Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-012BE IT RESOLVED, by the Butte County Board of Supervisors as follows: 1. Findings and Determinations. The Board of Supervisors hereby finds and determines as follows: a. 1984 and 1992 Permits 1. On or about November 27, 1984, the Board of Supervisors approved a use permit, mining permit and reclamation plan authorizing mining of basalt in the Green Rock Quarry. (County Permit No. 83-40; Butte County Planning Division File on Green Rock Quarry}. 2. On or about January 4, 1989, Green Rock Quarry filed an application with the County to extend and modify the use permit, mining permit and reclamation plan (the "1989 Application"). (Butte County Planning Division Fife on Green Rock Quarry). 3. After an appeal from the Planning Commission, the Board on or about March 24, 1992 approved the 1989 Application with some modifications. (Resolution No. 92-32 with attached Green Rock Quarry Conditions of Approval; County Use Permit/Mining and Reclamation Permit No. 89- 6 and related reclamation plan {collectively the "1992 Permit"). 4. At the time of processing the 1989 Application and through the final Board action on March 24, 1992, the Green Rock Quarry project was the subject of substantial public controversy and numerous public hearings. In the final states of the application process, Green Rock Quarry was represented by an attorney, Ed. W. Hendren, and a civil engineer, Dan J. Cook. In an attempt to resolve the RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE DECIDING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF REQUEST TO MODIFY USE PERMIT/MINING PERMITAND RECLAMATION PLAN FOR GREEN ROCK QUARRY, AND MAKING RELATED FINDINGS controversy over the project, Messrs. Hendren and Cook met with an ad hoc subcommittee of the Board consisting of Supervisors Mclnturf and Dolan. The parties amicably resolved the differences between the County and the applicant. The 1992 Permit as approved by the Board on March 24, 1992 was the result of, and memorialized the compromise over the project. At the March 24, 1994 Board hearing, representatives of Green Rock Quarry accepted the final version of the 1992 Permit ultimately approved by the Board. (Butte County Planning Division File on Green Rock Quarry; minutes of and testimony at Board hearings on February 25, 1992 and March 24, 1992). 5. On or about May 27, 1992, Green Rock Quarry signed and expressly agreed to the 1992 Permit (including all conditions of approval) and commenced continued operation of the quarry pursuant to the terms of the modified permit. (County Use Permit/Mining and Reclamation Permit No. 89- 6; Butte County Planning Division File on Green Rock Quarry}. b. 1991 Final EIR and Environmental_Impacts 1. In considering the 1989 Application and the 1992 Permit, the County prepared and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Green Rock Quarry Expansion (Volumes I and II}, dated August, 1991 ("1991 Final EIR") for the expanded mining project approved by the Board by its Resolution No. 92-32. The 1991 Final E[R concluded that the project may have significant environmental effects in the following areas: geology and soils; hydrology and water quality; biological resources; air quality; noise; traffic and circulation; and, aesthetic resources. (1991 Final EIR). 2. In its 1992 action, the County mitigated al! except one of the significant environmental impacts identified in the 1991 Final EIR by incorporated all of the EIR recommended mitigation measures as express conditions of approval. (Resolution No. 92-32; Permit No. 89-6). Consistent compliance with the mitigation measures contained in the 1991 Final EIR and incorporated in the 1992 Permit conditions of approval is necessary to mitigate the significant environmental impacts described in the 1991 Fina! EIR. Failure to comply with the mitigation measures may result in significant effects on the environmental ~d.; 1991 Final EIR). 2 3. The project has resulted in, and w~~~ continue to result in significant adverse aesthetic impacts concerning views from State Highway 70 and local residences. The 1991 Final EIR was unable to identify any mitigation measures to reduce these visual impacts due to the large scope of the excavation. The only alternative that avoided aesthetic impacts was the no-project alternative. Accordingly, this impact remains significant and not subject to mitigation to an acceptable level. (1991 Final EIR). The Board in 1992 therefore adopted a statement of overriding considerations finding that specified economic, social and other considerations made infeasible any mitigation measures for aesthetic impacts and also made infeasible the project alternatives that would have alleviated the impacts. {Resolution No. 92-32). c. History of Condition Compliance and Enforcement Problems and Related Environmental Im acts. 1. Since the County approval of the 1984 permit and continuing after the approval of the 1992 Permit to present, there has been a long and ongoing history of problems regarding Green Rock Quarry's non-compliance and inconsistent compliance with permit terms and conditions and applicable laws, including dust-related air quality violations, water quality violations, and failure to perform agreed-to reclamation work. 2. There have been many dust-related air quality violations, with the three violations occurring as recent as July and September, 1994. With these violations, Green Rock Quarry has not complied with the CEQA required mitigation measures; therefore, the project has caused significant environmental impacts concerning air quality. 3. Beginning at some unknown point in time, Green Rock Quarry allowed to be used on the quarry site a mobilehome without acquiring legally required permits and in violation of the applicable building codes. Because of electrical problems with the unit, the mobilehome caught fire on February 6, 1994 and burnt down, killing two persons. The incident is under investigation by the Butte County District Attorney's office and Cal-OSHA. 4. After this incident, County building inspectors inspected the quarry site and discovered other small structures that were not properly permitted. Since that County inspection, these other structures have obtained or are in the process of obtaining necessary permits. 3 5. Although over the last year or so careen Rock Quarry's compliance efforts have improved somewhat, there have still been recent violations of conditions, and compliance by Green Rock Quarry often only follows requests and prodding by the County or other enforcement or monitoring agency. {Butte County Planning Division and Butte County Air Pollution Control District files on Green Rock Quarry, especially October 12, 1994 memo from Gina Facca to Board, November 9, 1994, memo from Bill Farrel to Board, August 2, 1994 memo from Stephen Hackney to Pianning Commission; reports and records provided by Vector Engineering (the Green Rock Quarry monitoring firm); Testimony at numerous Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings). d. 1993 Application-. 1. Oniy one and one-half years after signing the 1992 Permit, in November, 1993, Green Rock Quarry filed with the County an application for a modified use permit/mining permit and reclamation plan (the "1993 Application"), (November, 1993 Application for Use Permit, Application for Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan, Green Rock Quarries Use Permit Extension Reclamation Plan (March 14, 1994); Butte County Planning Division File on Green Rock Quarry). 2. The County Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the 1993 Application, and at a meeting on August 25, 1994, the Planning Commission denied the application. (Minutes of August 25, 1994, Planning Commission meeting; Butte County Planning Division file on Green Rock Quarry). 3. The applicant timely appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the Board. (Butte County Planning Division fife on Green Rock Quarry). 4. The Board held a duly noticed public hearing on Green Rock Quarry's appeal, and has considered comments made at that public hearing, the Planning Division file in this matter, the 1991 Fina! ElR, records regarding condition compliance and enforcement, and correspondence and documents received from interested persons concerning the application. (Butte County Planning Division file on Green Rock Quarry; testimony at Board hearings on September 27, 1994, December 13, 1994 and January 10, 1995). 4 e. CE A Findin s Concernin 1993 A lication. 1. The changes to the conditions of approval of the ongoing Green Rock Quarry mining operation approved by this resolution do not involve new significant environmental impacts not considered in the 1991 Final EIR. The County is also not aware of any new information or substantial changes with respect to the project circumstances which involve new significant environmental impacts not considered in the 1991 Final EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162, the Board finds that CEQA does not require any additions! EIR or negative declaration or other subsequent environmental review. 2. When the 1993 Application was initially processed by County staff and considered by the Planning Commission, the staff prepared a CEQA initial study and proposed negative declaration. With the numerous proposed modifications in the 1993 Application, and especially the request to modify the reclamation plan and extend the term of the permit to 2017, the staff's action was appropriate. In light of the partial approval of the 1994 Application, which does not involve the approval of the term extension or other major changes, the Board now finds that the modifications do not involve new significant environmental impacts not considered in the 1991 Fina! EIR, and that CEQA therefore does not require the approval of a negative declaration. 2. Use Permit Findings. On the basis of the evidence in the record of this proceeding, the Board finds and determines that the use of Green Rock Quarry as modified by this resolution, and subject to the revised conditions of approval in Exhibit A, {a) will not impair the integrity and character of the zone in which the land lies, {b) will 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 Butte County, {c} is consistent with the Butte County General Plan, and {d} will comply with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 and the County's surface mining and reclamation requirements. 3. Decision on Appeal. a. The Board of Supervisors hereby upholds the appeal of Green Rock Quarry, and reverses the decision of the Planning Commission. The 1993 Application is hereby approved in part and denied in part, as shown in the modified permit conditions of approval for Green Rock Quarry in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. The application to modify the 5 other conditions of approval (i.e., those not modified on Exhibit A) is hereby denied. The application to modify the reclamation plan is also hereby denied, except for the modified reclamation schedule shown on Exhibit A. b. The County Director of Development Services, or his designee, is hereby directed to issue the modified use permit/mining permit to the applicant. The modified permit shall take effect only if approved and signed by the applicant as required by Butte County Code Section 24-48.6. If the applicant fails to timely approve and sign the modified permit as provided by section 24-48.6, then the modified permit shall not take effect, and Green Rock Quarry shall continue to be regulated by County Use Permit/Mining and Reclamation Permit No. 89-6 as approved by the Board in 1992 by its Resolution No. 92-32. 4. Reasons for Denial of Portions of 1993 Application. By this resolution, the Board denies some portions of the 1993 Application, including, but not limited to, those requested major modifications relating to the term of the permit and reclamation deadlines, reclamation plan, elimination of the monitoring and enforcement officer provisions, and reduction in the amount ofi the pertormance bond. The Board hereby finds that this partial denial of the 1993 Application is appropriate and warranted because the full modified and extended use of the quarry as sought by the 1993 Application would impair the integrity and character of the area, be injurious to surrounding properties, detrimental to the health and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, and detrimental to general health, welfare and safety of the County, as shown by the foregoing findings and evidenced by the following: a. Approving these other requests would exacerbate and extend for a long period excessive dust-related air quality impacts, that have not been fully mitigated in the past. b. A primary motivating factor in this decision is to conclude the mining and perform reclamation work on the face of Table Mountain (i.e., in Cells MOI-A, MOI-B & MOI-C) as soon as possible as agreed to by Green Rock Quarry in 1992, in order to minimize the ongoing adverse visual/aesthetic impacts. Along extension of the permit would exacerbate and extend for a long period these ongoing impacts. The Board was willing to accept the significant environmental impacts associated with aesthetic resources, but only for the relatively short period initially agreed to by Green Rock quarry. A longer duration of such impacts is unacceptable to the Board. Therefore, the Board partially denies the 1994 Application in part to avoid significant effects on the environment. Moreover, if the Board had known in 1992 that Green Rock Quarry did not intend to promptly complete mining on 6 the reclaim the face of Table Mountain as promised at that time, then the Board may have been much more inclined to outright deny the major expansion sought by the 1989 Application due to the adverse visual/aesthetic impacts (as authorized by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines). c. The conditions of the permit as modified by this resolution remain necessary to mitigate the significant environmental impacts that were identified in the 1991 Final EIR. d. The reclamation plan approved with the 1992 Permit remains viable and workable in the opinion of Dan Cook, the civil engineer who previously prepared the plan for the Applicant. e. Some of the major changes requested by Green Rock Quarry, including the elimination of the monitoring and enforcement officer provisions, are not warranted at this time, if at all, due to past condition compliance and enforcement problems. The 1992 Permit and conditions of approval were negotiated by representatives of the County and Green Rock Quarry, expressly agreed to and accepted by Green Rock Quarry, and not challenged at that time. Green Rock Quarry is therefore now barred from challenging and objecting to conditions of the 1992 Permit in the guise of this request to modify the use permit. g. With respect to the performance bond, a substantial bond is still warranted because of the significant amount of reclamation work which has yet to be performed, especially on the face of Table Mountain, and the history of condition compliance problems. The existing permit (Permit No. 89-6) already authorized the Board to reduce the amount of the bond in the future if subsequent conditions warrant a reduction. 5. Future Reconsideration. a. A primary motivating factor in the Board's decision is to require Green Rock Quarry to complete the mining and perform reclamation work on the face of Table Mountain (i.e., in Cells MOI- A, MOI-B, MOI-C) as soon as possible as agreed to by Green Rock Quarry in 1992, in order to minimize the ongoing adverse visual/aesthetic and dust impacts. (Resolution No. 92-32; Permit No. 89-6; August 2, 1994 memo from Stephen Hackney to Planning Commission; minutes of and testimony at Board hearings on February 25, 1992, March 24, 1992 and December 13, 1994; Butte County Planning Division Files on Green Rock Quarry). Therefore, by this action, the Board maintains the current reclamation plan and only slightly expands the reclamation schedule. 7 b. The Baard's action, though, does not preclude appropriate Green Rock Quarry use permit modifications in the future. Green Rock Quarry may again apply to the County for modification of its permit prior to the current expiration date of December 31, 1999. if {1) Green Rock Quarry continues to improve its condition compliance record and consistently complies with applicable conditions, mitigation measures, laws and regulations, and (2) performs reclamation work on the face of Table Mountain in substantial compliance with the reclamation plan and applicable conditions, as it promised and agreed to in 1992, and in accordance with the reclamation schedule as modified by this resolution, then upon subsequent application to the Board will consider appropriate modifications of the permit, reclamation plan and deadlines to allow extended mining in Coal Canyon {i.e., in Cells E-5 - E1 ~). 6. Response #o Accusa#ions of Unfair Discrimina#ion. Green Rock Quarry contends that the conditions of approval imposed by the County somehow unfairly discriminate against Green Rock Quarry as compared with other mining and quarry operations in Butte County. The Board finds this contention unfounded and invalid for the following reasons: a. The conditions that Green Rock Quarry now objects to were expressly agreed to and accepted by the applicant and its attorney and engineer at the time of approval of the 1992 Permit and were not challenged at that time. b. Because of strengthened environmental laws, SMARA regulations and concerns in recent years, relatively newer mining and quarry operations such as Green Rock Quarry have been and will be subject to more extensive environmental regulation as compared with older operations. c. Each mining and quarry operation and its location is unique, and each needs to be conditioned as appropriate to is location and circumstances and project specific impacts. d. Because of its location and proximity to neighboring properties, and State Highway 70, Green Rock Quarry is especially subject to concerns regarding visual/aesthetic and dust impacts and other unique environmental impacts that justify and warrant the conditions of approva! as mitigation measures. e. The imposition and enforcement of the conditions of approval are necessary in order to mitigate environmental impacts of the Green Rock Quarry as shown in the 1991 Final EIR. The EIR and impacts are unique to Green Rock Quarry. 8 Since 1984, Green Rock Quarry, more so than other mining and quarry operations, has experienced a mixed and inconsistent history of compliance with applicable conditions ofi approval. It was not until after the history of compliance problems occurring from 1984 up to the 1989 Application, that the County was compelled to add the special conditions regarding monitoring and enforcement. g. Since the 1988 addition of Public Resources Code section 21081.6 of CEQA, the County has placed greater emphasis on monitoring and enforcement of mitigation measures where necessary to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. {Butte County Planning Division File on Green Rock Quarry, especially August 2, 1994 memo from Stephen Hackney to Planning Commission; testimony at September 27, 1994 and December 13, 1994 Board hearing; 1991 Final EIR). 7. Response to Complaints About Economic Viability of Reclamation Plan. In recent public hearings, representatives of Green Rock Quarry, including a new civic engineer, asserted that the 1992 Permit (including reclamation plan) and its conditions of approval are unworkable and uneconomical. {Testimony at Board hearings on September 27, 1994 and December 13, 1994). The Board finds and concludes that, although the proposed reclamation plan accompanying the 1993 Application may be more pro#itable for Green Rock Quarry as compared with the 1992 plan, the reclamation plan approved with the 1992 Permit remains a viable and workable plan: a. The reclamation plan was prepared by Green Rock Quarry and its engineer and approved by the County and State Division of Mines and Geology only a few years ago. The terms and conditions of the 1992 Permit and reclamation plan were negotiated and expressly agreed to and accepted by Green Rock Quarry in 1992, which at the time was represented by an attorney and civil engineer. b. Dan J. Cook, the applicant's engineer who worked ont he 1992 Permit and reclamation plan, stands by his initial work and has. stated recently to William Farrel that the current reclamation plan remains workable and viable. (Refer to comments in Agenda Report for January 10, 1995 Board meeting by William Farrel summarizing conversations with Dan Cook. c. Even with maintaining the current mining completion deadlines and reclamation timetable on the face of Table Mountain (i.e., in Cells MOI-A, MOI-B & MOI-C), there is still a substantial resource of 9 basalt that can be mined by Green Rock- Quarry in Coal Canyon (i.e., in Cells E-5 - E-14). Testimony at Board hearing on December 13, 1994; Butte County Planning Division File on Green Rock Quarry}. 8. Modification of CEQA Reporting and Monitoring Program. In March, 1992, in connection with certifying the 1991 Final EIR, the Board adopted a CEQA reporting and monitoring program. (Resolution No. 92-32; 1991 Final EIR}. The County Director of Development Services, or his designee, is hereby directed to modify the reporting and monitoring program as necessary to incorporate the modifications to the conditions of approval approved by this resolution, and to continue to carry out and implement the revised reporting and monitoring program. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on this ~arh day of .January 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Ss~pervisors Meyer, Dolan, Houx, Chair McLaughlin NOES: Supervisor Thomas ABSENT: None NOT VOTING: None ~~ c ED MCLAUGHL ,CHAIRMAN Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: John S. Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board By: a 10