HomeMy WebLinkAboutBALDWIND CONTRACTING CO M & T TIMEJOHN Y. "JACK- DIEPENBROCK JEFFREY L ANDERSON
KAREN L DIEPENBROCK EARA M. O'BRIEN
BUTTE KEITH W. McBRIDE MICHAEL E. VINDING
COUNTY BRADLEY J. ELKIN JENNIFER L DAUER
EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK CHAD O'NEAL MUILENBURG
t,MARK D. HARRISON SEAN K. HUNGERFORD
DEC 2 T 2005 GENE K. CHEEVER LEONOR Y. DICDICAN
die Pe n b ro c k• h a r r i s o n MICHAEL V.'BRADY CHRIS A. McCANDLESS
DEVELOPMENT - LAWRENCE B. GARCIA JEFFREY K. DORSO
A -PROFESSIONAL CORP6kATION SERVICES
SUSAN E. KIRKGAARD DAN M. SILVERBOARD
ANDREA A. MATARAUO ANDREW P. TAURIAINEN
JOEL PATRICK ERB BLAIR W. WILL
JENNIFER D. BECHTOLD
GEORGE Y. HARTMANN
Of 69fifel R. JAMES DIEPENBROCK
(1919 —1001)
December 23, 2005
Peter Calarco
Butte Couniy Department of Development -Services -
.7
s 7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Re: Baldwin Contracting Co.: M & T Mine
Our File No. 2941.002
'Dear Pete:
""Happy holidays. At our last meeting, on December 19,a2005,'we discussed the,
potential procedure for processing Baldwin Contracting Company's.(°Baldwin")
application for use permit, reclamation plan, and the related petition for partial
cancellation of the applicable Williamson Act contract.
Based on our meetings;with the County, Baldwin believes that the entire
entitlement package should go before the Planning- Commission for consideration. The
Planning Commission should then recommend an action to the County Board of
Supervisors ("Board") on the use permit, reclamation plan, and the Project EIR. The
Planning Commission will take no action on the petition for partial cancellation, which
must be approved by the Board. The entire entitlement package will then go before the
Board for decision.
This option will provide for the most informed public process given the entire
entitlement package will be available for consideration for both the planning body and
the public, it will allow the County to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act, and it will
result in a most cost and time efficient process for the County, the Planning
Department, and the County's decision making bodies. The procedure outlined is
efficient and allows the public to comment on the whole project, as opposed to part of it,
before both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
400 CAPITOL MALL
SUITE 1800
SACRAMENTO,CA 95814
WWW.DIEPENBROCK.COM 916 492.5000
FAX: 916 446.4535
DIEPENBROCK HARRISON
Peter Calarco
December 23, 2005
Page 2
As is customary in the County, Baldwin would expect the conditions of permit
approval to include an indemnification agreement with the County for costs associated
with defending a lawsuit challenging Baldwin's entitlements.
Enjoy your holidays, and please contact me if you have any questions.
Regards,
DIEPENBROCK HARRISON
A Professional Corporation
JKD:Icb
cc: Tim Snellings
Felix Wannemacher
Dan Breedon
Rene A. Vercruyssen
J. Jeffery Carter
Mark D. Harrison
From:City of Chico
f �•
OFFICE OF THE
MAYOR
411 Main Street
C.t-i y w [rn!r�is
P.O. Box 3420
'nC672 '
Chico. CA 95927
530;895 4899
(530) 896-7250
Fax (5.30) 895-4825 .
hltp://www ci chico.ca us
01/22/2007 13:11
January 17, 2007
9711"P.001/002
IaA4090,
Butte County Planning Commission
c/o 25 County Centei Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Re: M & T Ranch Mining Operation
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 9r" 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 die 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 mao. The
advantage of this established truck route is that East Avenue is located in a predominately coinmercial 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 y9u .need additional infotniation or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me at 345-5442.
Sincerely, f
" .. 1.- •` ...y � ' � ��'��'. is yi-r..gp' .. •Z -.i:•
Andy htolcombe
Mayor
AH:cw
c: Butte County Board of Supervisors
City Council (8)
CAO McIntosh
BDSD
5CE Mic;cejson
'EnciosUlre: Truck Route Map
S:\CONNIE\misc\Dept Correspondence\Ivt&T gravel trucks Itr to BC.wp.d
SMade From Recycled ?aper
m V emmrFr®i.Civ)of CFE:iee1.ni0895 4q60.m0 ni��nn13:12
3•v2 #7119 v. enm21i02
SCOTTY S
LANDING
®®®® Proposed Truck Route
fN & T 1�l
City Limits .
' 7
N
Traffic Eoigineerin9
J anuary h 7, 2Co
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
legallypermitted 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 to 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.