of the Project's. environmental setting. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-1 — 3-7, 4.1-1 -4.1-8.) Each section contains a description of the regional environment and local conditions and how the Project could impact the local and regional environment.- (See e.g., Draft EIR, 4.3-1 3 "EIR" refers collectively to the Draft and Final EIR, which includes Errata to the Final EIR. DIEPENBROCK RISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 5 — 4.3-7 [Geologic Setting]; 4.4-1 — 4.4-35 [Hydrologic Setting]; 4.5-1 — 4.5-14 [Traffic Setting]; p. 4.2-5 [Farmland]; 4.7.-1 — 4.7-22 [Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat].) While the Draft EIR did not specifically name the Llano Seco Ranch, it. described the. -regional environmental setting for the Project and analyzed all reasonably foreseeable significant impacts associated with the Project, including all potential off-site impacts. (See, Draft EIR § 3.0; Final EIR § 4.0 and 4.7.) Further, the EIR preparer and others testified that the Draft EIR evaluated the Project's potential environmental impacts to surrounding properties, including the Llano Seco Ranch. (See CEQA Resolution, pp. 11-16; see also, Letters from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006; Dec. 13, 2006); Planning Commission hearing transcript, Jan. 25, 2007 [testimony of Pete Calarco, p. 5]; Planning Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14, 2006 [testimony -of Dave Brown, pp. 18-22; testimony of Jeff Dorso',.pp. 70-74].) The County further addressed Parrott's concerns by issuing an Errata to the Final EIR regarding the Llano Seco Ranch. The Errata states, in relevant part: 3.2.4 Regional .Environmental Overview — Llano Seco Ranch Parrott Investment Company, owner of the Llano Seco Ranch, located South of the M&T Ranch, has requested that its land use be more accurately described in the M&T Chico Ranch EIR. Llano Seco Ranch has submitted information indicating that it has placed more than ten thousand acres under easement or have been sold as wildlife habitat since 1991. The Ranch has invested in restoration work to create such .habitat, -including seasonal wetland for wintering waterfowl, riparian oak forest, and native grasslands. (see: Letter from Ellman Burke, Hoffman & Johnson to Butte County Planning Commission, November 27, 2006.) Current aerial photography shows these wetland .habitat areas, located approximately one mile south of the proposed M&T Chico Ranch Mine. The above information, is added to Draft EIR Section 4.1.1, Regional Environmental Overview. DIEPENBROCK &RISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007. Page 6 (See, Planning Commission Staff Report, Jan. 25, 2007 hearing.) Thus, the.County went beyond the requirements of CEQA in order to'address the Llano Seco Ranch.4 3. The EIR Extensively Analyzed the Impact of Mine Sediments Parrott asserts that the EIR is. invalid because it fails to address "the cumulative impact of adding mine sediments to flood flows that travel from the mine to the [Llano Seco] Ranch." (Parrott Appeal, p. 2.) To the contrary, the County extensively analyzed potential impacts caused by mine sediments. The applicant, Baldwin Contracting Company ("Baldwin"), carefully designed the Project's flood protection measures to comply with applicable state law as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, Public Resources Code section 2770 et seq. ("SMARA") and reclamation standards found in California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 3700-3713, which include legal requirements for slope stability (section 3704); drainage, diversion structures, waterways; and erosion control (section 3706); and stream protection,, including surface and groundwater (section 3710). . The County then analyzed this design and its direct and indirect environmental impacts as part of the CEQA process. The -County's analysis of the design included a comprehensive flooding study for the proposed Project. (See Little Chico Creek: Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis for M&T Mine Project, 4 Parrott also asserts that the addition of the Errata following the issuance of the Final EIR "introduces significant new information that requires recirculation under the Guidelines and applicable case law." (Parrott Appeal, p. 2.) CEQA only requires lead agencies to recirculate EIRs if "significant new information" is added to the EIR prior to certification. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.) Here, as demonstrated by substantial evidence in'the record, the Errata does not constitute "significant'new information" as defined by CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(a)(1)-(4). The Draft EIR sufficiently described the regional environmental setting, and evaluated all potentially significant impacts to surrounding properties, including the Llano Seco Ranch; the addition of the Llano Seco Ranch to the "Regional Environmental Overview" section of the Final EIR did not reveal any new environmental impacts not previously analyzed in the EIR. The record plainly demonstrates that the Errata clarifies the exact nature of the uses occurring within the Llano Seco Ranch. (See December 14, 2006 Planning Commission hearing transcript.) Thus,.the Errata is only a clarification or "insignificant modification" within the meaning of Guidelines section 15088.5(b). Courts have held that the requirement in [section] 21092.1 that an [EIR] be recirculated when significant new information is added is not intended to promote endless rounds of revision and recirculation of EIRs; rather, recirculation is intended to be the exception rather than the general rule. (See, e.g., Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal App 4th 99.) DIEPENBROCK F&RISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 7 NorthStar Engineering, Jan. 2002 ("NorthStar Flooding Study").) Both the NorthStar Flooding Study and analysis contained in the Draft EIR evaluated off-site impacts caused by stormwater discharges and runoff from the proposed pit and processing facilities, including mine sediment. (NorthStar. Flooding Study, pp. 13-14; Draft EIR, p. 4.4-69.) Based on this analysis, the EIR concluded that the Project, with approval of relevant state and federal permits, would not result in significant environmental impacts to neighboring properties (which includes the Jones property and Llano Seco Ranch) via Little Chico Creek or Angel Slough. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-52, 4.4-69.) During the public comment period on the Draft EIR, the County again received comments regarding whether the proposed Project would have offsite impacts resulting from stormwater discharges and runoff (including mine sediment) from the proposed pit and processing facilities. The County expressly addressed these comments in the Final EIR. The Final EIR explained how the Project's design, as well as applicable state and federal stormwater prevention requirements, would ensure that neighboring landowners would not be impacted by polluted stormwater or mine sediment. (See, e.g., Final EIR § 4.7; 5.1-22, 5.4-25 — 5.4-27, 5.4-33, 5.4- 56.) The Final EIR provides, in relevant part: The NorthStar Flooding Study (2002) included as Appendix D-2 of the Draft EIR includes calculations that document the increase in stage at and near the proposed processing area. This is the only potential flooding impact attributable to the project and would affect only . M&T Ranch land. Mitigation Measure 4.4-7a is designed to protect all downstream properties from any adverse effects with regard to flooding. (Final EIR, p. 5.4-56 [emphasis added].) On January 22, 2004, at the Planning Commission hearing on the Project, Howard Ellman, counsel for Parrott, raised this issue again. Mr. Ellman requested that that the Planning Commission require Baldwin to obtain a "storm water management plan" as a precautionary measure to prevent mine sediment from entering the Llano Seco Ranch. (See Butte County Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2004, pp. 8-9.) The Planning Commission implemented Mr. Ellman's recommendation, and further, added additional conditions of approval aimed to prevent anypotential impacts from mine sediment. (Exhibit 3.) Under the approved conditions of approval, Baldwin must acquire all relevant state and federal stormwater pollution DIEPENBROCK F&RISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 8 prevention permits prior to commencing mining operations, including a stormwater pollution prevention plan and relevant NPDES permits. (Conditions of Approval for M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan [MIN 06-03 Baldwin Contracting Company], pp. 4-5 [emphasis added].) The Planning Commission also heard extensive testimony from representatives of NorthStar Engineering, and the EIR consultant that any impacts caused by the transfer of mine sediment during flood events would be less than significant. (See, Planning Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14, 2006 [testimony of Mark Adams, pp. 61-66]; see also, Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record; Planning Commission hearing transcript, Nov. 30, 2006 [testimony of Jeffrey Dorso, pp. 123, 131]; Planning Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14, 2006 [testimony of Jeffrey Dorso, pp. 74-75].) 4. The Proiect Will Be Reclaimed to Wildlife Habitat Parrott also states that the EIR is flawed because it "mischaracterizes the gravel mine as wildlife habitat creation project, a result that can only be achieved after 30 years of extraction[.]" (Parrott Appeal, pp. 3-4.) This is.a factual misrepresentation. Reclamation will occur concurrently with mining. Beginning in Year Five (5) of the Project, Baldwin will begin reclamation activities, which will include the formation of wildlife habitat. (Reclamation Plan, p. 34.) Thus, the assertion that the creation of wildlife habitat can only be achieved after 30 years is factually inaccurate. Parrott also states that that EIR "ignores the existing habitat value of the undulating ground that the gravel mine will defile."' (Parrott Appeal, p. 3.) This inflammatory statement ignores substantial, evidence in the record, including the EIR. The EIR contains an extensive analysis of the Project's impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. ' (Draft EIR, § 4.7.) The EIR concluded that the proposed Project's impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, with the identified mitigation measures, would be less -than -significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-27 — 4.7-36.) The County also addressed inquiries regarding the Project's impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat in the Final EIR. (Final .EIR, pp. 5.4-49 —.5.4-50.) The Final EIR explained that special -status species known to reside in the vicinity of the Project site will continue to use the habitats available to them, whether on or off the Project site, and whether or not the Project is approved. (Final EIR, pp. 5.2-21, 5.4- 49 — 5.4-50.) I DIEPENBROCK FORISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 9 5. The Location of the Mine is Consistent with Statewide Practices Parrott asserts that the EIR is flawed because its fails to consider guidance by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — Fisheries ("NOAA Fisheries") and the Department of Fish and Game ("DFG") which discourages the placement of gravel mines in flood zones. (Parrott Appeal, p. 3.) While Parrott cites no evidence to support this proposition, .for purposes of this analysis we assume that the source of Parrott's argument is the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") publication, National Gravel Extraction Guidance. (NOAH Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-70, Sept. 2005.) First, we note at the outset that neither, NOAA nor DFG commented on the EIR-that mining is prohibited. Contrary to Parrott's veiled inferences, there is no applicable. state or federal law that prohibits aggregates operations in floodplains. Parrot fails to state that the NOAA document, by its own admission, is a policy document which is not legally binding. (National Gravel Extraction Guidance, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-70, Sept.. 2005, pp. 1-2.) In addition, the County is the lead agency for the Project and is not required to adopt the policy position of other agencies. In addition, at the December 14, 2006 Planning Commission hearing, substantial evidence was introduced. into the administrative record by the County's EIR consultant indicating that it is common in California for gravel mines to be located in floodplains, including river corridors adjacent to agricultural lands. (See Dec. 14, 2007 Planning Commission hearing transcript.) The EIR consultant named the City of Redding, Yuba County [Yuba River Corridor], Yolo County, Placer County [Bear River Corridor], Merced County [Merced River Corridor], Tulare County [Kaweah River Corridor], and Fresno County as examples of sites where gravel mines are located in floodplains. (Id.) Furthermore, several counties encourage mining not only in floodplains, but within actual waterways. For example, mining operations are located on in -.river gravel bars throughout the state. 6. The Proiect's Impact on_ the Groundwater Aquifer is Less -Than - Significant Parrott asserts that the EIR is inadequate because it fails to address impacts caused by the infiltration of mine sediments into the groundwater aquifer which Js located in the proposed mining pit. (Parrott Appeal, pp. 3-4.) This assertion ignores substantial evidence contained in the administrative record. The County extensively analyzed the Project's impacts to groundwater via the aquifer as part of the CEQA process. (Draft EIR § 4.4.) As part of this analysis, the DIEPENBROCK AkRISON i Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 10 County commissioned a hydrology report which specifically evaluated the Project's impacts to groundwater quality. (See Draft EIR, App. D-1, Steven J. Deverel, PhD, Hydrology Report for Proposed Gravel Mining M&T Chico Ranch.) This report states, in relevant part: The potential effects on groundwater quality as the result of mining operations and reclamation were assessed by an evaluation of the possible pathways and mechanisms for groundwater contamination. Possible pathways are the migration of constituents (fuels, lubricants, etc.) associated with mining operations, movement of nutrients and pesticides onto the site in flood flows of Little Chico Creek, and changes in groundwater chemistry as the result of in -lake processes. Because agricultural runoff and drainage do not flow into Little Chico Creek, groundwater contamination as the result of flood flows at the site is highly unlikely... The movement of chemical constituents associated with the mining operations will be controlled in accordance with State and Federal Storm Water Discharge requirements. This will prevent movement of contaminants to surface and groundwater. (Draft EIR, App. D-1, p. D-1.10 [emphasis added].) Based on this analysis, the County concluded in the Draft EIR that, with proposed mitigation (Mitigation Measures 4.4-3(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), 4.4-4), and compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board stormwater prevention requirements (see Conditions of Approval 31, 32), the Project will not result in significant'impacts to groundwater resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-36.) In addition, at the January 25, 2007 Planning Commission hearing, Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering gave expert testimony that mine sediments will not be transferred through the aquifer because the sediments cannot physically interface with the opening to -the aquifer. (Planning Commission hearing'transcript, Jan. 25, 2007 [testimony of Mark Adams, pp. 77-78; see also testimony of Richard Leland, p. 97].) Thus, based on this substantial evidence, the Planning Commission determined that the EIR adequately addressed the issue of aquifer contamination, and specifically found that Parrott's claims regarding groundwater contamination were invalid. (EIR Resolution, pp. 15-16.) DIEPENBROCK F&RISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 t Page 11 7. The County Adequately Addressed the Impacts of the Proiect's Flood Design on Surrounding Properties L Parrott next asserts that the EIR does not adequately address the impacts to surrounding properties caused by the Project's flood design during high -stage flood events. (Parrott Appeal, p. 4.) This argument flagrantly ignores substantial evidence contained in the administrative record which specifically addresses this issue. The County'conducted an extensive analysis of potential off-site impacts caused by the Project's flood control design as part of the CEQA process. (See NorthStar Flooding Study; Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-75 — 4.4-76; Final EIR § 4.7-4.) The Draft EIR concluded that, withappropriate mitigation, potential environmental impacts to adjacent landowners resulting from the flood design would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p..4.4-76.) The Draft EIR noted that the purpose of these measures was to mitigate off-site impacts,'including impacts to River Road, -the Jones' parcel, and the Sacramento River floodplain. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-76.) The County again addressed comments on this issue in the Final EIR. Relevant excerpts from the Final EIR are as follows: Concerns regarding the earthen berm redirecting floodwaters are not an issue because of Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c of the Draft EIR, which states: "Applicant shall install a bypass channel to convey flows formerly conveyed by the distributary channel around the proposed pit area. The overflow weir and adjoining bypass channel will be designed such that elimination of the distributary will not result in increased flooding depths or duration to the Jones' parcel. -The bypass channel shall maximize, to the extent possible, use of native plant materials in the design to control erosion. Plans shall be approved by Butte County prior to construction." (Final EIR, p. 5.4-33.) r The Final EIR further states, in relevant part: Mitigation Measures 4.4-7a, b, and c (pages 4.4-75 of the Draft EIR) spell out the specific measures the County is imposing on the project to implement NorthStar's flood DIEPENBROCK I*RISON Mr. -Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 12 prevention recommendations. 'These mitigation measures will eliminate additional flooding effects on adjacent property owners. (Final EIR, § 4.7-4, p. 4,0-35 [emphasis added].) In addition, expert testimony was received at the Planning Commission hearing of December 14, 2006 from the County's EIR consultant, and Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering regarding the Project's flood control design. The EIR consultant and Mr. Adams demonstrated how this design in fact protects, and does not exacerbate, flooding impacts on surrounding properties during large flood events. (See, Planning Commission hearing transcript, Dec. 14, 2006 [testimony of Dave Brown, pp. 24-29; testimony of Mark Adams, pp. 30-35, 57-66].) . 8. The Planning Commission's Alternatives Analysis Complied with CEQA Parrott asserts that the Planning Commission's findings "are not based on substantial evidence. of sound justification to support rejection of alternatives under applicable legal standards." (Parrott Appeal, p. 5.) Parrott further asserts that the Planning Commission's omission conflicts with the California Supreme Court Case, City of Marina v. Board of Trustees (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341. Parrott's argument ignores the evidence in the.record. - CEQA Guideline section 15126.6 requires that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6, subd. (a); see e.g., Village Laguna of Laguna Beach v. Board. of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1028-1032.) The purpose of this alternatives analysis is to "foster informed decision making and public participation." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6, subd: (a).) CEQA establishes no set number of alternatives that the EIR must analyze. (Id. at subd. (f).) Rather, the EIR must "set forth . those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice." (Ibid.; see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors :(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553.) At a minimum, however, an EIR must include evaluation of the "no project" alternative. (Cal. Code Regs., "tit. 14,.§ 15126.6, subd. (e).) Once the alternatives are set forth and evaluated, the EIR must identify the "environmentally superior" alternative; if the "no project" alternative is identified as such, then the EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative from the remaining alternatives. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6(e)(2).) CEQA provides greater flexibility for alternatives analyses that address mining i operations. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines recognize that for mining projects the ' only feasible alternative locations may be the actual project location since the project 5 ` DIEPENBROCK 4kRISON'} Mr. Paul McIntosh ; March 30, 2007 Page 13' facilities must be located near the relevant natural resources. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §'15126.6, subd. (f)(2)(B).) Thus, in the case of the Project, CEQA only requires a discussion of alternatives which can meet Project goals (i.e., mineral extraction). . Here, the Draft EIR contains a 26 -page discussion of Project alternatives. (Draft EIR § 5.0.) It included a broad range of alternatives, including: (1) a "no project" alternative, (2) an alternative project location alternative, (3) a reduced project area alternative, and (4) a lower processing rate alternative. Thus, in preparing the Draft EIR alternatives analysis, the County went beyond what was required by CEQA, specifically CEQA Guidelines section .15126.6, subd... (f)(2)(B). The Draft EIR determined that the "no project" was the environmentally superior alternative, and the "reduced project area" was determined to be the . environmentally superior alternative from the remaining options. (Draft EIR, P. 5-7.) The County determined that both of these options failed to meet the basic project objectives, and further, deferred impacts associated with construction aggregates production and distribution to other sites within the County and the region. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-2, 54 - 5-5.) Based on this evidence, the Planning Commission concluded that each of the analyzed alternatives was infeasible for economic and other reasons. (EIR Resolution, pp. 17-21.) Accordingly, the Planning Commission's determination is consistent with CEQA, as well as the holding. contained in City of Marina v. Board of Trustees (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341, cited by Parrott. 9. There is a Demonstrated Need for the Project Parrott argues that -the County has not demonstrated the need for an aggregate mine in Butte County. (Parrott Appeal, p. 5.) The Final EIR explains that CEQA does not require lead agencies to evaluate the need for a given project (Final EIR, p. 4.0-3.) Nevertheless, the County provided a detailed analysis of the need for the Project in the Final EIR, including an aggregate availability study. (Final EIR, § 4.3; pp. 4.0-3 — 4.0-22.) The'Final EIR explains that the Project is necessary because both the state as a whole and the County in particular face a drastic shortage of aggregate materials. (Id. at pp. 4.06 - 4.0-22, 4.0-19.) More specifically, the aggregate availability study contained -in the Final EIR concludes that the County, without permitting new sources of aggregate, will exhaust its existing aggregate reserves by 2030. (Final EIR, p. 4.0-19.) The Final EIR states: Demand Over the next 50 years, Chico will require more than- 45 million tons, and the County will need nearly 130 million tons. When compared to the _ DIEPENBROCK RISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 14 current estimates of supply, the County may currently have approximately 40 percent of its 50 - year demand and, without permitting of additional reserves for development, could exhaust aggregate supplies before 2030. (Final EIR, p. 4.0-19 [emphasis added].) Thus, the County conducted an extensive analysis of the need for the Project as part of the CEQA process, and concluded, based on a documented shortage of aggregate in the County (and the state), that the need for the Project is substantial. Further studies performed by the State reinforce even more they need for the Project. DOC released its most recent study of aggregate availability in California in February,'2006. (See Aggregate Availability in California (2006), California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey [attached as Exhibit 4].) Although this study does not specifically analyze the County, it does contain an evaluation of Glenn County, currently the primary source of aggregate for the County. , (Id., p. 4.) The study shows that in the past five years, Glenn County's permitted aggregate resources have decreased from seventy-one percent (71%) to twenty-one percent (21%) of its expected 50 -year demand. (Id., p. 13.) Thus, Parrott's argument that the County can continue to rely on alternative sources of aggregate outside the County is without merit. (See Parrott Appeal, p. 5.) Further, as the Planning Commission determined in the EIR Resolution, importing aggregate from outside sources, specifically Glenn County, actually may increase potential environmental impacts. (EIR Resolution, p. 19.) .The EIR Resolution states: Further, if materials are supplied from more distant locations, such as from Glenn County, there is an increase in vehicle miles traveled, potential increase in environmental impacts (more specifically, air impacts), an increase in cost of materials for the City of Chico, the County, and local consumers, and the. County derives little economic benefit from the impact fees, sales tax, property tax, and other secondary expenditures of goods and services spent in other jurisdictions. Higher cost materials and lower tax revenues, including impact fees and "fair share" contributions, mean that fewer miles of County roads can be constructed or maintained. (EIR Resolution, p. 19.) DIEPENBROCK' ARISON Mr. Paul McIntosh ' March 30, 2007 Page 15 Thus, as there is a demonstrated need for aggregate -in the County, the Planning Commission's findings regarding the need for the Project are based on substantial evidence in the administrative record. (See, e.g., EIR Resolution,.pp. 18- 19.) II. Jones Appeal The Jones Appeal also raises issues that the County has extensively addressed during its review of'the Project. 1. The Project is Consistent with the General Plan's Agricultural Element and Surrounding Agricultural Uses The Jones Appeal speculates that the Project will have negative impacts on the agricultural and wildlife settings surrounding the Project site. (Jones Appeal, pp. 1-2.) The County evaluated, potential impacts to agricultural uses. in the Draft EIR, stating: [The] proposed mining and reclamation activities would be similar in scope and equipment used when compared to ongoing large-scale agricultural operations on other portions of the project site and surrounding areas: The project would not result in the presence of.large numbers of people in the area'who might damage or pilfer crops. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-7 [emphasis added].) The County concluded that, with the proposed mitigation, the Project is compatible with the existing and planned uses in the vicinity of the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-8 — 4.279.) The County addressed this issue again in the Final EIR Response to Comments document. The Final EIR. explains that the Project is consistent with the County General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Surface Mining Ordinance, and thus compatible with surrounding uses. (Final EIR, p. 4.0-29.) The Project is also consistent with the Agricultural Element. of the General Plan. The General Plan's Agricultural Element sets forth basic policies and goals with respect to agriculture. The Agriculture Element identifies ,two separate land use designations. The Project site is designated "Orchard and Field Crops." The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth the types of uses allowed in this designation, which uses are consistent with the Agricultural Element. (General Plan DIEPENBROCK HORISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007. Page 16 ' Land Use Element, section 2.6, p'. LUE748; see also Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006).) The General Plan states: t Primary Uses: Cultivation, harvest, storage, processing,, sale and distribution of all plant crops, especially annual food crops.. Secondary Use: Animal husbandry and intense animal uses, resource extraction and processing, hunting and water -related recreation facilities, dwellings, airports, utilities, environmental preservation activities, public and quasi -public uses, home occupations. (See General Plan Land Use Element, section 2.6, p. LUE-48; Draft EIR, p: 4.2-2.) The General Plan defines secondary uses as compatible uses which are conditionally allowed. (Id.) Further, the General Plan sets forth the following policies in regards to surface mining operations within the County: 2.6a Encourage extraction and processing of identified deposits of building materials and other valued mineral resources. 2.6b Encourage, the reclamation of lands.subject to mineral extraction. (See Draft EIR, p. 4.2-5.) As required by law, and as the County has found, the General Plan is internally consistent and the Land Use Element and its descriptions are consistent with the general policies of the Agriculture Element. Surface mining is consistent with both of these elements as made clear by the express reference to mineral extraction in the "Orchard and Field Crops" description as well as.the Williamson Act program of the County, which also expressly allows surface mining. (See, County Resolution 68-7; M&T Incorporated Land Conservation Agreement, No. 23188, dated Dec. 11, 1975; County File.) In addition, the Planning Commission specifically addressed this issue in its CEQA findings and, based on the exhaustive evidence in the record recounted above, determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan. (EIR Resolution, pp. 8-9.) C DIEPENBROCK &RISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007. Page 17 2. The Proiect Will Not Result in the Destruction of Prime Farmland The Jones Appeal states as follows: 2) Both the Assessor and the NRCS.have determined that this is prime soil. The real pressing public need is to save as much prime farmland as possible for future generations. 3) Approving any project that destroys farmland, while at the same time giving the owners of that property a tax break which was designed to insure the protection of that land; is diametrically opposed to the intent of the Williamson Act. (Jones Appeal, p. 2.) The County extensively addressed the issue of agricultural land conversion as part of the CEQA process, and determined that the Project site, in fact, consists of unirrigated, nonprime farmland. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-5 - 4.2-6; 4.3- 20 — 4.3-23.) In the Final EIR, the County further'explained that the Assessor's classification of the Project site, for purposes of CEQA review, is irrelevant because the Assessor's classification is made for economic purposes on a parcel -by -parcel basis utilizing different standards than CEQA or the Williamson Act. (Final EIR, p. 5.0-10.) In November 2006, the County issued an Errata to the.Final EIR addressing this issue, which reiterated the findings contained in the Draft EIR that the Project site does not contain prime farmland. (See Updated Response to Comments Regarding Williamson Act, pp. 4-5 [attached as Exhibit 5].) Based on this substantial evidence, the Planning Commission determined that the Project will not result in the destruction of prime agricultural farmland. The Planning Commission foundas follows: The County determination regarding the prime or non- prime status of the Project site for assessment purposes is not relevant to the analysis contained in the EIR for CEQA purposes (i.e.; to analyze the physical impacts of the Project). The County Assessor's classification is made for economic purposes on a parcel -by -parcel basis utilizing DIEPENBROCK ARRISON Mr. Paul McIntosh March 30, 2007 Page 18 'different standards than the Williamson Act. Here, the EIR analyzed the actual site specific conditions of the 235 -acre Project site, not the entire 8;000 acre M&T Ranch. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.2(a).) The CEQA specific analysis and process produced substantial evidence that the affected Project area does not meet the Williamson Act standards for prime agricultural farmland, even though the parcel, in its entirety, may qualify as prime agricultural farmland for land assessment purposes: (EIR Resolution, pp. 16-17 [emphasis added].) Thus, the assertions contained in the Jones Appeal that the Project will destroy prime farmland are without merit. Based on the substantial evidence in the administrative record, including public testimony and the EIR, I respectfully request on behalf of Baldwin that the Board of Supervisors reject the Parrott and Jones appeals, and approve the Project. Very truly yours, DIEPENBROCK HARRISON cc: Mr. Bill Connelly, Butte County -Supervisor Ms. Jane Dolan, Butte County Supervisor Mr. Curt Josiassen, Butte County Supervisor Ms. Maureen Kirk, Butte County Supervisor Mr. Kim Yamaguchi, Butte County Supervisor Mr. Pete Calarco Mr. Charles Thistlethwaite Mr. Rene A. Vercruyssen Mr. Rene J. Vercruyssen. Mr. J. Jeffrey Carter