HomeMy WebLinkAboutELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSONRLMAN 'BURKE HOFFMAN &:JOHNSON..
' A 'P R O F E S S I O N a. L, L A W C O'R P O R,A T l O N,
601 CALIFORNIA STREET y �z4
P$��,�&.966
'! C14
NINETEENTH FLOOR 01) 5.'6 05 o•e 4 1� .� F ��.5
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94168 'r`` '! c y; ,.
:4 0 SANi�a•�,_;s:.c� CAl" �- }A 'i LD 5 ' .
lfl 001
J -
�
xc ii k • •MULTI TX/RX REPORT xcx.
TX/RX NO 0851
PGS. 2
TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----
TRANSACTION OK (1) 15305387785
(2) 7880669#597#17
Eu MAN BURKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON
. q P R O F E 5 5 1 0 N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N
$07 CA 1.I10RNIA. STREET • -
J• uwAj(l) N. RIAMAN
-
NINETEENTH FLOOR
p5.196.1610 6IDECT TVA.
SAN rRANCISCU, CA 94108
41j.296.1J1FJ IIIRfC,'r FAX
415-777.2727
tFr;LLginNC��r•.tLrTAx BURKr..L:O�t
WW W.ELLMAN-BURKILCOM
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
SUMMARY
Date: January 17, 2008
To. Company:
Fax:
'Phone; -
Phone:lvlr•
Mr. Pete Colarco Butte County
(530) 538-7785
(530) 538-7601
Mr. Richard Thieriot Parrott Investment Company (415) 788-0669
(415) 788-7220.
From:. Howard N. Ellman
Client.Number_ 597-17
Document transmitted:
Number of pages (including this page): 2.
Original will :.follow by-U-S•.Mail
ELLMAN BURKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON
A . PRO F ESS I O N A L L A WC O R P O R A T I O N
601 CALIFORNIA STREET HOWARD N. ELLNIAN
NINETEENTH FLOOR 4.15.296.1610 .DIRECT.T'EL
' SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 415.296.1710 DIRECT FAX
415.777.2727 - IIFLI..h1AN@rEi.1.D•1AN-BURKF..COM
W W W.ELLMAN-BURKE.COM '
January 17, 2008
VIA FACSIMILE: (530) 538-7785
'Mr. Pete Colarco
Planner
Butte County
Dept. of Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville CA 95965
Re: Baldwin/M&T Gravel Mine Use Permit
Dear Mr. Colarco:
You may recall that at the recent hearing before the Board of Supervisors, Imade a big
point about your continuing failure to provide copies of documents. on this matter that I have
formally requested. There were insufficient copies of the Staff Report, Proposed Findings and
Resolutions available to the public at the last meeting, thus depriving the public of an
opportunity to be informed as to the exact scope of the action the Staff was recommending and
the proposed findings.
As those documents will be critical for any judicial review of this matter -. and as it
-would be appropriate, if not required, to inform the Board of any deficiencies that will be
asserted on judicial review,— I respectfully request that you send me copies of all of those
documents (and anything else that has been delivered to the Board by the Staff or applicant for
its consideration at the meeting of January 29, 2008) immediately.
If you have any questions concerning the scope of this request, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
Howard N. Ellman
HNE/flf.
cc: Mr. Richard Thieriot
N:\P\PARRI\GM\Letters\Colarco 01-17-08
BUTTE
COUNTY
JAN 2 2 2008
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
BUTTE COUNTY
CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA TRANSMITTAL
AGENDA ITEM:
AGENDA TITLE: M&T Chico Ranch Mine Appeal Hearing
DEPARTMENT: DDS
DATE: 12/18/07
MEETING DATE REQUESTED: 1/08/08
REGULAR X CONSENT
CONTACT: Pete Calarco, Assi t. Dir.
PHONE: 538-2167
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AND REQUESTED BOARD ACTION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appeal of the Planning Commission's February 22, 2007 certification of the
Final EIR and approval of the M&T Chico Ranch Mine. The project consists of a long-term, off -channel
gravel mining operation proposal by Baldwin Contracting. The mining would take place on 193 -acres of a
235 -acre site over a 20 to 30—year period. Reclamation would occur incrementally and would consist of
the creation of open -water wetland wildlife habitat and agricultural uses. The aggregate would be
processed (washed and screened) on a 40 -acre area at the site. The project is located on a portion of
the M&T Chico Ranch approximately 1.5 miles east of the Sacramento River and approximately 5 -miles
southwest of the City of Chico in an area north of and adjacent to Ord Ferry Road, east of and ,partially
adjacent to River Road. Access to the site would be provided by River Road. Assessor Parcel Numbers:
039-530-023 and 039-530-025 (formerly 039-530-019;- 039-530-020).
ACTION REQUESTED:
Deny the appeal, certify the Final EIR and approve the project with the conditions of approval (including
three revised conditions) by adopting the following:
1. Resolution Certifying the Final EIR, Adopting Findings of Fact and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring
Plan (Attachment A with Exhibits 1 & 2)
2. Resolution approving the Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan with a Financial Assurance
Estimate, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Conditions of Approval (Attachment B with
Exhibits 1, 2 &3)
AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND TWELVE (12) COPIES
ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY
Budgetary Impact: Yes No X
CAO OFFICE USE ONLY
If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back
Budget Transfer Requested: Yes No X
Administrative Office Review
If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on
Administrative Office Staff Contact
back. (Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda
deadline)
4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No:
Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No X
Auditor -Controller's Number (if required):
Date Received by Clerk of Board:
County Counsel's Approval: Yes No X
Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No X
Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help
Previous Board Action Date: -4124/07, 5/22/07 & 11/06/07 Additional Information Attached: Yes X
No
Describe:
Rev. 1198
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
Number of originals required to be returned to Department: '
"Please Note" Department is responsible for returning contract to contractor. Clerk of the Board returns
completed Auditor s copy ONLY.
`Requested Board Action:
Ordinance Required Resolution Required x Minute Order Required For Information Only
BUDGETARY IMPACT WORKSHEET
Current Year Estimated Cost/Fundinq Source Source of Additional Funds Requested
Estimated Cost $ Contingencies $
(Fund Name: )
(Fund Number: )
Amount Budgeted $ Unanticipated Revenue $
(Budget Unit Number: ) (Source: )
(Fund Name: ) (Rev. Code: )
(Fund Number: )
Other Transfer(s) $
1. Complete worksheet below
2. Deadline is one business day gEj2E
to normal agenda deadline
Additional Requested $ _
Total Source of Funds $
Annualized cost $ if also planned for next year.
Budget Transfer Authorized By Administrative Office
Board Action Required for B -Transfer? Yes
Authorized Signature Date
BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST WORKSHEET
Transfer Request:
AMOUNT
Transfer $ (No Cents) From
Transfer $ (No Cents) From
Transfer
(No Cents) From
LINE ITEM LINE ITEM
To
* y
Tn
To
Transfer $ (No Cents) From To
Butte County Department of Development Services
TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
(530) 538-7601 Telephone
(530) 538-7785 Facsimile
www.buttecounty.net/dds 3
www.buttegeneralplan.net
ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * PLANNING
January 8, 2008
Butte County Board of Supervisors
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Subject: Appeal Hearing - M&T Chico Ranch Mine
Final EIR Certification
Mining Permit
Reclamation Plan and Financial Assurance Estimate
Recommendation
Deny the appeal, certify the Final EIR and approve the project with the conditions of approval
(including three revised conditions) by adopting the following:
1. Resolution Certifying the Final EIR, Adopting Findings of Fact and Adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment A with Exhibits 1 & 2)
2. Resolution approving the Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan with a
Financial Assurance Estimate, Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Conditions of Approval (Attachment B with Exhibits 1, 2 &3)
The Board need not certify the Final. EIR if it chooses to uphold the appeal thereby denying the
project.
Summary
The Planning Commission certified the Final EIR and conditionally approved the mining permit,
reclamation plan, financial assurance estimate and a statement of overriding considerations on
February 22, 2007 with a 3-2 vote. Two appeal letters were filed regarding this action. County
Board of Supervisors — Appeal Hearing
M&T Chico Ranch Mine (MIN 96-03)
January 8, 2008
code provides for a de -novo hearing on such appeals. This means that the Board is not limited
to consideration of the issues raised in the Planning Commission's consideration of the project,
or just the content of the appeal letters.
The project is located in Williamson Act contracted land. The applicant filed a request for
immediate cancellation on October 11, 2005. The Land Conservation Act Committee (LCA)
made a recommendation of denial for the immediate cancellation. The LCA made a
recommendation that only four of.the required five findings can be made. Finding #5 requires
that there is no proximate, non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the
proposed use or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous
patterns of urban development (Government Code 51282(b)). The LCA recommended that
the fifth finding could not be made.
On April 24, 2007, the Board considered the Land Conservation Act Committee's
recommendation of denial of the Williamson Act contract cancellation. The Board denied the
request for cancellation and continued the public hearing on the Final EIR Certification and
project approval appeal hearing to May 22, 2007. Prior to that hearing, the applicant
requested a continuance due to a scheduling conflict. On May 22, 2007, the Board of
Supervisors considered that request and continued this hearing to November 6, 2007. The
Board opened the public hearing on November 6, 2007 and announced a continuance to
January 8, 2008.
Background
The following discussion augments the staff report and materials previously distributed to the
Board of Supervisors under the April 24, 2007 agenda. This Background discussion includes a
brief project description (more detailed information can be found in the Environmental Impact
Report and Reclamation Plan) and process discussion. This leads into specific sub -heading
items: General Plan Consistency and Land Use Compatibility; Without Batch Plant — Only;
Denial of the Williamson Act Immediate Cancellation request; Prime Farmland versus Non-
prime; PG&E Gas line; and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The project consists of a long-term, off -channel gravel mining operation proposal by Baldwin
Contracting. The mining would take place on 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site over a 20 to 30—
year period. Reclamation would occur incrementally and would consist of the creation of open -
water wetland wildlife habitat and agricultural uses. The aggregate would be processed
(washed and screened) on a 40 -acre area at the site. The project is located on a portion of the
M&T Chico Ranch approximately 1.5 miles east of the Sacramento River and approximately S-
miles southwest of the City of Chico in an area north of and adjacent to Ord Ferry Road, east
of and partially adjacent to River Road. Access to the site would be provided by River Road.
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 039-530-023 and 039-530-025 (formerly 039-530-019, 039-530-
020).
2
Board of Supervisors — Appeal Hearing
M&T Chico Ranch Mine (MIN 96-03)
January 8, 2008
This project has been determined to have significant environmental impacts associated with
aesthetics and visual resources, agricultural land, air quality, archeological resources, drainage
and flooding, geology, noise, traffic and circulation, water quality/groundwater, land use,
biological resources, and cumulative impacts associated with air quality, traffic and circulation.
Traffic and air quality impacts are considered significant and unavoidable even with mitigation
and will require a statement of overriding considerations if the project is approved.
The project application was filed in 1996 and a previous version of a Draft EIR was circulated
in 1998. Significant changes were required in that document and in the early 2000's another
Draft EIR was circulated. This was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration of
certification in 2003; however, the Department of Conservation had identified inconsistencies
with the Williamson Act. The applicant chose to file a request for immediate cancellation for a
portion of the lands that are in the Williamson Act contract. The Land Conservation Act
committee considered this request in February and April 2006. Their recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors was that only four of the five required findings for granting an immediate
cancellation request could be made.
Staff began the public hearing process again with the Planning Commission with a hearing on
November 30, 2006. This item was continued to December 14, 2006 and January 25, 2007.
At the January 25, 2007 hearing, the Commission made a motion of intent to certify the Final
EIR and approve the project and continued the item to February 22, 2007. Findings were
presented to the Planning Commission on February 22, 2007 for their consideration and the
Planning Commission voted 3-2 to certify the Final EIR and approve the project with a
statement of overriding considerations. Certifying the EIR means that the Planning
Commission considered that the EIR met the requirements of CEQA and reflected the
County's independent judgment.
The Planning Commission's action on use permits is subject to a 10 -day appeal period. Two
appeal letters were filed within the appeal period. Howard Ellman, an attorney representing
Parrot Ranch/Llano Seco filed an appeal. Ron Jones also submitted an appeal letter with 13
signatures including property owners, Butte Environmental Council (BEC) and the Sacramento
River Preservation Trust. Additionally, the applicant's attorney, Jeff Dorso of Deipenbrock-
Harrison, submitted a letter discussing the issues raised in the appeal letters. Copies of these
letters were previously provided in the April 24, 2007 report to the Board of Supervisors. The
appeal letters argue that the Planning Commission's action was incorrect. Issues raised in the
appeal letters include problems with General Plan consistency, land use compatibility, prime
farm land, flood impacts, ground water contamination, inadequate CEQA process, inadequate
findings, failure to fully describe the environmental setting and surroundings and failure to
demonstrate the need for aggregate. The appeal process is not limited to the issues raised in
these letters because the appeal hearing is de novo.
The Planning Commission heard lengthy testimony on the project and the Final EIR at its
meetings in 2003 and at the recent meetings beginning on November 30, 2006. The
Commission rendered its decision with some additions to the record. At the December 14,
2006 meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to include clarifications (errata) to the
3
Board of Supervisors — Appeal Hearing
M&T Chico Ranch Mine (MIN 96-03)
January 8, 2008
text in the. Final EIR. The errata includes a description of the Llano Seco Ranch as partof. the
Regional Environmental Overview and reference to the Williamson Act immediate cancellation
request as part of the Detailed Project Description.
Additional background discussion is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff
reports. This includes the November 30, 2006, December 14, 2006, January 25, 2007 and
February 22, 2007 reports. These reports, the Draft EIR and Final EIR are available for review
at http://www.buttecounty.net/dds.
General Plan Consistency and Land Use Compatibility
The appeal letters have challenged the consistency of the project with the General Plan..
referencing a page in the Agricultural Element. General Plans are required to be vertically and
horizontally consistent. The Land Use Element lists resource extraction and processing'as a
secondary use in the Orchard and Field Crop land use designation. The zoning ordinance lists
mining as a conditionally permitted use. The Draft and Final EIR address General Plan
consistency under CEQA. Conditionallypermitted uses are those that may not be appropriate
in all locations of the same zone and thus require discretionary review. The key part of the use
permit process is to evaluate the site proposed in the use permit application and determine
that with conditions, the location is appropriate and consistent with the General Plan. The
criteria for granting use permits are contained in Section 24-45.10 of the Butte County Code.
This section states: The Planning Commission, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the
hearing, may grant use permits required by the provisions of this chapter when it finds that the
proposed uses of the property will not impair the integrity and character of the zone in which
the land lies and that the use would not be unreasonably incompatible with, or injurious to,
surrounding properties or detrimental to the health and general welfare of the persons residing
or working in the neighborhood or to the general health, welfare and safety of the county. The
Planning Commission considered the record as a whole and determined that the project is
consistent with the General Plan.
Mr. Jones' appeal letter references page AE -14 of the Agricultural Element with a quoted
section from this page. This section appears in Program 3.6 which states: Provide a definitive
purpose section for the agricultural zones and a list of agricultural uses, including, but not,
limited to, crop production, orchards, aquaculture, animal husbandry, agricultural industries,
and the like, which preserve, promote, and support the agricultural area. The above program
is a requirement to provide more definition to the agricultural uses in the agricultural zones of
the County. This is not a statement or a restriction as to the activities that are conditionally
permitted in the agricultural zones. Program 3.6 is listed under policies and Goal 43 of the
Element: Support the management of agricultural lands in an efficient, economical manner,
with the minimal conflict from non-agricultural uses.
4
Board of Supervisors — Appeal Hearing
M&T Chico Ranch Mine (MIN 96-03)
January 8, 2008
Additional quotes were referenced from County Code. Below are those two quotes underlined
in the full context of Section 13-101 of the Butte County Code.
Chapter 13 Surface Mining and Reclamation
13-101 Purpose and intent.
(a) The purpose of this article is to implement the provisions of the California
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 as amended (the "Act," Public
Resources Code section 2710 et seq.).
(b) It is the purpose and intent of the board of supervisors to create and maintain
an effective .and comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy with
regulation of surface mining operations so as to assure that:
(1) Adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined
lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative
land use.
(2) The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving
consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range, and
forage and aesthetic enjoyment.
(3) Residual hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated.
(4) The extraction of minerals is essential to the continued economic well-being of
the county and to the needs of society, and that reclamation of mined lands is
necessary to prevent or minimize adverse effects on the environment and to
protect the public health and safety.
(5) The reclamation of mined lands as provided in this article will permit the
continued mining of minerals and will provide for the protection and subsequent
beneficial use of the mined and reclaimed land.
(6) Surface mining takes place in diverse areas where the geologic, topographic,
climatic, biological and social conditions are significantly different and that
reclamation operations and the specifications therefore may vary accordingly.
(c) This article shall be reviewed annually and revised, as necessary, in order to
ensure that it is in accordance with the .state policy for mined lands reclamation
and to encourage the mining industry of Butte County.
One of the purposes of a reclamation plan is to identify a proposed end use and to return the
land to a condition that is appropriate for the proposed end use. The proposed end use of a
lake with habitat does not conflict with section 13-101 of the Butte County Code.
Without Batch Plant - Only
Concern has been expressed regarding the "with batch plant scenario" because the Draft EIR
includes this option in the analysis throughout the document. In order to clarify that the current
project under consideration does not include a batch plant, staff prepared the findings included
with the Final EIR certification that only lists the "without batch plant" scenario. In the last
several public hearings, testimony indicates that there remains some.doubt as to the status of
5
Board of Supervisors — Appeal Hearing
M&T Chico Ranch Mine (MIN 96-03)
January 8, 2008
a
the batch plant scenario. In order to underscore that the batch plant is not included, the
applicant proposes a condition of approval that clarifies that this is not proposed or authorized
as part of the project. The following underlined section has been added to Condition No. 1:
1. This Mining Use Permit allows the extracting, processing, and sale of up to
5,500,000 cubic yards of aggregates within Assessor Parcels 039-530-023 and
025 ("Project") in accordance with County ordinances and land use regulations
subject to the following terms and conditions. This approval also allows
construction of facilities ancillary to the mining project and related improvements.
The Owner/Operator is prohibited from operating a batch plant at the Project site.
Denial of the Williamson Act Immediate Cancellation request
The Board of Supervisors denied the request for immediate cancellation of the mining area
from the Williamson Act. One of the requirements for a property owner to request immediate
cancellation is to record a non -renewal of the contract with the County. That non -renewal was
filed on October 11, 2005 and the contract will expire on December 31, 2014. The applicant
has proposed a condition of approval for the Board to consider that does not allow excavation
of the mining area until the contract expires. This proposed condition reads as follows and is
included in the attached conditions of approval for the Board's consideration as a replacement
of Condition No. 15.
15. Prior- to establishment of the -use, theOv,%e40per-a#er- shall obtain G.ounAy Beard
of Supen,iser-s—appr-eval-ethe --paitial G-alifen:tia Land Gens�e�atien Ae
(Williamsen-AEt) iw.,nediate eaneellatien request eF-deteFxiaatien e€
v,. pati ili . The Owner/Operator is prohibited from extracting sand, gravel, or
other mineral resources from the Project site before the Land Conservation Act
contract entered between M&T Incorporated and the State of California, dated
December 11, 1975 has expired on December 31, 2014.
Section 13-108 of the Butte County Code requires applicants to commence mining operations
within 5 years of the date of approval. An extension to that can be considered by the Planning
Commission if the request is filed prior to expiration. As noted above, the Williamson Act
contract expires in seven years, however, several aspects of the project can be commenced
without mining material from the contracted land. For example, the applicant must obtain other
permits, prepare the site, and construct the processing facilities. The processing plant facilities
are located on farmland to be reclaimed to prime land under State Mining And Geology Board
Reclamation Regulations section 3707 (see Prime Farmland versus Non -prime discussion
below).
R
Board of Supervisors — Appeal Hearing
M&T Chico Ranch Mine (MIN 96-03)
January 8, 2008
Prime Farmland versus Non -prime
The EIR contains information regarding the soils on the mining site. The Kelly & Associates
Environmental Sciences report, Capability Assessment Soils of the M&T Chico Ranch Mine
Site, dated February 2003, is included as Appendix B of the Final EIR. This document is an
analysis of the site specific conditions using a rating system with four factors: A - Soil Profile; B
— Texture of the surface soil; C — Slope and undulations; and X — Other factors. Each of these
factors includes a value expressed as a percentage. Based on the methodology outlined in
the report, each of the soil classes on site are rated less than prime. The County Assessor's
Office considers the site to be prime farmland under the Williamson Act. Dean Burkett of the
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Chico office, has indicated that the site is
prime farmland if irrigated.
Does the EIR presented to the Board for consideration of certification contain sufficient
information to make an informed decision on the project? Under CEQA Guidelines section
15151, Standards for adequacy of an EIR: 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. An evaluation of the
environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an
EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts
does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of
disagreement amonq the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy,
completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. (Emphasis added). Page 4.0-30 of the
Final EIR includes a reference to the NRCS and County Assessor's Office determination of
prime farmland. These are responses to comments on the Draft EIR. Page references to the
Draft EIR are provided in this Final EIR section. While this is not specifically a summary
format, the key issues of disagreement, NRCS ratings and Assessor's Office Williamson Act
designations, are included in the Draft and Final EIR documents.
Based on the record, Development Services recommends that the Board can certify the Final
EIR with the existing information. If the Board, upon reviewing the record as a whole,
determines that the land in its current, non -irrigated state is prime farmland, then the Final EIR
should be modified to reflect that determination prior to certification. Specific references
should be identified in order to direct the County's environmental consultant accordingly. Staff
would return with the necessary revisions as directed by the Board for future consideration of
certification.
Most of the testimony has centered on the mining area of the project in regards to the prime
farmland issue. The plant site, however, is required to be reclaimed to prime farmland
consistent with the reclamation plan and State Mining And Geology Board Reclamation
Regulations section 3707 (Performance Standards for Prime Agricultural Land). As noted in a
November 19, 2004 letter (copy attached to this report) from the Department of Conservation
to the applicant's representative, Jeff Dorso, the processing facilities are considered
compatible if cancellation on the mining site is approved and the processing site is reclaimed
to prime. While this letter was written to address the Williamson Act issues, it is helpful in
7
Board of Supervisors - Appeal Hearing
M&T Chico Ranch Mine (MIN 96-03)
January 8, 2008
demonstrating the Department of Conservation's position of the relationship between SMARA
and the Williamson Act as it relates to the plant site. The reclamation plan as proposed meets
the requirement of section 3707 as it relates to the plant site. In order to clarify this
requirement and to better illustrate consistency with the position of the Department of
Conservation, staff has modified Condition #8 as follows:
8. All Reclamation work, including reclamation of the plant site to prime farm land
under SMARA section 3707 (Performance Standards for Prime Agriculturat
Land), shall be in substantial compliance with the approved Reclamation Plan and
the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act as determined by the County.
PG&E Gas line
At'. the November 6, 2007 hearing, testimony was provided by one of the appellants, Ron
Jones, that the project could conflict with an 18 -inch gas line, that is not shown on the
reclamation plan exhibits. Pacific Gas and -Electric was contacted early in the EIR process.
They provided a written response in 1997 (copy attached to this report) indicating potential
conflict with their transmission lines. As, a result of this early input, conditions were added to
address this issue. The existing conditions of approval contain three conditions pertaining to
Pacific Gas and Electric. These conditions address work within PG&E easements and effects
on their lines. Condition numbers 24, 25 and 26 are as follows:
24. If there is a conflict between the mining operations and the PG&E natural gas
line, Owner/Operator will be responsible for the relocation of the PG&E gas line
and all associated costs, along with the acquisition of new rights of ways.
25. Weights of all mining equipment shall be provided to PG&E to ensure that
weights will not damage gas lines.
26. Any'use'of PG&E easements shall require a review and consent of PG&E. Upon
review a consent agreement would be prepared if the use is -appropriate.
Staff conducted a site visit to the location referenced by the appellant as the odorization
facility. From that location there was above ground signage south of the facility and east of the
facility. There was no visible above ground signage extending north of the referenced facility.
Staff also contacted Pacific Gas and Electric Land Services division regarding this issue. The
local PG&E representative indicates that the facility is an odorizer control station. There is a
16 -inch line along River Road and an 8 -inch line extending east in the direction of Chico.
8
Board of Supervisors — Appeal Hearing .
M&T Chico Ranch Mine (MIN 96-03)
January 8, 2008
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Planning Commission's approval of the project required a statement of overriding
considerations under, CEQA. The EIR identifies impacts that cannot be reduced to a level of
less than , significant. These are listed in the Final EIR and the statement of overriding
considerations. A summary listing of these impacts is provided:
Impact 4.5.-5: Addition to Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hot Spots - Certain
intersections in the vicinity of the Project will experience congestion under
cumulative conditions.
Impact 4.6-4: Highway 32/West 5th Street Intersection - The proposed Project
will add 10 or, more trips per day to the intersection of State Highway 32/West 5th
street. This intersection has been identified as a location having 4 or more
accidents in a 12 -month period over the last three years. This location also had
more than one accident over a 12 -month period, which involved heavy vehicles.
This is considered a significant impact.
Impact 4.6-5: Park Avenue/East . 20th Street/East Park Avenue - The
proposed Project will exacerbate LOS F operating conditions on Park Avenue
from East 20th Street to East Park Avenue under cumulative conditions.
Impact 4.6-6: East Park Avenue/Park Avenue/Highway 99 - The proposed
Project will exacerbate LOS F operating conditions on East Park Avenue from
Park Avenue to Highway 99 under cumulative conditions.
Impact 4.6-7: Bruce Road/Highway 32/Skyway - The proposed Project will
exacerbate LOS E operating conditions on Bruce Road from Highway 32 to
Skyway under cumulative conditions.
Impact 4.6-8: Baldwin Plant Driveway/Skyway - The proposed Project will
exacerbate LOS F operating conditions in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the
p.m. peak hour at the intersections of the Baldwin Plant driveway and Skyway
under cumulative conditions.
Where an agency considers approving a project where significant impacts will occur, it must
identify social. or economic benefits through a statement of overriding considerations. This
statement identifies certain benefits that outweigh the impacts. The list, as provided in the
attached Planning Commission resolution of approval, includes the following: Local source of
aggregate, tax revenue, employment opportunities, development of an important mineral
resource as designated by the State Geologist (MRZ-2), potential decrease in transport
distance and related air quality, fuel usage and road miles traveled, creation of habitat,
monitoring of ground water quality and a decreased reliance on in -stream mining. A Board of
Supervisors resolution has also been prepared containing the same findings for a statement of
overriding considerations.
9
Board of Supervisors — Appeal Hearing
M&T Chico Ranch Mine (MIN 96-03)
January 8, 2008
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 530-538-6821 or Pete
Calarco, Assistant Director at 530-538-2167.
Sincerely,
Win e pings, Director
Attachments
Attachment A — A Resolution Of The Butte County Board Of Supervisors Certifying The Final
Environmental Impact Report, Adopting Findings Of Fact, And Adopting A Mitigation
Monitoring And Reporting Program For The M&T Chico Ranch Mine Mining Use Permit And
Reclamation Plan (MIN 96-03).
Exhibit 1 Impact Statement, Mitigation Measures and Findings of Fact
Exhibit 2 Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Attachment B— A Resolution Of The Butte, County ' Board Of Supervisors Approving The
Mining Use Permit, Reclamation Plan, And Financial Assurances For Baldwin Contracting
Company (MIN 96-03).
Exhibit 1 Financial Assurance Estimate
Exhibit 2 Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit 3 Conditions of Approval (Including three revised conditions proposed by the.
applicant. These are shown as an addition to Condition No.1 and Condition No. 8 and a
replacement of Condition No. 15 shown in underline/strikeout format) with Table A — Public
Works Fair Share Cost Estimates
Attachment C County EIR consultant, Resource Design Technology, Inc, presentation
slides
Attachment D — 1997 PG&E Letter, 2004 DOC Letter
Attachment E — Vicinity Map
Documents previously transmitted to the Board under the April 24, 2007 staff report:
Vicinity Map
Attachment A - Board Resolution Certifying EIR
Exhibit 1— Impact Statement, Mitigation Measures and Findings of Fact
Exhibit 2 — Mitigation Monitoring Plan
10
Board of Supervisors — Appeal Hearing
M&T Chico Ranch Mine (MIN 96-03)
January 8, 2008
Attachment B - Board Resolution Approving Project
Exhibit 1- M&T Chico Ranch Mine Financial Assurance Cost Estimate
Exhibit 2 — Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit 3 — Conditions of Approval
Table A — Public Works Fair Share Cost Estimates
Attachment C - Appeal Letters:
Howard Ellman (representing Parrot Ranch/Llano Seco Ranch)
Ron Jones (serving as the contact for 13 concern property owners/organizations)
Attachment D - Letter to the Board — Deipenbrock Harrison on behalf of Baldwin regarding the
appeal letters
Attachment E - Planning Commission Staff Reports
November 30, 2006 and Minutes/Transcript
December 14, 2006 and Minutes/Transcript
January 25, 2007 and Minutes/Transcript
February 22, 2007 and Minutes
Attachment F — Planning Commission Resolutions (PC07-06 & PC07-07)
Draft EIR
Final EIR (includes additional Williamson Act discussion and Errata Additions)
Reclamation Plan