HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (2)171
-ButteCounty Department.of Development Services'? �uTrF ` ;•
TIM SNEL'LINGS,-DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR O O
' 7 County Center Drive �. o 0
F
Oroville, CA 95965
(530) 538-7601 Telephone f
` (530) 538-7786 Fac§imiie.
www.buttecounty.net/dds
www.buttegeneralplan.net
ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * PLANNING; -
µ+ - MEMORANDUM ,
.t 'TO: `,136tte County. Planning Commission `
FROM r
•F Charles S. Thistlethwaite, AICP _ � - ,,,
Planning Manager r -
'SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL -IMPACT REPORT;
a - ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THEM&T CHICO �.
RANCH MINE MINING USE PERMIT AND. RECLAMATION PLAN (MIN
96-03)
DATE: , February 16, 2007 y
Enclosed please find the Planning Commission resolution certifying the Final EIR for the M&T .
Chico Ranch Mine Mining Use Permit and Reclamation -Plan (MIN 96-03). This should replace,
the tab Planning -Commission materials marked`"Attachment A."
In addition, a page marked Table A listing sections of roads to be improved is enclosed and.., >:
z.- should be added as the last page.of the recommended conditions of approval for the Mining
Use Permit and'Reclamation Plan.` This should.be the last page of Attachment'B to the r
Agenda Report for M&T. Chico Ranch' Mine project.
a ,
I •
ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
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)
BACKGROUND
The M&T Chico Ranch Mine ("Project") proposed by the applicant, Baldwin
Contracting Company ("Applicant"), consists of a long-term, off -channel gravel mining
operation approximately 5 -miles southwest of the City of Chico. The mining would take
place on 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site over an estimated 20 to 30—year .period. The Project
site would be reclaimed to high-quality, open -water, wetland wildlife habitat and
agricultural uses. The mined aggregate would be processed (washed and screened) on a
40 -acre area at the site.
The Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the Project came on
public hearing before the Planning Commission of the County of Butte ("County") on
October. 23, 2003, January 22, 2004, March 11, 2004, April 8, 2004, August 26, 2004,
November 30, 2006, December 14, 2006, and January 25, 2007. Having considered all
the written and documentary information submitted, the staff, reports, oral testimony,
other evidence presented, and the administrative record as a whole, the Planning
Commission hereby finds and decides as follows.
RECITALS
1. Lead Agency Status: Butte County is the lead agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") for
preparation and certification of the Final EIR for the Project.
2. Project Description: The Project allows a long-term, off -channel gravel mining
operation. The mining would take place on 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site. over an
estimated 20 to 30—year period. Approximately six acres will be mined each year. The
aggregate would be processed (washed and screened) on a 40 -acre area at the site.
a) Acreages: The approximate acreages for the Project are as follows:
Lease area:
627 acres
Project site:
235 acres
Mined area:
193 acres
Page 1 of 26
Equipment area: 40 acres
Topsoil stockpile: 2 acres
b. Location: 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 Old Ferry
Road, and east of, and partially adjacent to, River Road. Access to the site would
be provided by River Road.
c. Material to be mined: High quality construction, aggregates including gravel
and sand. The Project site is part of the present Sacramento River Floodplain and
the gravels and sands underlying the site consist of channel deposits from 'the
river.
d. Production: Production numbers for the Project are as follows:
Maximum annual mine production: 275,000 cubic yards (mined)
Maximum annual mine production: 250,000 cubic yards (marketed)
Average annual mined product amount: 66,667 cubic yards
Total production: 5,500,000 cubic yards
e. Traffic Volumes for Trucks: According to the traffic study contained in the
Draft EIR, the Project will generate approximately 16,667 trips per year. Average
daily trips generated will be 128 (64 arriving and 64 departing). The Project will
generate 20 additional AM and PM Peak Traffic Trips. These trips equate to a less
than one percent (1%) increase of total traffic volumes in the Project area under
cumulative conditions.
3. Discretionga Approvals Required: The proposed Project involves the following
discretionary approvals and CEQA actions by the Planning Commission:
a) Certify the Final EIR for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Long -Term Off -
Channel Mining Use Permit application (SCH 97022080), based on
Findings of Fact documenting compliance with CEQA (Exhibit 1), and
independent review and consideration of the information in the EIR prior to
taking action on the Project.
b) Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
implementing mitigation measures. (Exhibit 2.)
c) Approve the M&T Chico Ranch Mining Use Permit No. Min 96-03, to
allow for the excavation of 193 -acres of a 235 -acre site, including portions of
Assessor Parcels 039-530-019 & 039-530-020.
d) Approve the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan, to allow for the
establishment of a lake with shallow wetland areas along the perimeter for
wildlife habitat and a 40 -acre area reclaimed to agricultural uses.
e) Approve the Financial Assurances Cost Estimate in the amount of
$103,526.93 to ensure reclamation of the mine site.
Page 2 of 26
f) Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
g) Adopt Conditions of Approval as set forth by County departments and
agencies.
4. Preparation of an EIR: Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.
Code Regs. sections 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"), an EIR was prepared for the
Project to analyze the environmental effects of the Project.
5. Process: Preparation of the Final EIR was a multi-year process, which included
the following activities:
a) On August 30, 1996, the Project application was submitted to the County.
b) An Initial Study to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed project identified several potentially significant environmental
effects that may occur with implementation of the project. Accordingly, an
EIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064(a).
c) On February 28, 1997, the County distributed a Notice of Preparation for the
EIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and the public.
d) In May 1998, the County issued the Draft EIR. The County circulated the
Draft EIR for public review and comment from May 12, 1998 to July 2, 1998.
Over 80 comment letters were submitted to the County on the Draft EIR.
These comment letters are on file and available for review at the County
Planning Department. County staff and the EIR consultant reviewed all
comments during preparation of the revised Draft EIR.
e) On June 11, 1998, the Draft EIR for the Project was first heard by the
Planning Commission. Extensive public input was received at that time. The
Planning Commission continued the matter to allow additional input and
analysis following the hearing.
f) The County decided to update and supplement certain sections of the Draft
EIR (including the Traffic, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise sections)
in order to update technical data contained in the Draft EIR. In addition, the
County required the completion of a pedestrian level archaeological survey at
the Project site. The County then decided to recirculate the entire Draft EIR
to ensure consistency and accuracy between the new and old sections, and to
maximize the opportunity for public comment on the Project and the Draft
EIR. The County hired a new consultant, Resource Design Inc., to prepare the
revised Draft EIR. The particular modifications to the original May 1998
Draft EIR are outlined on page 173 of the revised Draft EIR.
g) In September 2002, the County issued the revised Draft EIR. The County
circulated the revised DraftEIR for a 45 -day public review period
Page 3 of 26
commencing October 12, 2002 through November 25, 2002. Comments were
received on the revised Draft EIR and are included and responded to within
the Final EIR.
h) On September 30, 2002, the County Filed a Notice of Completion for the
revised Draft EIR with the State of California Clearinghouse.
i) On October 24; 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in
Oroville to receive public comment on the Project and the revised Draft EIR.
Public notice of this meeting was provided by the County.
j) In October, 2003, the County released the M&T Chico Ranch Final EIR. The
County provided notice of the availability of the Final EIR to agencies,
organizations, and the public.
k) On October 23, 2003, the Planning Commission held another hearing to solicit
further public comment on the Final EIR. The Planning Commission held }
additional hearings to solicit public comment on the Project on January , 22,
2004, March 11, 2004, April 8, 2004, August 26, 2004, November 30, 2006,
December 14, 2006, and January 25, 2007.
1) During the public comment period to the Draft EIR, the Department of
Conservation ("DOC") commented that the proposed Project was not an
allowed use under the Williamson Act.
m) On October 11, 2005, Pac Trust filed a Notice of Partial Nonrenewal for the
106 acres to be cancelled' and voluntarily submitted a Petition of Partial
Cancellation.
n) In November, 2006 the County released an Updated Response to Comments
Regarding the Williamson Act for the Final EIR.
o) On November 30, 2006, the County held a duly noticed public hearing before
the Planning Commission to consider certification of the Final EIR, approval
of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, approval of Mining Use _Permit
No. Min 96-03, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan, and the
Financial Assurances Cost Estimate, and adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. The Planning Commission voted to continue the
hearing until December 14, 2006.
p) On December 14, 2006, the County held a duly noticed public hearing before
the Planning Commission to consider certification of the Final EIR, approval
of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, approval of Mining Use Permit
No. Min 96-03, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan, and the
Financial Assurances Cost Estimate, and adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. At this hearing, Staff provided responses to public
Page 4 of 26
comments which were received at the November 30, 2006 hearing. The
Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing until January 25, 2007.
q) On January 25, 2007, the County held a duly noticed public hearing before the
Planning Commission to consider certification of the Final EIR, approval of
the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, approval of Mining Use Permit No.
Min 96-03, the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan, and the Financial
Assurances Cost Estimate, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. In addition, Staff returned to the Plaiming Commission with
responses to public comments that were received at the December 14, 2006
hearing. The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to adopt a Motion of Intent to:
(1) adopt a resolution certifying the Final EIR and approving a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; and (2) adopt a separate resolution
approving. Mining Use Permit No. Min 96-03, including the M&T Chico
Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan and the Financial Assurances Cost Estimate,
and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
6. Documents Comprising Final EIR: The Final EIR for the M&T Chico Ranch
Mine Project includes the following items (collectively referred to as the "Final EIR").
a) M&T Chico Ranch Mine Draft EIR (SCH 97022080) dated September 2002;
b) Comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, dated October 23,
2003;
c) Draft EIR Errata containing corrections and clarifications made to the text of
the Draft EIR;
d) Updated Response to Comments Regarding Williamson Act, dated November,
2006;
e) Updated Draft EIR Errata Regarding Environmental Setting; and
f) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
7. Description Of The Record: For purposes of CEQA and the findings hereinafter
set forth, the administrative record for the Project consists of those items listed in Section
21167.6 (e) of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1230, Statutes of 1994) including but
not limited to:
a) All application materials and correspondence contained in the Lead Agency's
Project files (MIN 96-03);
b) The original Draft EIR;
c) The revised Draft EIR;
Page 5 of 26
d) , The Final EIR;
e) All Notices of Availability, the Notice of Determination, staff reports and
presentation materials related to the Project;
f) All studies contained in, or referenced by, staff reports, the Draft EIR, or the Final
EIR;
g) All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for the County
and other agencies;
h) All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings and
workshops, and all transcripts and minutes of those hearings related to the Project;
and
i) For documentary and informational purposes, all locally -adopted land use plans
and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, area plans and
ordinances, master plans together with environmental review documents,
findings, mitigation monitoring programs and other documentation relevant to
planned growth in the area.
8. Custodian of the Record: The, administrative record is maintained at the Butte County
Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
L 'Evidentiary Basis for Findings: These findings are based upon substantial
evidence in the entire record before the Planning Commission. The references- to the
Draft EIR, Final EIR, and other evidence in the record set forth in the findings are for
ease of reference and are intended to demonstrate the analytical path between the
evidence in the record and the findings adopted by the Planning Commission. The
references are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the evidence in the record that
is relied upon for these findings.
2. Impacts of the M&T Mining Project: Appendix F of the Final EIR provides a
summary of environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with this Project.
These impacts and mitigation measures are associated with the following impact
categories: 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, Cumulative
impacts associated with Air Quality and Traffic and Circulation.
3. Mitigation Measures: The Mitigation Measures herein referenced are those
Page 6 of 26
identified in the Draft EIR, as clarified or amplified in the Final EIR, and as modified by
the Resolution approving the Project, including the conditions of approval contained
therein. The tables included in Exhibit 1 specify available and feasible mitigation
measures.
a) All feasible mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effects of the Project and that are adopted in these Findings shall
become binding on the County and The Applicant at the time of approval of the
Project.
b) The County Planning Commission also finds that the Mitigation Measures
incorporated into and imposed upon, the Project will not have new significant
environmental impacts that were not already analyzed in the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
4. Findings of Fact: CEQA states that a project shall not be approved if it would
result in a significant environmental impact, or if feasible mitigation measures or feasible
alternatives can avoid or substantially lessen the impact. Only when there are specific
economic, social, or other considerations which make it infeasible to substantially lessen
or avoid an impact can a project with significant impacts be approved.
a) If the project can be defined as having - significant impacts on the
environment, then an EIR must be prepared. Therefore, when an EIR has been
completed which identifies one or more potentially significant environmental
impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings
for each identified significant impact:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or `incorporated into, such
projects which mitigate or avoid. the significant environmental effects thereof
as identified in the completed Environmental Impact Report.
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and,such changes have been adopted by such other
agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3) Specific economic, transportation or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Environmental
Impact Report.
b) Exhibit 1, attached hereto, contains the Planning Commission's Findings of
Fact concerning each of the • impacts and mitigation measures identified as
significant and mitigatable, and significant and unavoidable in the Final EIR. The
Planning Commission's determination regarding 'environmental impacts that
remain significant or are reduced to a less -than -significant level given the
implementation of adopted feasible mitigation is provided in the "Findings of
Fact" column.
Page 7 of 26
5. Areas of Controversy: The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR identify areas of
controversy known to the lead agency based upon review of public and agency comment.
Controversial aspects of the Project have been determined to be: 1) potential impacts to
groundwater resulting from mining operations; 2) potential pit water quality impacts; and
3) potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed Project. Mitigation measures
have been provided within the Final EIR to address these impacts, to the extent feasible.
FINDINGS REGARDING WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO
THE NOVEMBER 30, 2006, DECEMBER 14, 2006, AND JANUARY 25, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS
The County received additional letters following close of the EIR public comment period
and just prior to hearing. Although not required, below are specific findings that address
the main statements contained in these letters.
RON JONES,
LETTER OF NOVEMBER 22, 2006
Statement #1
1. The Project is not consistent with the Agricultural Element of the County General
Plan.
Response:
As part'of the CEQA environmental review process the County evaluated the proposed
Project's consistency with the County General Plan.. The County determined that the
proposed Project is consistent with the Butte County General Plan.
The General Plan has an Agricultural Element that 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. The General Plan Land Use
Element, page LUE-48 states the following uses in the Orchard and Field Crops land use
designation:
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,
Page 8 of 26
utilities, environmental preservation activities, public and
quasi -public uses, home occupations.
The General Plan Land Use Element, page LUE-46, defines secondary uses as other
appropriate uses which are less extensive but similar, compatible or necessary to the
primary uses. It is assumed that the terms included necessary and customary subordinate
uses incidental to the state uses.
Further, the General Plan Land Use Element 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.
As required by law, the County finds that the General Plan is internally consistent and the
Land Use Element and its descriptions are consistent with the general policies of the
Agricultural Element. Surface mining is consistent with both of these elements as made
clear by the express reference to resource extraction and processing in the "Orchard and
Field Crops" description found on page LUE-48 of the Land.Use Element.
Evidence: Butte County General Plan — Land Use Element; DEIR § 4.2; FEIR § 4.6;
Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006).
Statement #2
2. The mining pit and reclaimed lake will provide a habitat for mosquitoes, thus
presenting a public health concern.
Response:
The County extensively analyzed this issue as part of the CEQA process and determined
that any potential public health risks born by the creation of mosquito habitat were less -
than -significant. The Final EIR explained. that as part of a Condition of Approval, the
Applicant will bear financial responsibility for the reimbursement of the cost of any
future mosquito control work performed by the County Mosquito and Vector Control
District at the mine pond. According to the Final EIR, this could include stocking the
pond with mosquito fish to prey on and control mosquito larvae.
The Final EIR also explained that because mosquitoes typically breed in ponds with
stagnant water and along the shores of lakes with shallow water, the Reclamation Plan for
the Project will provide specifications for a shoreline configuration that will not isolate
small channels or shallow ponding areas from the main body of water. According to the
County, this configuration will ensure continuous access by mosquito predators,
Page 9 of 26
especially mosquito fish. The Final EIR further provides that the banks of areas that
retain water after June 1 (the beginning of the optimal mosquito breeding season) will be
designed to be steep enough to prevent isolated pooling as the water level recedes,
thereby allowing for wave action to provide access by mosquito predators.
Evidence: Draft EIR; FEIR § 5.111; FEIR pp. 5.4-31 — 5.4-33, 5.4-47 — 5.4-48, 5.4-67;
Planning Commission Testimony; Administrative Record.
.Statement 43
3. , Truck traffic generated by the Project will cause substantial traffic problems.
Response:
The County conducted an extensive analysis of the impacts of truck traffic generated by
the Project. The traffic study conducted for the Draft EIR was prepared in coordination
with the Butte County Public Works Department and the Butte County Planning
Division, Department of Development Services. This included analyzing the Project's
impacts to both local school bus operations, and the bicycle and pedestrian system in the
vicinity of the Project.
The Draft EIR concluded that the Project would not impact the Levels of Service (LOS)
of any of the roadways studied or the existing bicycle, pedestrian, transit facilities and
school bus operations. Further, the Draft EIR found truck trips generated by the Project
equate to a less than one percent (1%) increase of total traffic volumes in the Project area
under cumulative conditions.
However, the County found that in four instances the LOS for impacted intersections
already exceeded the County's minimum LOS C threshold without the Project.
Therefore, the addition of Project trips to these roadways, even if less than 1% of the
total, will constitute a significant impact which can not be mitigated.
The County also addressed comments regarding traffic impacts in the Final EIR. Analysis
contained in the Final EIR reiterates the County's finding made in the Draft EIR that the
proposed Project would not change the LOS rating of any of the roadways studied in the
traffic analysis. The Final EIR also explains that because existing conditions on four
roadways already breached the County's LOS requirements, the Project's cumulative
impact at these locations could not be mitigated.
The Final EIR also responded to comments regarding the Project's impacts to roadway
safety, and the bicycle and pedestrian system due to increased truck traffic. The Final EIR
clarified that the Draft EIR traffic study included an analysis of current roadway
conditions and operations, -intersection operations, accident history, and truck traffic.
Further, the Final EIR explained that the traffic study is based on detailed traffic counts
that identified the mix of autos, bicycles, and trucks. The Final EIR reiterated the traffic
study's conclusion that the proposed Project would not disrupt or interfere with existing
Page 10 of 26
or planned bicycle, pedestrian, transit facilities or school bus operations, and would not
create a hazard for pedestrians or bicyclists.
Evidence: DEIR § 4.6; FEIR § 4.4; Planning Commission Testimony; Administrative
Record.
Statement #4'
4. Truck traffic generated by the Project will degrade the quality of affected County
roads.
Response:
The Final EIR explains that a pavement conditions analysis was conducted as part of the
Draft EIR traffic analysis and specific mitigation was identified. Specifically, a chip seal
surface treatment and a two-inch asphalt concrete overlay will be required, which will
mitigate all physical impacts. The Final EIR also further explains that the Applicant will
contribute "fair share" funding to offset costs to the Public Works Department, and that
the Public Works Department must concur with all final dollar amounts of the exact fair
share contribution.
The FinaI.EIR also states that the fair share requirements would be conditions of approval
for the use permit. In accordance with this statement, Conditions of Approval 18 and 19
implement the Applicant's fair share obligations. These conditions were later updated and
expanded upon by the Public Works Department in a November 3, 2006 letter from
Director Mike Crump.
In addition, Public Works Department representative Shawn O'Brien testified at the
Planning Commission's December 14, 2006 hearing by that the Applicant's per/ton "fair
share" contributions to the County are appropriate to cover the Project's impacts to
infrastructure.
Evidence:. DEIR § 4.6; FEIR § 4.4; Planning Commission Testimony; Administrative
Record.
HOWARD ELLMAN,
LETTER OF NOVEMBER 27, 2006
(REPRESENTING PARROTT INVESTMENT COMPANY)
Statement #1
5. [T]he EIR... makes almost no reference at all to the true nature of the
environmental setting — beginning with its mischaracterization of the uses of
Llano Seco Ranch.
Page 11 of 26
Response:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15125, a proper discussion of the environmental
setting includes a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of a
.project from both a local and regional perspective, including a discussion of
environmental resources.
Here, the Draft EIR included an extensive discussion of the Project's regional setting. As
part of this discussion, the Draft EIR delineated several properties and uses in the vicinity
of the Project site. For example, the Draft EIR identifies both the Jones parcel and the
Llano Seco Ranch. Additionally, each section of the Draft EIR contains a description of
the regional environment and local conditions, and how the Project could impact the local
and regional environment. Both the Draft EIR and the Final EIR evaluated all potentially
significant environmental impacts to both onsite and offsite properties. For example, the
Draft EIR and Final EIR evaluated potential impacts to neighboring properties caused by
the Project's flood control design.
In addition, testimony. was proffered to the Planning Commission at the December 14,
2006 hearing which, detailed both the Draft EIR's description of the regional
environment, and the Draft EIR's analysis of the Project's potential environmental
impacts to surrounding properties.
However, following the December 14, 2006 hearing, at the direction of the Planning
Commission, an Errata to the Final EIR, which specifically named the Llano Seco Ranch
as part of the Regional Environmental Overview section of the Draft EIR was included
for the Commission's consideration on January 25, 2007.
Evidence: DEIR §3.0; FEIR § 4.0 and 4.7; Planning 'Commission Testimony; Letter
from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11,
2006); Administrative Record.
Statement #2
6. [Mine] sediments will be deposited on Llano Seco, in areas that have been
converted to wetland habitat uses, a potential impact that the EIR does not even
acknowledge, let alone evaluate.
Response:
The EIR adequately evaluated the Project's impacts to the Llano Seco Ranch caused by
flooding and/or particulate matter and concluded that these impacts were less than .
significant.
The County's analysis of the flood control measures designed for,the Project included a
comprehensive flooding study which was conducted by NorthStar Engineering. The
flooding study and the analysis contained in the Draft EIR evaluated off-site impacts
Page 12 of 26
caused by stormwater discharges and runoff from the proposed pit and processing
facilities. 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.
Furthermore, 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.
Additionally, at the January 22, 2004 Planning Commission hearing on the Project, Mr.
Ellman requested that as a precautionary measure to prevent "fine particulate matter"
from entering the Llano Seco Ranch, the Planning Commission require the Applicant to
obtain a "stormwater management plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board." The County adopted and expanded upon Mr. Ellman's recommendation and
those recommendations contained in the EIR with additional conditions of approval. As
such, the Applicant must acquire all relevant state and federal stormwater pollution
prevention entitlements prior to commencing mining operations, which mitigates all
potential for sediment transfer.
Evidence: DEIR § 3.0; FEIR § 4.0 and 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter
from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec: 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11,
2006); Administrative Record.
HOWARD ELLMAN,
LETTER OF DECEMBER 11, 2006
(REPRESENTING PARROTT INVESTMENT COMPANY)
Statement #1
7. The Project is not compatible with the surrounding agricultural and wildlife
environment.
Response:
The County evaluated the proposed Project's consistency with the County General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and the Project's potential environmental impacts on agricultural uses
and wildlife habitat. The EIR concluded that the Project is consistent with the Project,
site's General Plan designation (i.e., Orchard and Field Crops) as a secondary use, as well
as the Project's zoning district (A-40).
As part of the. CEQA process, the County also evaluated potential impacts to agricultural
uses. The Draft EIR explained that the proposed mining and reclamation activities
proposed for the Project would be similar in scope and equipment to neighboring
agricultural operations. Accordingly, the Draft EIR concluded that, .with the proposed
mitigation, the Project is compatible with the existing and planned uses in the vicinity of
Page 13 of 26
the Project site.
The County addressed this issue again in the Final EIR, again finding that the Project is
consistent with the County's Zoning and Mining Ordinance and General Plan
requirements.
The County also conducted an extensive analysis of the Project's impacts to wildlife and
wildlife habitat as part of the CEQA process. The Draft EIR explained that the Project's
impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, with the identified mitigation measures, would be
less -than -significant. In particular, the County concluded: (1) wildlife will not be
adversely affected by noise emanating from the Project; (2) the Project will block unique
or important migration corridors; and (3) species inhabiting the Project site will remain
common in adjacent habitats.
The Final EIR also addressed comments regarding the Project's impacts on wildlife and
wildlife habitat. The Final EIR explained that special -status species known to occur in the
vicinity of and in habitats similar to the Project site will continue to use the suitable
habitats available to them, whether on or off the Project site, and whether or not the
Project is approved.
In sum, the environmental analysis conducted by the County as part of the CEQA process
indicates that (1) the Project is consistent with the County General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, and (2) the Project will not adversely affect surrounding agricultural
operations or wildlife/wildlife habitat.
Evidence: DEIR § 4.7; FEIR; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from
Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11,
2006); Administrative Record.
Statement #2
8. "[T]he EIR does not adequately describe the flood impacts on the neighbors that
will be caused by the protective works to be erected around the gravel mine:"
Response:
As part of the CEQA process, the County included an extensive analysis of potential off-
site impacts caused by the Project's flood control design. The Draft EIR concluded that,
with appropriate mitigation, potential environmental impacts to, adjacent landowners
resulting from the flood design would be less -than -significant.
The County addressed comments on this issue again in the Final EIR, and concluded that
Mitigation Measures 4.4-7(a), (b), and (c) will eliminate any additional flooding effects
on adjacent property owners caused by the Project. Thus, the County extensively
analyzed and addressed the issue of flood impacts to adjacent landowners both in the
Draft EIR and again in the Final EIR.
Page 14 of 26
Expert testimony was also received at both the November 30, 2006 and December 14,
2006 Planning Commission hearings regarding the Project's flood control design. This
testimony, given by Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering, explained the form and
function. of the flood control design (including the weir design). Mr. Adams explained
how the flood control design for the Project protects, and does not exacerbate, floodwater
,impacts on adjacent water bodies and properties during large flood stage events.
Evidence: DEIR § 4.4; FEIR § 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from
Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11,
2006); Administrative Record.
HOWARD ELLMAN,
LETTER OF JANUARY 17, 2007
(REPRESENTING PARROTT INVESTMENT COMPANY)
Statement #1
9. "The extent to which the mine will increase sediment loadings should have been
considered and evaluated [in the EIR]."
Response:
As part of the CEQA process, the County examined the Project's incremental impacts to
floodwaters resulting from mine sediment loading. See Response #2 above relating to this
subject.
In addition, Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering gave expert testimony to the
Planning Commission at the December 14, 2006 hearing that the stormwater prevention
plan that the Applicant will implement (as required by the County's Conditions of
Approval) will prohibit mine sediments from being transported to other properties during
flood events.
Evidence: DEIR § 4.4; FEIR § 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from
Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. .13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11,
2006); Administrative Record.
Statement #2
10. Mine sediments will infiltrate the aquifer through the mining pit.
Response:
Page 15 of 26
The County analyzed this issue as part of the CEQA process and determined that, with
proper mitigation, impacts to adjacent properties caused by the transfer of ' mine
sediments (and other contaminants) through the aquifer are less -than -significant.
Mitigation Measures 4.4-3(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) all serve to -prevent groundwater
contamination due to exposure of the aquifer to contaminants generated by the proposed
mining activities.
In addition, Mark Adams, PE of NorthStar Engineering, gave expert testimony to the
Planning Commission at the January 25, 2006 hearing that mine sediments will not be
transferred through the aquifer because the sediments cannot physically interface with the
opening to the aquifer.
Evidence: DEIR § 4.4; FEIR § 4.7; Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from
Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006); Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11,
2006); Administrative Record.
Statement #3
11. The Project is not compatible with the surrounding environment.
Response:
As part of the CEQA process, the County evaluated the proposed Project's consistency
with the County General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Project's potential
environmental impacts on surrounding uses. Based.on substantial evidence in the record,
the Planning Commission has determined that the Project is consistent with all .County
land use documents and, further, is compatible with surrounding uses. See Response #3
above relating to this subject.
Evidence: Butte County General Plan — Land Use Element; DEIR § 4.2; FEIR § 4.6;
Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006).
BUTTE COUNTY FARM BUREAU,
LETTER OF JANUARY 12, 2007
Statement #1
12. "The land has been classified as prime agricultural land by the Butte County
Assessor and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Survey. "
Response:
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
Page 16 of 26
classification is made for economic purposes on a parcel -by -parcel basis utilizing
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.
Evidence: Butte County General Plan — Land Use Element; DEIR § 4.2; FEIR § 4.6;
Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006);
Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Administrative Record.
Statement #2
13. "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. "
Response:,
The applicant ,filed a request for immediate cancellation from the Williamson Act
Contract. Discussion of this aspect of the project is included in the Errata (include
reference here).
Evidence: Butte County General Plan — Land Use Element; DEIR § 4.2; FEIR § 4.6;
Planning Commission Testimony; Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 13, 2006);
Letter from Diepenbrock Harrison (Dec. 11, 2006); Notice of Partial Nonrenewal;
Petition for Partial Cancellation; Administrative. Record.
FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
1. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires a discussion of a reasonable range of
alternatives to a project or to the location of the project which would feasibly attain most
of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project. An EIR need not consider alternatives which are
infeasible. For this project, several alternatives were evaluated. These alternatives are
discussed in the Draft EIR section 5.0.
2. In evaluating the potential alternatives to the Project, the County recognizes that
actual implementation of one or more alternatives could be remote and speculative due to
the complexities in locating and developing mineral resources. It is recognized that the
range of reasonable alternative locations is necessarily' limited by location of the
particular mineral resource. (See CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6(f)(2)(B).) In
Page 17 of 26
contrast to other forms of development that can occur anywhere, many factors are
considered in the selection of an aggregate production site, including. appropriate quality
and quantity of the resource, its location and distance to the market (consumption) area,
transportation accessibility, availability of the land,' a willing lessor or seller, mine
economics and engineering, and proximity to incompatible land uses and
environmentally sensitive receptors.
3. The Draft EIR examines four project alternatives, all at a comparative level of
detail, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. A summary comparison of the
alternatives is provided- in Table 5-1 of the Draft EIR. The alternatives analyzed are
provided below as:
A) Alternative 1, No Project Alternative (Existing Conditions);
B) Alternative 2, Alternative Project Location;
C) Alternative 3, Reduced Project Area Alternative;
D) Alternative 4, Lower Processing Rate Alternative; and
E) Environmentally Superior Alternative.
4. For the reasons stated below, the Planning Commission finds that adoption and
implementation of the current Project as described is appropriate. The Planning
Commission further`determines.that no other one or combination of project alternatives
would implement the goals and objectives of the Project while providing the same public
benefit. The Planning Commission, therefore, accepts the Project as proposed and rejects
all the alternatives, for the reasons outlined below:
A. Alternative 1: No Project (Existing Conditions)
This alternative would consist of the continued use of the Project site for infrequent
agricultural purposes. The consideration of this alternative is required under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e).
Environmental Impacts: If the Project site were not developed, other aggregate mining
sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth demand for aggregate in Butte
County. For example, currently aggregate is imported from other counties, including
Glenn County. This would generate additional criteria pollutant emissions, vehicle miles
traveled, and truck trips, with or without the Project. Other environmental effects
associated with quarrying, such as impacts to biological resources, hydrology and water
quality, noise, etc., would similarly not be avoided, but simply transferred to other sites.
The No Project Alternative therefore avoids the impacts at the Project site, but not the
regional effects associated with the production and distribution of construction aggregate
products, nor the site specific effects from mining activities at another site.
Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: The No Project
alternative would not meet the Project objectives to develop a high quality aggregate
mine within the County. In addition, it would not allow the extraction of known
aggregate resources that would be available for use in the construction industry,
Page 18 of 26
supplying County infrastructure needs. Currently, the County has 40 percent of its 50 -
year aggregate demand. Without permitting additional aggregate reserves for
development, the County could exhaust aggregate reserves by 2030. (Final EIR, p. 4.0-
19.) Further, if materials are supplied from outside the County, the County receives no
impact fees from the Project to assist it in maintaining safe and structurally sound
roadways. With the Project, the County will receive impact fees ("fair share" monetary
contributions) to help maintain and improve County roads and transportation
infrastructure. In addition, the County will receive additional sales tax revenue. Sales tax,
property tax, and secondary expenditures of goods and services spent outside the County
do not assist in maintaining or enhancing the County's economy and do not pay for
impacts caused by importation of aggregate, or assist in funding other services in the
County.
Further, as detailed in Alternative 2, if the M&T Chico Ranch Mine is not developed,
other aggregate mining sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth
demand for aggregate in Butte County. Thus, environmental impacts associated with the
Project will only be transferred to other locations when market demands for aggregate
warrant new supplies.
B. Alternative 2: Alternative Project Location
Environmental Impacts: If the Project site were not developed, other aggregate mining
sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth demand for aggregate in Butte
County. This would generate additional criteria pollutant emissions, vehicle miles
traveled, and truck trips, with or without the Project. Other environmental effects
associated with quarrying, such as impacts to biological resources, hydrology and water
quality, noise, etc., would similarly not be avoided, but simply transferred to other sites.
The Project Location Alternative therefore avoids the impacts at the Project site, but not
the regional effects associated with the production and distribution of construction
aggregate products, nor the site specific effects from mining activities at another site.
Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: This alternative
would place the Project in an alternative location within the County or eastern Glenn
County. The nature of aggregate mining dictates that aggregate mines can generally only
be developed where the resource is available and proximate to markets. The successful
development of the project at another location would depend on a number of geologic,
environmental, and economic factors, primarily the existence of marketable quantities of
construction grade aggregate.
One of the objectives of the proposed Project is to provide aggregate for markets in the
City of Chico and Butte County consumption area. The Project site has been identified
by the Applicant as the best source available for aggregate production with aggregates
being available in sufficient quantity and quality for construction materials. Further, the
State has designated the Project site as MRZ-2a, meaning the property contains a known,
important and significant mineral resource. There are no other potential aggregate mine
sites that have been identified in close proximity to the Project site, or to the Chico/Butte
Page 19 of 26
County market. The nearest areas of potential aggregate deposits have been identified in
eastern Glenn County. However, these aggregate resources have not been quantified, and
have not been designated by the State Geologist as a known, significant mineral resource.
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. Under the current development framework, the
Applicant will pay impact fees and make "fair share" monetary contributions to the
County in order to help maintain and improve County roads and transportation
infrastructure. This is revenue that would otherwise be lost if the County continues rely
on source of aggregate located in other counties.
The Planning Commission therefore finds that this alternative is inconsistent with Project
objectives regarding location (discussed in section 3.3.2 of the Draft EIR) because the
Project site is superior to.alternative locations because it is a known aggregate resource,
and is proximate to area aggregate markets.
C. Alternative 3: Reduced Project Area
This alternative would reduce the area of active mining under the proposed Project by 50
percent to approximately 96.5 acres thereby reducing the amount of mined aggregate by
approximately -50 percent. The mine life would be reduced by 50 percent to
approximately 10 to 20 years. Mining methods and reclamation would remain the same
as those for the proposed Project. This proposal would minimize the area of disturbance
and thus potentially reduce environmental impacts.
Environmental Impacts: The primary reduction in environmental impacts associated
with the Reduced Project Alternative would be the potentially lessened effects to
biological resources and aesthetics due to the 50 percent reduction in mine acreage.
Reduced impacts at this site could, however, be offset by additional impacts at other
locations, since existing and future construction aggregate demand would require
development of alternative resources, and the Project site would only operate for a short
period. Air quality, water resources, traffic and noise impact significance would not be
reduced under this alternative due to the cumulative effects of more mines supplying the
same amount of material from further locations, such as Glenn County.
Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and • Technical Considerations: The
development of a Reduced Project Alternative would not meet the basic Project objective
of obtaining a reliable long- term source of construction grade aggregate in Butte County.
This Alternative would leave 50 percent or more of the known reserves in the ground,
resulting in questionable economic feasibility of the Project.
Page 20 of 26
D. Alternative 4: Lower Processing Rate
This alternative would reduce the processing rate approximately 50 percent to a
maximum rate of 137,500 cubic yards per year mined and 125,000 cubic yards marketed.
The mining and processing of the 5.5 million cubic yards of known aggregate reserves
would take approximately 30 to 40 years, an increase in project life of 50 percent.
Mining methods and reclamation would remain the same as those for the proposed
Proj ect.
Environmental Impacts: If the Project site utilized a lower processing rate, .other
aggregate mining sites would be used to meet the existing and future growth demand for
processing aggregate. This would generate additional criteria pollutant emissions,
vehicle miles traveled, and truck trips, with or without the Project. Other environmental
effects associated with quarrying, such as impacts to biological resources, hydrology and
water quality, noise, etc., would similarly not be avoided, but simply transferred to other
sites. Potential environmental impacts associated with the Reduced Processing Rate
Alternative would be similar to those identified the proposed Project since the same
amount of surface disturbance (approximately 193 acres) would occur. Further, potential
impacts to biological resources would be similar if not greater than those of the proposed
Project due to the extended life of the mining Project. Additionally, reducing the
processing rate by 50 percent necessarily means that the Project will generate twice as
many truck trips. Thus, the reduced processing rate would not offer any significant
environmental advantage over the proposed Project, and would likely result in increased
environmental impacts.
Project Objectives, Time, Economic, and Technical Considerations: Since local
supplies of processed aggregate would be restricted under this alternative, additional
aggregate would have to be imported to meet project demand. However, the
development of processed aggregate resources outside of the Butte County/Chico area
specifically for the Butte County/Chico market will only transfer environmental impacts
to another site, and will also result in added environmental impacts including an increase
in vehicle miles traveled and truck trips. Further, the demand for aggregate products to.
meet countywide construction project demands would need to be supplemented I from
other sites, which may not be efficiently located, and therefore more costly to consumers,
which include Butte County and the City of Chico. Therefore, operating at a reduced
processing rate would not substantially reduce any identified significant impacts, and
does not meet the basic Project objectives.
E. Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA- Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires the EIR to identify the environmentally
superior alternative. Additionally, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No
Project alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative
from the remaining alternatives. According to Draft EIR Section 5.5, for the proposed
Project, the No Project alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative
Page 21 of 26
r
since no mining would occur on the site. Among the other alternatives the Reduced
Project Area Alternative #3 does offer some environmental advantages over the proposed
Project due to the reduction in mined acreage and the shortened life of'the Project. This
alternative would not feasibly attain most of 'the basic Project objectives, and leave
approximately 50 percent of known mineral reserves. Since local supplies would be
restricted under this alternative, additional aggregate would have to be imported to meet
Project demand. This would result in similar environmental impacts associated' with
developing an alternative project location as detailed in the "Alternative Project
Location" alternative. Therefore, permitting the Project is the other environmentally
superior alternative.
FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCEMENT
1.. CEQA Section 15126 (g) requires that an' EIR consider the potential for a project
to create growth inducing impacts. A project could have a growth inducing impact if it
could:
a) Foster economic or population growth, or construction of additional housing,
either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment;
b) Remove obstacles to population growth, for example, developing service
areas in previously -unserved areas, extending transportation routes into
previously undeveloped areas, and establishing major new employment
opportunities; and
c) Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the
environment, either individually or cumulatively.
2. The proposed Project will not result.in a significant increase in employment, or
any increase in housing. (Draft EIR, section 6.2, pp: 6-4 - 6-5.) No.new roads or public
services would be installed as aresult of the Project that would remove obstacles to
growth. The Project would make available aggregate materials used in a variety of
activities, including road building and maintenance, and construction. While the Project
will make these materials available, it cannot be considered to be facilitating the activities
using aggregate materials. The Project is not the only source of these materials, and these
activities will occur. regardless of the availability of the additional resources made
available -by this Project. Therefore, the Project would not encourage or facilitate
activities and create environmental effects other than those addressed in this Draft EIR.
FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
1. A cumulative impact is the effect on the environment which results .from -the
incremental impact of the proposed project when combined with the effects of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. .(CEQA Guidelines, § 15355, subd.
(b).) The significance of a cumulative impact may be greater than the effects resulting
from the individual actions if the effects of more than one action are additive.
Page 22 of 26
2. Criteria for evaluating the significance of adverse effects were identified for each
environmental issue in Chapter 4.0. of the Draft EIR. These criteria, which are based on
resource sensitivity, quality, and quantity, are also applicable to cumulative impacts. The
timing and duration of each activity is also an important consideration for evaluating the
potential cumulative effects of activities that occur only for a limited period. In those
cases, a cumulative effect may occur only when two or more of the activities are
occurring simultaneously.
3. The CEQA Guidelines provide that cumulative impacts shall be discussed when
they are significant and that the discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity
of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence (section 15130 (a) and (b)). These
effects, where they occur, are then evaluated for their impact in combination with other
activities in the area for cumulative impact.
4. The following section discusses the potential cumulative environmental effects
that could result when the potential impacts of the proposed Project are combined with
impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable projects identified in Section 6.1.1 of
the Draft BIR.
A. Land Use
As part of the CEQA process, the County conducted an extensive analysis of the
Project's cumulative impacts to surrounding uses, as well the Project's consistency with
County land use documents. The County concluded that the Project is consistent with the
County General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Surface Mining Ordinance, Williamson Act
program, and the M&T Williamson Act Contract.
Further, analysis contained in the EIR demonstrates that 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. _ (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-3.) In terms of prime agricultural land
loss, no significant cumulative land use impacts are expected as a result of this Project.
B. Hydrology and Water Quality
The County extensively analyzed and evaluated the Project's cumulative impacts to local
hydrology and water quality as part of the CEQA environmental review process.
Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that impacts to hydrology and water
quality from other projects in the vicinity that could contribute to a cumulative effect
would be mitigated to less -than -significant levels. Further, evidence generated as part of
the CEQA review process shows that mining activities at the M&T Chico Ranch would
not have a significant effect on the hydrogeology of the area, nor would it adversely
affect the volume or quality of regional groundwater resources. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2,
p. 6-3.) Additionally, no significant cumulative hydrological impacts are expected as a
result of this.Project.
Page 23 of 26
C. Air Quality
As described in Impact 4.5-1 (see Exhibit 1), when viewed independently, the proposed
Project would result in a significant impact on PM10 emissions, based solely on the
Level C significance thresholds. , However, when viewed in relation to existing
conditions at the site and surrounding areas, the Project would result in a net reduction in
PM10 emissions (refer to Draft EIR Table 4.5-8). Because other impacts from these
projects would be individually less than significant, and the combined impacts would not
exceed the significance criteria defined for these issues in Chapter 4.0, no significant
cumulative PM 10 emission impacts are expected. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-3.)
As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Traffic, there are no feasible mitigation measures
to reduce cumulative traffic congestion at certain intersections. This cumulative traffic
congestion will result in an increase to carbon monoxide emissions due to increased idle
time at these intersections. Under cumulative conditions, this is a significant,
unavoidable impact.
D. Traffic and Circulation
The cumulative traffic impact analysis contained in Draft EIR section 4.6 (see also Draft
EIR section 6.1.2, pp. 6-3 — 6-4) indicates that the daily levels of service for all locations
would operate at LOS C or better with or without the Project, except for the following
locations, which will operate at LOS E or F with or without the Project:
• Park Avenue between East 20th Street and East Park Avenue will operate
at LOS F;
• East Park Avenue between Park Avenue and SR 99 will operate at LOS F;
• Bruce Road between SR 32 and Skyway will operate at LOS E; and
• Skyway — between SR 99 and the Butte Creek Bridge is expected to
operate at LOS E.
The Project will add additional trips to these road segments. In all cases, these additions
represent a de-minimis increase in traffic. Specifically, analysis contained in the Draft
EIR demonstrates that truck trips generated by the Project equate to a less than one
percent (1%) increase of total traffic volumes in the Project area under cumulative
conditions. Therefore, the impact of additional Project traffic to these roadway segments
would be minimal yet significant based upon the significance criteria established by in
the Draft EIR.
Peak hour intersection operations under cumulative conditions with and without the
Project also indicate that all intersections will operate at LOS C or better, except for the
Skyway/Baldwin Plant Driveway and Durham -Dayton Highway at Midway. Both
locations operate unacceptably without the Project and those unacceptable operations are
improved by the Project. The Skyway/Baldwin Plant Driveway intersection will operate
at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. The Durham -Dayton
Highway/Midway intersection will operate at LOS F in both the a.m. and p.m. peak
Page 24 of 26
hours.
As discussed in Draft EIR section 4.6, Traffic, there are no feasible mitigation measures
to reduce cumulative traffic' congestion at certain road segments. Under cumulative
conditions, this is a significant, unavoidable impact.
E. Biological Resources
As part of the CEQA process, the County analyzed the Project's cumulative impacts to
wildlife and wildlife habitat. The EIR concluded that the resulting habitat associated with
the reclaimed lake would result in an overall increase in wildlife values over the long-
term. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.) Accordingly, the Project will not result in
significant cumulative biological impacts.
F. Noise
The County analyzed cumulative noise impacts as part of the CEQA process and
determined that none of the cumulative projects located near in the vicinity of the Project
site (delineated in Draft EIR Section 6.1.1) are close enough to the M&T Chico Ranch
Project to contribute to cumulative noise impacts associated with mining operations.
(Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.) Therefore, no significant cumulative noise impacts will
result from this Project.
G. Cultural Resources
Records review and field surveys show no evidence of "cultural resources" at the
proposed Project site, as defined by CEQA. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.) Therefore,
the proposed Project will not contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resources.
H. Aesthetics
The aesthetic character of the site would change as a result of mining and reclamation.
However, completion of reclamation activities at the site will eliminate the potential for
any negative cumulative visual effect. (Draft EIR section 6.1.2, p. 6-4.), Therefore, no
significant negative cumulative aesthetic impacts will result from this Project.
. Findings Regarding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1. Section 21081.6 of the- California Public Resources Code, CEQA Guideline
section 15097, and Board policy require the Butte County Board of Supervisors to adopt
a monitoring and reporting program on the changes in the Project and Mitigation
Measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this resolution as Exhibit 2.
2. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program fulfills the CEQA mitigation
monitoring requirement because: the Conditions of Approval are specific and, as
Page 25 of 26
a - ,
appropriate, define performance standards to measure compliance under the Program.
The Program contains detailed descriptions of conditions, implementation, verification, a
compliance schedule and reporting requirements to insure compliance with the
Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures. The Program also ensures that the
Mitigation Measures are in place, as appropriate, throughout the life of the Project.
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION:
I : Certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine
Mining Use Permit and Reclamation Plan (Min 96-03);
.II. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in Exhibit 2;
III. Finds this Project has the potential tohave a significant impact to fish or wildlife
habitat. The collection of Department of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Fish and
Game Code Section 711.4 and 14 CCR 753.5 is required.
DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22°a day of February, 2007, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: ;
ABSTAIN:
Nina Lambert, Chair
Planning Commission
County of Butte,
State of California
ATTEST:
TINA BONHAM, Secretary
Planning Commission
County of Butte, State of California
Page 26 of 26
Table A
SY of roadway one chip seal 566432 Chip Seal Cost/SY 52.10 cost/seal $1,231,507.20
3 seats in 30 years 53,694.521:60
over all M & T % 12.5% M & T cost $462,473.85
Cost Parton S0.06
s
Current
Future
% Diff
County
M & T
M & T
Roule
length
ADT
% Trucks
ESAL
% on road
ft Trucks
ADT
% Trucks
ESAL
ESAL
share
share
Miles
Total
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°6
1.1
O.B
Ord Fe ;Count Line to Dayton Road
8.0
3150
13.2%
369960
40.00°!°
51
3201:
14.6°!°
409170
10.6°�
90.4°�
88.8%
9.6%
11.2%
S.2
Durham Da on Road: Da n Road to SR 99 to 99
10.5
1032
12.1%
109120
10.00°!0
13
38
1045
4965
13:2%
10.2%
122860
444470
12.6%
10.4%
90.6%
9.4%
0.4
128 Dayton Rd: Ord ferry to Chico Cit Limit
4.5
4927
9.5%
402730
30.00%
26
19D9
12.1%
207890
15.7°!°
86.4%
13.6%
0.4
He an Lane: Da on road to Midway to Midway
3.2
1883
10.9%
179720
20.00%
70
3863
11.4%
388300
16.9%
85.5%
14.5%
0.6
Chico River Road to Chico
4.2
3793
9.8%
332130
SS.00q°
4.5
SY of roadway one chip seal 566432 Chip Seal Cost/SY 52.10 cost/seal $1,231,507.20
3 seats in 30 years 53,694.521:60
over all M & T % 12.5% M & T cost $462,473.85
Cost Parton S0.06
s
C®UNT1( OF BUTTE
i, - �r �• j�j" OFFICIAL RECEIPT 2 6 5.
• d
r, + r
OFFICE OR DEPARTMENT ISSUING RECEIPT
Recei'V' 4from ��Qam=e
.The Sura of � -
For