The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM AND T CHICO RANCH MINE, REVISED CONDITION - ROAD MAINTENANCEMEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORDS DEPARTMENT 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Phone 538-7681 Fax 538-7171 a 0 0 =0 0 0 5 A4144.I c WOA TO: Pete Calarco, Assistant Director FROM: Mike Crump, Director SUBJECT: M&T Chico Ranch Mine, Revised Condition — Road Maintenance DATE: November 3, 2006 Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 needs to be updated to reflect the change in the cost estimate to improve the pavement on River Road between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road with a two asphalt concrete overlay. The revised language for this mitigation measure should read as follows: The project applicant shall contribute its fair share of the costs to improve the pavement on River Road between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road with a two-inch asphalt concrete overlay. The fair share amount shall be based on the increase in ESALs, which is 51%. Butte County Public Works estimates the cost of this improvement to be approximately $1,200,000 and the improvements would have a useful life of 10 years. Therefore, the Applicant's fair share cost would be about $61,000 per year. The Public Works Department has indicated that the fee shall be submitted annually based on the tonnage of material that is hauled from the project site and shall be relative to an inflation index. Based on the information contained in Table 4.6-9, the cost per ton of material hauled from the project site would be approximately $0.14. In addition, Public Works is requesting the following language be added to the project either as additional mitigation or as a condition: The project applicant shall contribute $0.06 per ton as its fair share of the cost to maintain the asphalt concrete pavement on the following roads over the 30 year life of the project: • River Road; between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road • Ord Ferry Road; between County Line and Dayton Road • Durham Dayton Road; between Dayton Road and SR 99 • Dayton Road; between Ord Ferry Road and Chico City Limit • Hegan Lane; between Dayton Road and Midway • Chico River Road; between River Road and Chico City Limit Road Maintenance shall include a chip seal surface treatment every 10 years with M&T Chico Ranch Mine project's fair share contribution based on the projected net increase in ESALs as shown in the attached Table A. Based on the information contained in Table A, the cost per ton of material hauled from the project site would be approximately $0.06. Therefore, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine projects fair share contribution based on the projected net increase in ESAL's is $0.20 per ton. Table A Total Route length ADT Current % Trucks ESAL % on road Future # Trucks ADT % Trucks ESAL % Diff ESAL - County share M &T share Truck River Road; Ord Ferry to Chico River Road to Oro Ferry 5.3 3089 9.8% 265440 55.00% 70 3159 11.8% 332130 25.1% 79.9% 20.1% 1.1 Ord Ferry; CountyLine to Dayton Road 8.0 3150 13.2% 369960 40.00% 51 3201 14.6% 409170 10.6% 90.4% 9.6% 0.8 Durham Dayton Road; Dayton Road to SR 99 to 99 10.5 1032 12.1% 109120 10.00% 13 1045 13.2% 122860 12.6% 88.8% 11.2% 1.2 .128 Dayton Rd; Ord ferryto Chico Cit Limit 4.5 4927 9.5% 402730 30.00% 38 4965 10.2% 444470 10.4% 90.6% 9.4% 0.4 He an Lane; Dayton road to Midwayto Midway3.2 1883 10.9% 179720 20.00% 26 . 1909 12.1% 207890 15.7% 86.4% 13.6% 0.4 Chico River Road to Chico 4.2 - 3793 9.8% 332130 55.00% 70 3863 11.4% 388300 16.9% 85.5% 14.5F/.T-----O.61 tozai roaa iengm (mnes) so. r SY of roadway one chip seal 586432 Chip Seal Cost/SY $2.10 cost/seal $1,231,507.20 3 seals in 30 years $3,694,521.60 over all M & T % 12.5% M & T cost $462,473.85 Cost per ton - $0.06 I M8T Miles 4.J �i :Y i I M8T Miles 4.J - i Page 1 of 1 Snellings, Tim From: Brownell, Mary Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1.1:15 AM To: Snellings, Tim Cc: Dolan, Jane Subject: Planning Commission meeting 12/14/06 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Tim, Mr: Gerald Brandstatt stopped by Supervisor Dolan's office today, December 13, 2006, to express his concerns with the proposed Mining Permit for the M & T Chico Ranch on the Planning-Commissions Agenda scheduled for December 14, 2006. He is not sure if he can attend the meeting but wanted his concerns forwarded to the Commission. Message from: Gerald Brandstatt Address: 26 Rose Avenue Chico, CA 95926 (530)343-0331 Location of problem: Rose Ave./River Road Gravel Truck Traffic Message: 1 think that it would be a BAD idea to have more than 10 trucks of gravel hauled on River Road each day. A better route would be on Ord Ferry & Dayton Roads, Hauling through 5th Street and the college housing is, a bad idea. I will also provide you with a copy of his note he left at Supervisor Dolan's office for your official record. Thank you, Wary BrowneCC Executive Assistant for Jane Dolan, Supervisor District 2, Butte County MBrownell@buttecounty__net (530) 891-2830 Fax (530) 879-2479 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95%5-3397 Dear Commissioners: As'a resident of Dayton, I am writing in opposition to the proposed gravel mining operation you are considering on Nov. 30. The impact to our little community would be devastating. Dayton is a small community divided by Durham -Dayton Highway. Many of the youngsters living here travel across the roadway to catch a bus or visit friends. How can loaded gravel trucks stop quickly when a small child mistakenly rides his or her bicycle into the roadway? The current speed limit of 35 miles per hour through our community is rarely, if ever enforced. More traffic, including large trucks full of gravel, is not what we need. Safety for the children and residents of Durham, another small town affected by your decision, also needs to be considered. Beyond the safety issue, the proposed mining operation has already been deemed 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 and traffic and circulation" as stated in your own letter to area property owners. All of the above will drastically affect the quality of life we currently enjoy by living in this rural area of Butte County. Again, I am opposed to the proposed gravel mining operation. Unable to attend the -meeting on Nov. 30, I still feel compelled to let you know my opinion: Sincerely, 4R , o` 0" Heidi Ann Hovey 9462 Gerke St. Chico, CA 95928 BUTTE g:OUN Y WI OV 2 9 2005 DEVELOPPJL,NT SERI, IX23 Tim Snellings Butte County Planning Office 7 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 November 28, 2006 Mr. Snellings, I'm writing concerning the proposed M&T Gravel Plant. The problems that such a project would create are overwhelming for the average citizen or homeowner to imagine. Some of the ones that come to mind immediately are the loss to the quality of life from those exposed to the traffic, noise, and the destruction of farmland forever. It is my understanding that a major part of the information used to determine the . impact of the gravel pit was taken from the 1990 Census. In 1990 the town of Durham had a population of. approximately 600 people. Today that number is in excess of 3,000. Additionally the City of Chico has grown and the outlining areas which were once orchards are now homes. As you are well aware the area leading from the "gravel pit" to Chico is lined with. neighborhoods and all that that entails. Children traveling to and from school, college students cycling, driving, walking, farm equipment being moved from orchard to orchard, and of course the poor unfortunate lost or wild animal that happens to find themselves in the path of one of the more than 50,000 "gravel pit" trucks., The impact that such a project would have on the quality of the air, noise, and destruction of the peaceful community so many of us enjoy is clear when the project is examined. An article in the, Enterprise Record reports that the city of Chico is considering expanding south of Chico to the area from Hegan Ln. to Dayton Rd. If this plan is followed in the next ten years the Gravel Plant will have an even greater impact for many more citizens. The entities which have been involved in the planning of the project are agencies and corporations which have no basis in Butte County. The gravel company owners are based in North Dakota. The land owners are from Portland Oregon, and the company. "accessing" the Environmental Impact is from the Bay area. These entities have no vested interest in Butte County or the community. Additionally, the land owners are attempting to be relieved from the Williamson Act. This is yet another cooperation manipulation of a program designed to enhance and protect an area not destroy it. I'm.a firm believer that every person's opinion matters. Please take into account the impact that this proposal will have, not only on the current residents of Butte County but the future of our community, do not allow this project to continue! Thank you for your time, � � n ----� U U D Karen A. Young Dayton, CA NOV Z 9 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION