The CCAP is based on the concept of adaptive management, and relies on ongoing detailed monitoring, analysis, and reevaluation of the condition of Cache Creek. A comprehensive ten-year review is mandatory under the program. This CCAP Update constitutes the second mandatory ten-year program review since the program was put into effect in 1996. The purpose of the Update is to analyze trends and adjust the program to avoid unexpected effects on creek resources, focusing on: changes in creek conditions; analysis of collected data; and new regulatory requirements. As a result of the Update, the program will be modernized and improved.
Examples of issues and regulations that have changed since the last update and are addressed in this update include:
- Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations (2006)
- State Flood Legislation (2007)
- County General Plan Update (2009)
- Williamson Act Changes (2009)
- County Climate Action Plan (2011)
- County Zoning Code Update (2013)
- Tribal Cultural Resources (2014)
- County Agricultural Mitigation Program Changes (2015)
- State Groundwater Legislation (2015)
- Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Changes (2016)
- Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Community Conservation Plan (2018)
MINING HISTORY
Gravel mining in Lower Cache Creek has occurred since the late 1880s. As early as 1936, Yolo County began to regulate mining in the Cache Creek channel. The requirement for use permits for all new gravel operations was adopted in 1963. In the 1970s, the effects of mining in general were becoming a significant issue statewide. In 1976, the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted. In-channel mining was becoming more of a concern locally, and in 1979 the County adopted a Mining and Reclamation Ordinance that established excavation elevations and set a maximum production amount for operators. In 1980, Solano Concrete received the first approval to be issued in Yolo County for “wet pit” mining which involved off-channel mining to depths below the groundwater table.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the County experienced a period of extensive controversy and debate regarding appropriate management of the various resources and values along lower Cache Creek. During this period the County sought to minimize the adverse environmental effects of in-channel mining while also ensuring a healthy mining industry. The Board of Supervisors adopted a framework of goals and objectives for mining regulation in 1994. In doing so, the Board recognized that, although mining was an important consideration, Cache Creek is integrally bound to the environmental and social resources of the County, including drainage/flood protection, water supply and conveyance, wildlife habitat, recreation, and agricultural productivity, and thus a broader regulatory view was important.
In response to the recognition that Cache Creek needed to be managed more comprehensively, the County developed the CCAP, which was based on the key assumption that the creek must be viewed as an integrated system, with an emphasis on the management of all of Cache Creek's resources, rather than a singular focus on the issue of mining. The Board directed the preparation of an extensive analysis of fluvial geomorphology, hydrology, and riparian habitat to provide historical and baseline information, and recommendations for improving the natural processes and resources of Cache Creek. This information was released as the 1995 Technical Studies and became the scientific underpinnings of the CCAP regulatory program.
At the time it was adopted, the CCAP represented a milestone partnership between the County, the community, and local aggregate operators. The County achieved a self-funding, scientifically-based regulatory program with certainty for an important economic generator. The community achieved significant regulatory control in excess of otherwise applicable state regulations and a program of added community benefits that would not otherwise be available, including the development of the Cache Creek Parkway. The state and federal regulatory agencies achieved removal of in-channel mining and progressive restoration of the creek. And the industry achieved economic and regulatory certainty for existing and future off-channel mining over a 50-year horizon.
PROGRAM BACKGROUND
The Cache Creek Area Plan (CCAP) is a rivershed management plan adopted in 1996 that regulates off-channel mining and in-channel restoration along the Lower Cache Creek corridor. Online information about this program is available at the following link: www.yolonaturalresources.org
The CCAP consists of two distinct, complementary plans governing different areas of the overall plan area, namely the Off-Channel Mining Plan (OCMP) and the Cache Creek Resources Management Plan (CCRMP). The OCMP is an aggregate resources management plan that established a policy and regulatory framework that allows for controlled off-channel gravel mining in exchange for relinquished in-channel mining rights. The CCRMP is a creek restoration plan that includes the Cache Creek Improvement Program (CCIP) for implementing on-going projects to improve, stabilize, and maintain the creek. A number of implementing ordinances were also prepared to regulate activities to be undertaken under the CCAP, as follows.
- Title 10, Chapter 3, Cache Creek In-Channel Maintenance Mining Ordinance (hereafter referred to the In-Channel Ordinance)
- Title 10, Chapter 4, Off-Channel Surface Mining Ordinance (hereafter referred to as the Mining Ordinance)
- Title 10, Chapter 5, Surface Mining Reclamation Ordinance (hereafter referred to as the Reclamation Ordinance)
- Title 10, Chapter 11, Gravel Mining Fee Ordinance (hereafter referred to as the Fee Ordinance)
- Title 8, Chapter 4, Flood Protection Ordinance (hereafter referred to as the Flood Ordinance)
The Proposed Project is the second required ten-year update to the CCAP to reflect changing conditions in the creek, analysis of monitoring data collected as a part of the program, new regulatory requirements, and clarifications and corrections. This review and update is a mandated part of the adopted program. The CCAP is based on the concept of adaptive management and relies on ongoing detailed monitoring, analysis, and reevaluation. The CCAP Update will regulate future creek restoration projects, and new or amended mining operations approved under the program.
In September 2015, the County Board of Supervisors approved a work plan for the ten-year review and update of the CCAP including preparation of new technical analyses to guide the CCAP Update. The 2017 Technical Studies were completed in March of 2017. Based on the 2017 Technical Studies, and analysis of modeling and monitoring conducted pursuant to the CCAP over the last 20 years, the revisions to the CCRMP, OCMP, and ordinances generally clarify, modify, and modernize the requirements, guidelines, and other general criteria governing implementation of the CCAP.
The proposed changes fall into three general categories: 1) updates to include history and context of what has occurred under the program since 1996, including updates related to the regulatory framework and corrections of errata; 2) clarifications that better describe the intent of the program relative to the text included in the original documents; and 3) other proposed modifications to the program.
Key proposed program modifications include: 1) increase of the in-channel material removal limit from 210,000 tons to 690,800 tons annually; 2) identification of an additional 1,188 acres within the planning area to be rezoned to add the Sand and Gravel Reserve Overlay (SGRO) zone, which allows for possible future aggregate mining; 3) extension of the plan horizon year to 2068; and 4) clarification and expansion of mercury monitoring and response requirements.
The CCAP Update includes, among other changes, an extension of the Plan’s horizon date from 2026 to 2068, and revisions to the CCRMP, OCMP, and implementing ordinances that are interconnected parts of a series of contemplated actions governing and mitigating the effects of planned off-channel mining and reclamation activities and in-channel creek maintenance and restoration activities.
PROJECT LOCATION
The CCAP area encompasses 28,130 acres within unincorporated Yolo County along the 14.5 mile length of Lower Cache Creek, extending generally from the Capay Dam on the west to the town of Yolo on the east (see Attachment E, CCAP Area Map).
Within the CCAP area, Figure 3-4 (Past, Current, and Future Mining) on page 3-31 of the Draft Volume of the Final EIR (Attachment G, Past, Current, and Future Mining) identifies where mining has occurred in the past (primarily in-channel), where mining is currently taking place (2,464 acres designated with the SG overlay), where mining is planned to occur in the future (1,001 acres designated with the SGR overlay), and an additional 1,188 acres consistent with the program boundaries, to be rezoned to add the SGR overlay.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Proposed Draft 2017 CCAP Update was released for public review on May 10, 2017 showing all proposed changes in each plan document using strikeout/underline format. Ten comments letters on the proposed revisions were received and refinements were made as a result of the comments. On September 28, 2018 refinements to the proposed CCAP Update were released. The 2018 revised Proposed Draft CCAP Update is available at the following website link. Text marked in yellow highlight denote changes between the 2017 proposal and the 2018 proposal.
The purpose of the Update is to analyze trends and adjust the program to avoid unexpected effects on creek resources. The Update focuses on the following: changes in creek conditions, analysis of collected data, and new regulatory requirements. These changes include updated information, clarifications and corrections, and other changes recommended by staff. As part of the Update, the following changes were proposed in 2018 (a summary of key changes to each program document is provided below) and analyzed in the CCAP Update EIR. Additional changes and clarifications identified since release of the EIR are identified later in this staff report:
CCRMP
- Extend horizon year to 2068 to allow for a full 50 years and to be consistent with the HCP/NCCP (p. 14)
- Clarify allowable in-channel project categories (p. 16-17)
- Clarify role related to flood protection (eg. p. 25)
- Summarize 2017 Tech Studies analysis of aggradation (p. 32)
- Identify new channel form template to replace Test 3 (p. 35)
- Increase in-channel material removal limit from 210,000 tons to 690,800 tons (Action 2.4-2, p. 38)
- Simplify description of required hydraulic modeling (Action 2.4-4, p. 39)
- Move Performance Standards into CCIP and/or In-Channel Ordinance (e.g. p. 44)
- Modify required water quality testing (Action 3.4-3, p. 51)
- Recognize climate change (Action 4.2-6, p. 68)
- Clarify coordination requirements for restoration (Action 4.4-10 [p. 70] and Action 4.4-11 [p. 72])
- Modify in-channel boundary and CCRMP boundary based on channel changes (new Figures 1 [p. 10] and 2 [p. 11])
CCIP
- Clarify work flow for annual monitoring and reporting (pgs. 12-13)
- Clarify a significant event threshold of 20,000 cfs (i.e. pgs. 12, 13, 27, 50,)
- Eliminate references to “major channel stabilization projects” which were to occur in first 5 years (p. 6, 25, 34)
- Identify new channel form template to replace Test 3 (pgs. 18-22)
- Eliminate references to specific design templates in favor of references to industry standards and best practices (Chapter 5 beginning on p. 32)
- Increase in-channel material removal limit from 210,000 tons to 690,800 tons (p. 38)
- Integrate program protocols developed since 1996 (eg. changes aerial surveying to every 5 years p. 51)
- Clarify role related to flood monitoring (p. 54)
OCMP
- Identify 1,188 acres for rezoning for future aggregate mining (p. 11 and new Figure 5 [p. 16])
- Extend horizon year to 2068 to allow for a full 50 years and to be consistent with the HCP/NCCP (p. 17)
- Eliminate optional 15-year interim review (p. 33)
- Clarify roadway mitigation and maintenance obligations (Action 2.3-8, p. 34 and Action 2.4-21, p. 38)
- Expand “net gain” concept to include contributions to the parkway (Action 2.4-7, p. 36)
- Summarize 2017 Tech Studies analysis of aggradation (p. 44)
- Identify new channel form template to replace Test 3 (p. 46)
- Change farmland mitigation requirement (p. 51)
- Recognize climate change (Action 6.2-3, p. 59)
- Clarify coordination requirements for restoration (Action 6.4-1 [p. 60] and Action 6.4-7 [p. 61])
In-Channel Ordinance (In-Channel Maintenance Mining Ordinance, Yolo County Code, Title 10, Chapter 3)
- Change name and modify text to eliminate references to “mining” or “excavation” (p. 1 and throughout)
- Change term “maintenance mining” to “material removal” (Section 10-3.207, p. 2)
- Modify some of the restrictions to allow site specific technical analysis to determine appropriate thresholds (eg. Section 10-3.407(e), p. 6 and Section 10-3.409, p. 7)
- Integrate County violation procedures and clarifies that costs incurred are billable to the operator (Article 10, p. 22)
Mining Ordinance (Off-Channel Surface Mining Ordinance, Yolo County Code Title 10, Chapter 4)
- Clarify roadway mitigation and maintenance obligations (Sections 10-4.408 and 10-4.409, p. 8)
- Codify policy related to mining depth (Section 10-4.411.1, p. 10)
- Add requirement for 50-foot setback around a pit for access (Section 10-4.429(d), p. 19)
- Clarify the link between allowed reductions in the 700-foot setback from the creek and implementation of the channel form template (Section 10-4.429(e)(7), p. 19)
- Clarify that slope requirement does not apply to active mining slopes (Section 10-4.431, p. 20)
- Integrate County violation procedures and clarify that costs incurred are billable to the operator (Article 11, p. 35)
Reclamation Ordinance (Surface Mining Reclamation Ordinance, Yolo County Code Title 10, Chapter 5)
- Integrate mercury protocol clarifications (Section 10-5.517, p. 11)
- Clarify that consistency with the Parkway Plan will be required (Section 10-5.520.1, p. 17)
- Integrate requirements for permanent easement to preserve reclamation end uses (Section 10-5.520.2, p. 17)
- Change to farmland mitigation requirement (Section 10-5.525, p. 18)
- Clarify requirement for base level of soil on reclaimed land (Section 10-5.532, p. 20)
- Clarify that inspection fees are to be based on costs for each operation and the responsibility of each operation (Section 10-5.1002, p. 37)
- Integrate County violation procedures and clarify that costs incurred are billable to the operator (Article 12, p. 39)
Fee Ordinance (Gravel Mining Fee Ordinance, Yolo County Code, Title 10, Chapter 11)
- Clarify that the OCMP fee applies to inspection fees required equally of all mines, but where an individual mine incurs greater cost that a base minimum applicable to all, that operator is solely responsible for those costs (Section 10-11.02(c)(4), p. 3)
- Clarify that the minimum $50,000 annual fee payment is per permitted operation (Section 10-11.08, p. 6)
Flood Ordinance (Flood Protection Ordinance, Yolo County Code, Title 8, Chapter 4)
- Clarify circumstances in which issuance of a FHDP would be appropriate (p. 1).
Public outreach timeline
06/11/2015 Presentation to Planning Commission on work effort
09/15/2015 Board of Supervisors approval of CCAP Update workplan
03/14/2016 Letters to Responsible Agencies seeking input (YSAQMD, CDFW, CDOC, CVRWQCB, USACOE, State Lands Commission)
04/11/2016 Public Workshop/Open House at Nature Preserve
03/17/2017 2017 Technical Studies completed
05/10/2017 Proposed Draft CCAP Update released for 45-day review
05/26/2017 Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) released for 30-day review
06/08/2017 Planning Commission workshop and NOP scoping meeting
06/13/2017 CCRMP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) workshop
06/26/2017 NOP and Plan comment period ends -- received 7 comment letters on CCAP Update and 6 comment letters on scope of EIR
07/13/2017 Cache Creek Conservancy (CCC) Board workshop
09/28/2018 Proposed Revised Draft CCAP Update released
05/10/2019 Draft EIR released for 45-day review
06/13/2019 Public meeting to comment on CCAP Update and Draft EIR – received no comments
06/24/2019 Draft EIR comment period ends – received 7 comment letters
08/19/2019 Final EIR released
11/14/2019 Planning Commission hearing to consider approval of CCAP Update
12/17/2019 Board of Supervisors hearing to consider approval of CCAP Update
Environmental Impact Analysis
The County determined an environmental impact report (EIR) would be required in order to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the CCAP Update. In May 2017, the County published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the subject EIR, including an Initial Study (IS), to help identify impacts that could result from implementation of the CCAP Update, as well as potential areas of controversy. The NOP/IS was mailed to public agencies, organizations, and individuals likely to be interested in the Project and its potential impacts. Additionally, a public meeting was held before the County Planning Commission on June 8, 2017, to introduce the CCAP Update and conduct a scoping session for the Draft EIR. The County received six comments on the NOP/IS and considered them during preparation of the EIR.
The Draft EIR was made available for public review on May 10, 2019, and was distributed to local and State responsible and trustee agencies, as well as appropriate tribal nations. The Draft EIR analyzed the potential for adverse environmental impact to occur as a result of implementation of the 2018 revised Proposed Draft CCAP Update. The County conducted a 45-day public review and comment period extending from May 10, 2019 to June 24, 2019. During the Draft EIR public review comment period a public meeting was held June 13, 2019 to receive comments on both the CCAP Update and the Draft EIR. The County received seven timely comment letters all of which are addressed in the Final EIR described below. The Final EIR was released August 19, 2019.
The County received several comment letters after the June 24, 2019 close of the Draft EIR comment period (see Attachment F, Recent Comment Letters). One was a form letter from FEMA (dated August 8, 2019) raising no new issues not already addressed appropriately in the EIR. The other three were inquiries from the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (dated August 6, August 19, and September 17, 2019) asking to be kept informed regarding the project, requesting information from the EIR, and providing the tribal Treatment Protocol for consideration. Staff responded to the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation on September 16, 2019 providing the requested information, notification regarding hearings and meetings, and a link to the Final EIR.
The Final EIR contains mitigation measures in the form of new or modified policies and regulations that will be adopted as part of the CCAP Update. The mitigation measures clarify applicable considerations and procedures related to clean energy, onsite biological resources, cultural resources, mercury bioaccumulation, and employee and truck trips.
The Final EIR determined that all potential impacts from implementation of the proposed CCAP Update would be fully mitigated through requirements built into the program with the following exceptions:
- Impact AG-1 Loss of Protected Farmland
- Impacts AIR-1 and AIR-2 Air Quality
- Impact GHG-1 GHG Emissions
- Cumulative Impact AES-1 Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts
- Cumulative Impact AG-1 Cumulative Loss of Protected Farmland
- Cumulative Impact AIR-1 Cumulative Air Quality
- Cumulative Impact GHG-1 Cumulative GHG Emissions
- Cumulative Impact NOI-1 Cumulative Noise
- Cumulative Impact TR-1 Cumulative Truck Trips
Impacts in the ten areas listed above were found to be partially mitigated by requirements of the CCAP and CCAP Update but because some level of adverse impact would remain, these impact areas are identified as significant and unavoidable. These conclusions generally mirror similar conclusions reached in the 1996 EIRs prepared when the program was originally developed.
CCAP UPDATE CHANGES PROPOSED SINCE RELEASE OF THE FEIR
Since release of the Final EIR, in order to incorporate the identified mitigation measures and make other clarifications recommended by staff, the following additional changes are proposed as a part of the recommended approval:
- Incorporate all Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR.
- Make a correction to Table LU-6 of the General Plan Land Use Element to identify both the SGO and SGRO zoning overlay designations as consistent within the General Plan Agricultural land use designation.
- Modify proposed edits to the OCMP to acknowledge the new Mineral Land Classification report released June 2019 for the Sacramento region (Special Report 245) entitled “Mineral Land Classification: Concrete Aggregate in the Greater Sacramento Area Production-Consumption Region, 2018”.
- Second paragraph of OCMP Section 1.2 (Planning Area) on p. 4:
As a part of this program, the State Department of Conservation (DOC) issued Special Report (SR) 156, "Mineral Land Classification: Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Sacramento-Fairfield Production-Consumption Region" in 1988. (Note: In 2017 staff at DOC began an update to this special report). Included within this report is an analysis of the sand and gravel resources located along Cache Creek. An updated report was released in June 2019 (Special Report 245, Mineral Land Classification: Concrete Aggregate in the Greater Sacramento Area Production Consumption Region, 2018) SR 245 consolidates and redefines the regional consumption area. The report provides a revised estimate of remaining available aggregate along Cache Creek that does not appear to factor in the conclusions of the 2017 Technical Studies related to in-channel aggradation or aggregate extraction off-channel since the 1988 report. For these reasons no changes to County estimates of available aggregate resources have been made in response to this report as County estimates are believed to be more accurate.
- Production-Consumption paragraph of OCMP Section 1.2 (Planning Area) on p. 6:
The Greater Sacramento-Fairfield Production-Consumption Region
Aggregate is a low-value, high-bulk commodity. The relatively inexpensive cost of production, combined with the heavy weight and bulk of the material, means that transportation represents a major component in the price charged for sand and gravel. The shipping costs of aggregate can account for as much as 50 percent of the price of the delivered product. Because transportation costs are critical in determining the price of sand and gravel, the economic feasibility of developing deposits is evaluated on a regional basis.
The CCAP area was previously included within Tthe former Sacramento-Fairfield Production-Consumption (P-C) Region which encompasseds portions of El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo Counties; the greater Sacramento metropolitan area; the Cities of Fairfield, Vacaville, Davis, and Woodland; and the Cache Creek aggregate resource area (see Figure 1). SR 254 has consolidated six former P-C regions, including the CCAP, into one large market region identified as the Greater Sacramento Area (GSA) P-C Region (see Figure 1). The CCAP area is identified as one of only two net producers of aggregate within that region, with the Yuba/Marysville area identified as the other. The classification study originally focused on the Sacramento metropolitan region. It was assumed that the Sacramento market was largely self-sufficient, relying on the extensive deposits located along the American River. As information became available, however, it was determined that a significant portion of Sacramento's aggregate needs (about 8 percent) were being met by the deposits along Cache Creek. As a result, Cache Creek and the American River were designated as the two primary production districts in the region. The market distribution patterns were then analyzed, in order to determine the extent of the area in which sand and gravel from these two production districts were being sold. Finally, the production-consumption (P-C) boundary was established, defining the extent of the local market, including all existing and projected urban areas with populations over 10,000 people within the region.
- Aggregates estimate paragraph of OCMP Section 1.2 (Planning Area) on p. 8:
Estimated Cache Creek Aggregate Resources
The 1988 classification study provided an estimate of the amount of sand and gravel deposited along Cache Creek. This estimate was based on information collected in 1982, which focused on the MRZ-2 area. The 2019 classification study does not appear to reflect off-channel and in-channel tonnage information known to the County and therefore, the following estimates may differ from the estimates provided in the 2019 DOC report.
- Add new third paragraph under Off-Channel Mining and Future Regional Aggregate Demand, under OCMP Section 1.2 (Planning Area) on p. 11:
In the most recent classification study (SR 256, 2019) the State estimated average annual per capita consumption at 7.6 tons and estimated more than fifty years of resources based on the expanded Greater Sacramento Area P-C Region and more recently permitted reserves.
- Third paragraph of OCMP Section 1.3 (Relationship to Other Regulations and Plans) on p. 18: … As discussed earlier, the DOC released Special Report 156 in 1988 [footnote citation for 1988 report], which classified the sand and gravel deposits along Cache Creek as being significant mineral resources. The DOC released Special Report 245 in 2019 [footnote citation for 2019 report] which updated some information in the 1988 report.
4. Modify OCMP Action 4.4-1 on p. 49, consistent with other edits proposed as a part of the CCAP Update, to clarify the requirement to undergo pit capture analysis and implement the desired channel form (Channel Form Template) by adding a reference to the requirements of Section 10-4.429 of the Mining Ordinance:
OCMP Action 4.4-1 -- Recognize that mining activities located within the streamway influence zone, as described in the 1995 Technical Studies, have a potential to influence the flow characteristics of the creek. In response, mine operators shall be required to participate in funding the Cache Creek Improvement Program (CCIP), as outlined in the CCRMP, and implement the CFT as described in Section 10-4.429 of the Mining Ordinance. Funding may be provided through a per ton surcharge or other mechanism to support activities that stabilize the creek channel. (See Section 8-11.02(a) of the Fee Ordinance)
5. Modify proposed edits to the CCRMP to acknowledge the new Mineral Land Classification report released June 2019 for the Sacramento region (Special Report 245) entitled “Mineral Land Classification: Concrete Aggregate in the Greater Sacramento Area Production-Consumption Region, 2018”. Modify the first paragraph under The Off-Channel Mining Plan under CCRMP Section 1.2 (Study Area) on p. 9 as follows:
… As a part of this program, the State Department of Conservation (DOC) issued Special Report (SR) 156, "Mineral Land Classification: Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Sacramento-Fairfield Production-Consumption Region" in 1988. (Note: In 2017 staff at DOC began an update to this special report). Included within this report is an analysis of the sand and gravel resources located along Cache Creek. An updated report was released in June 2019 (Special Report 245, Mineral Land Classification: Concrete Aggregate in the Greater Sacramento Area Production Consumption Region, 2018). SR 245 consolidates and redefines the regional consumption area. The report provides a revised estimate of remaining available aggregate along Cache Creek that does not appear to factor in the conclusions of the 2017 Technical Studies related to in-channel aggradation or aggregate extraction off-channel since the 1988 report. For these reasons no changes to County estimates of available aggregate resources have been made in response to this report as County estimates are believed to be more accurate.
6. Modify Section 5.4 of the CCIP, Recommended Design Elements, #21 on p. 40 to clarify the intent:
If no flood protection or erosion control measures are proposed, a setback distance of 700 feet is required from the present bank line and the edge of off-channel pits. Where control measures are proposed, or demonstrated not to be needed, consistent with Section 10-4.429 (Setbacks) of the Mining Ordinance, a minimum setback of no less than 200 feet may be considered if no adverse effects on bank stability and groundwater can be demonstrated, and if the Channel Form Template is implemented along the project creek frontage. Project-induced creek capture associated with remaining in-channel pits is discouraged unless approved by the TAC to improve habitat in reclaimed mine sites or flood flow capacity.
7. Modify Section 8-4.404 of Flood Protection Ordinance related to Flood Hazard Development Permit Procedures Within the CCRMP Area to reintroduce the permit name as “flood hazard development permit” and to add a definition of that term in the Flood Ordinance as related solely to implementation of the gravel program.
8. Modify Section 10-4.408 of the Mining Ordinance related to County Road Improvements to clarify the language in the second sentence on p. 8 as follows:
… Each operator shall pay its fair share toward improvements required to maintain a structural capacity (traffic index) sufficient for the project traffic and to maintain operations on County roads and on State Highways within the OCMP planning area consistent with applicable General Plan policies related to LOS and applicable State policy related to VMT.
9. Modify Section 10-4.409 of the Mining Ordinance related to County Road Maintenance to clarify that an operator can coordinate with the County to have the County make the required improvement(s) in which case the operator would reimburse the County for the costs to do so. Modify the third paragraph on p. 9 as follows:
… If major emergency roadway repairs associated with the permitted activities (work requiring more than a single County Public Works maintenance pick-up truck with asphalt patching material, or minor asphalt repairs occurring in less than the sixty (60) consecutive day period) are identified after the Applicant’s yearly maintenance has been completed, the Applicant shall obtain a County encroachment permit (at no cost to Applicant) and complete the major roadway repairs. If major roadway repairs that are the Applicant’s fair share obligation are not completed by the Applicant in a timely manner as determined by the County, and the County must make repairs when the public’s safety is considered at risk by the County Engineer, then the Applicant will be billed for the County’s major roadway repair work on a time and materials basis. An applicant may coordinate with the County to have the County complete required improvements, and in such cases must fully fund he County's costs to do so. The operator does not assume the liability for the roadway, except for cases where the operator has not fulfilled its maintenance obligations.
10. Modify Section 10-4.412 of the Mining Ordinance related to Dewatering to clarify that approval to dewater requires Planning Commission action and may not be issued at the staff level pursuant to Section 10-4.604 Minor Modifications. The following text is proposed for addition as a new third paragraph on p. 11 in this section:
Approval to dewater requires Planning Commission approval pursuant to 10-4.506 and 10-4.602.
11. Modify Section 10-5.506 of the Reclamation Ordinance related to Bank Stabilization Maintenance to clarify that bank stabilization measures are required to be inspected as part of the required annual inspection of conditions within the Streamway Influence Zone. The following change to the second paragraph on p. 8 is proposed:
The condition of flood protection structures, bank stabilization measures, and the integrity of the land within the approved setback zone separating the mining areas and the creek channel shall be inspected annually by a Registered Civil Engineer and reported to the Director.
12. Modify Section 10-5.520.2 of the Reclamation Ordinance related to Permanent Easements to clarify that this requirement applies only to land reclaimed to agricultural use. The following clarifications are proposed on p. 17:
Upon completion of reclamation within each phase of the project, for land that will not be dedicated or deeded to the County, the operator shall enroll each parcel reclaimed to agriculture parcel in Williamson Act contract, or other equivalent long-term easement or deed restriction satisfactory to the County, for the purpose of protecting the open space and/or agricultural use of the reclaimed land in perpetuity.
13. Modify Section 10-11.08 of the Fee Ordinance related to Minimum Annual Fee Payment to clarify more precisely the conditions that would require payment of the minimum fee. The following clarifications to the first paragraph of this section on p. 6 are proposed:
Notwithstanding the actual tonnage sold in any one year by a Permit Holder, or any of the provisions of this Ordinance, a minimum annual base fee amount of Fifty Thousand and no/100ths ($50,000.00) Dollars per permitted operation that is authorized at the time to mine, is required by the County by June 30 of each year, in order to minimally administer the CCAP. This requirement applies whether a site is active or idle. Sites that are not being mined and are under active reclamation would not be subject to this minimum fee. The payment of this amount shall be invoiced to each Permit Holder based on approved annual permitted production. Each Permit Holder shall receive credit for this amount against their December payment.
14. Modify Section 10-11.10 of the Fee Ordinance related to Late Charge (Penalties) (p. 7) to clarify the following:
(b) A late charge or penalty equal to ten (10%) percent of the amount due shall be assessed and payable for any fee payments received after the thirty (30) day grace period described above. The late charge shall increase to 15% after 60 days and 20% after 90 days late. Late charges assessed hereunder are be due and payable immediately.
(c) Notwithstanding item 10-11.10(b) above, if the payment of any fee is later than sixty (60) 180 days from the date due, this shall be a violation of the permit and revocation proceedings shall be commenced in compliance with Sections 10-4.1105 through 10-4.1110 of the County Code (Off-Channel Surface Mining Ordinance, Violations).
15. Modify the proposed rezoning of various parcels to add the Sand and Gravel Reserve Overlay (SGRO) zone – The proposed CCAP Update originally identified (and the EIR analyzed) 1,188 acres (13 parcels) where rezoning to add the SGRO was proposed by staff to signify these properties as possible future sites for aggregate mining through the proposed 2068 horizon of the CCAP.
Subsequently, Teichert submitted an application to the County for aggregate mining on the Shifler property. The Teichert Shifler application has been deemed complete and is undergoing environmental review. Among other requested actions, the application includes a request to rezone the property with the Sand and Gravel Overlay (SGO) which is required to allow mining to occur. In light of this, staff proposes to remove the Shifler property from the requested CCAP Update rezoning given that the property is being considered in a separate mining application.
16. Make other non-substantive clerical modifications to: correct spacing, punctuation, spelling, acreages, planning area and boundary references, and figure references; insert figures and graphics; and otherwise finalize the format of the plans and regulations for final release. Note all figures are provided at the back of relevant proposed draft documents that comprise the CCAP Update and will be integrated into each document as appropriate following final action by the Board of Supervisors.
These recommended additional changes are reflected in the final proposed Draft CCAP Update documents which are included in Attachments B, C, and D.
|