HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 5.BPart1 10/04/2010,~
c~~~ca
Citizens ~4dvocating for Roblar Rural Quality
200 Vnaardingen Lane, Petaluma, CA 94952
www.sarrq.orq
City of Petaluma
Mayor Torliatt
Vice Mayor Glass
Councilmember Barrett
Councilmember Harris
Councilmember Healy
Councilmember Rabbitt
Councilmember Renee
,~~~ ~ ~
C~~$• ~ .
~~~~
~~~ ~
Re: Proposed Roblar Road Quarry Project -John and Andrea Barella
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
~e
October 3, 2010
We are a group of citizens concerned about the far-reaching. impacts of the Roblar Road Quarry Project.
This concern goes far beyond the local property owners that will be directly impacted by the project. As
more residents, businesses and community organizations become aware of the project and the scope of
the issues with traffic, air, water quality, public liability and open space deals, many questions that were
not adequately answered in the project Environmental Impact Report are being raised by them.
We have become aware of a discussion item on the October 4, 2010 agenda regarding the Proposed
Roblar Road Quarry Project to prepare a letter to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. We have
had an opportunity to review the staff report and wish to comment. There will be representatives of
CARRQ at the meeting to speak to the item.
The staff report identified only two issues to be discussed. The first issue is the potential environmental
risks the quarry operations may cause to the adjacent closed Roblar Landfill and liability to the City of
Petaluma. The liability and proposed hold harmless issues are fairly well addressed in the City Attorney
letter to the Sonoma County Counsel on September 20, 2010 that is attached to your staff report.
The second issue relates to Mr. Barella's request to release the Open Space District conservation
easement on 3 to 4 acres of land to allow for an average of 300 gravel trucks per day to travel over a
mile through publicly funded open space. This would avoid the expense of Roblar Road improvements
and potential damage to the Americano Creek.
fi
However, the staff report is incomplete in the background of the Open Space issue and discussion of the
proposal for the conservation easement release by the developer. We would like to provide the City
Council with a more comprehensive analysis of this unprecedented action proposed by the County
Board of Supervisors.
Attached is a copy of the September 30, 2010 letter from the Sonoma County Land Trust to the. Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors expressing grave concern about the release of the conservation easement.
The Sonoma County Land Trust believes that approval of the gravel trucking road through a
conservation easement would do "...incalculable harm to the integrity and credibility of the....efforts to
protect land with conservation easements."
Also attached is a summary of the background on and proposal of the Open Space easement release
and the history of the gravel mine on Roblar Road. The statements in the summary are supported by
another 114 pages of 18 exhibits from County documents. We hope this will provide the City Council
with more complete information regarding the questionable Open Space conservation easement release
that will only benefit Mr. Bareila.
As the City Council may be aware, this project is very complex and has many environmental ahd
operational issues. The extensive, but inadequate and incomplete, Environmental Impact Report was
approved by the County Planning Commission on September 16, 2010 with significant unavoidable
impacts that required a statement of overriding considerations. In addition there are 169 extensive
Conditions of Approval for the project to mitigate most of the environmental impacts and to operate. This
will require significant monitoring and inspections to insure that the conditions are being met. We
question the ability of the developer to self-monitor and the County to oversee and enforce the
Conditions of Approval.
The Board of Supervisors tentatively scheduled a pubic hearing on this for October 19th. We and other
concerned residents, businesses and community organizations will attend the meeting to voice our
concerns. We hope the City of Petaluma will require the County to protect the City against liability and to
oppose the misuse of tax-payer funded open space land to benefit a private business.
Sincerely.,
G%~
~~~
David Spilman,
CARRQ
'~:"r~4 -
.. `" ""
SONOMA LAND TRUST
.~ r ~ ._. ~ .__
966 Sonoma Avenue
September 30, 2010 Sanra Rosa, CA 9S4o,{
l cl~ 7~7 Sz6 6930
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors 1=,x: ~0~ Sz6 300,
Supervisor Valerie Brown, 1S' District, vbrown@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor Mike Kerns, 2"d District, mkerns@sonoma-county.org W1V ~y gp~~pnlalan(t Cl'USCA~'~
Supervisor Shirlee Zarie, 3`d District, szane@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor Paul Kelley, 4"' District, pkelley@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor Efren Carrillo, 5"' District, ecarrillo@sonoma-county.org
575 Administration Drive, Room 100 A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Subject: Proposed Roblar Road Gravel Quarry/ Roblar Ranch Conservation Easement
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors,
The Sonoma Land Trust does not have a position on the proposed gravel quarry on Roblar Road
as such, but we are very concerned about the alternative of running the access road to the
proposed quarry through a property protected with a conservation easement.
Our concern is for the integrity of the overall system of conservation easements and land
protection in Sonoma County and beyond. Between the Sonoma Land Trust and the Agricultural
Preservation and Open Space District, more than 80,000 acres of scenic, agricultural and wild
land throughout Sonoma County is permanentlx protected with conservation easements. The
District has spent many millions of dollars to purchase these easements. If we are to continue to
protect the open landscapes that we treasure in Sonoma County--the forests on the North
Coast, the pasture land in the dairy belt, the views of Sonoma Mountain and the woodlands in the
Mayacamas - we will need to do so with conservation easements. They are a practical alternative
to fee acquisitions because they protect public values while leaving responsibility for managing
protected land in private hands. But they depend on a promise.
The promise of conservation easements - a promise to the taxpayers who fund the purchases
and to donors who gift easements - is that they are permanent - "in perpetuity." Conservation
easements are designed to be more than regulations that can be changed every election cycle.
Tampering with this promise breeds cynicism and imperils the whole land conservation system.
We realize that what is proposed is meant to be "temporary," but when it comes to remunerative
land uses, "temporary" seldom is. Some healthy skepticisrp is in order.
We believe that approval of a road through the Roblar Road conservation easement would do
incalculable harm to the integrity and credibility of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation
and Open Space District and the Sonoma land Trust's efforts to protect land with conservation
easements. We urge you not to tamper with the Roblar Road conservation easement.
re
ExdQ'ut~e Director
Copy to:
Bitl Keene, General Manager, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District
... to psorccr tke lattcl~o,•evc,•
TIIE OPEN SPACE SWAP AND 'LIIE IIISTOR~' OF TIIE
GRAVEL,IVIINE ON RO>BL,AR ROAD
The Sonoma County Agricultural and Open Space District ("District") plans to permit the
developer of a gravel mine to drive 150 to 240 trucks a day through dedicated Open Space land the
District paid the same developer $2.3 million of taxpayer money in 2003 to preserve. The legal
authority for this permission is questionable. No purpose of the Open Space District is served by it.
The beneficiary is the developer of the gravel mine who avoids the alternative expense of widening
portions of Roblar Road instead. The plan comes up for a vote by the Board of Directors of the
Dish•ict on October 19, 2010.
The proposed Open Space deal between. the gravel mine developer and the District is as
follows.
The District would release its existing conservation easement on the Roblar Ranch property
on acreage (about 3 to 4 acres) sufficient to allow the gravel mine owner to drive his gravel trucks
through the open space for over a mile. By doing so, the developers avoid the expense of an
alternative haul route down a mile of Roblar Road. In return, the developer offers to swap the
District a new conservation easement on the entire gravel mine site while he mines it. This site
consists of a 65-acre gravel pit and about 130 acres that surround it. When the gravel. mine
developer is throu h mining his gravel decades later - no date is set -the District would get its old
conservation easement back.
Thus under this proposal, for at ].east 20 years, hundreds of gravel trucks each day would
drive through open space now dedicated to the public. In return, the District would get a
conservation easement on a gravel pit and its buffer land while it is in operation. The proposed deal
is summarized in a December 17, 2009 County Planning Staff Report as "Issue 9." See Exhibit 1,
and most recently in the July 21, 2010 letter of the developer's lawyer to the Open Space District
(Exhibit 17).
The agricultural and scenic quality of the land the developer wants to swap for a haul route
through existing open space will be irreparably damaged by the proposed gravel mining. County
Df32/21714994.3
1
documents show there is NO question that the swapped land will be injured and visually damaged.
The gravel mining EIR and County Planning Staff Report both find that "aesthetic (and visual)
impacts would be significant and unavoidable despite landscaping measures propounded by the
applicant." See County Planning Staff Report issue # 18, and overriding consideration #4, Exhibit 3.
Documents obtained from the Sonoma Open Space District anal Planning Department show
how the Open Space land now subject to commercial development was originally preserved. Here is
a summary of what they show:
® The Applicant gravel mine developer is a contractor that has done business
through numerous contracts with Sonoma County for many years. Many
documents produced by the County evidence multiple contracts between the
County and the developer which contemplate payments to developer by the
County.
® The Roblar Road Quarry has been recognized as a potential quarry site for well
over twenty years by the County. In 1986 .and 1989 persons with an interest in
the quarry site filed applications to develop it as a quarry, but these applications
were either defeated following objections of the public or withdrawn. (See
Exhibit 4, the complete December 17, 2009 Plaruling Staff Report on the project,
page 2.)
® As of 2001, the land containing the quarry (about 190 acres) and the land
adjoining the quarry (about 750 acres) was owned by a Mr. Scott. The County
then offered to buy from Mr. Scott development rights on the approximately 750
acres of the land that adjoined the quarry ("the adjoining land") through the Open
Space District. The Open Space District is controlled by the Sonoma County
Board of Supervisors.
® Open Space hired an appraiser to appraise Mr•. Scott's adjoining land. Open
Space accepted the appraisal for the adjoining land on April 15, 2001. (Exhibit
5).
o On May 2, 2001, Open Space offered Mr. Scott $1,600,000 for the development
rights on the adjoining land in order to preserve it from future development.
(Exhibit 5). We understand Mr. Scott passed away before acceptance.
m The developer then purchased both the quarry land and the adjoining land next to
it from Mr. Scott's heirs on November 11, 2001.
m Sometime before April 29, 2002, the developer applied to Open Space to sell the
development rights on the adjoining land to Opei~i Space (Exhibit 6).
D132/21714994.3 2
2
® On July 24, 2002, County staff spoke;"to County Supervisor Kerns about this or
related applications of the developer: Thereafter, the County said. they :could
move the applicant's application "up in the' queue." (Exhibit 7). Open Space
informed the developer that the sale would limit his right to get a "new"
easement through the open space. .
"New easements or easement modifications may only be granted
where they will remove or significantly lessen the impact., of
existing easements of record on the protected values set forth in the
conservation. purpose of this Agreement." (Exhibit 8).
.. ® Open Space hired a different appraiser to do a new appraisal of the adjoining land
for the developer. The appraisal was completed in October, 2003. The appraisal
(Exhibit 9) states that prior to the appraisal the County told the appraiser Mr.
Barrella (the developer) was in the process of filing an application to start mining
gravel at the quarry site.
® In February 2004, Open Space recommended the County pay the developer
$2,269,000 for development rights to the adjoining land. (Exhibit 10).
® We understand the Applicant was later paid $2,273,128.00 by the. County on
May 21, 2004 for these development rights. (Exhibit 11).
® Before the County's purchase of the development rights on this property, the
developer told Open .Space he was negotiating to sell the land subject to this
conservation easement to others. He later did so..
After receiving $2.3 million from the County to preserve the adjoining land, and then selling
his underlying interest in it to others, the developer then pursued his application to mine gravel on
the quarry site next to it. '
Initially, the developer planned to truck the gravel he mined from the proposed quarry using
Robl_ar Road as an initial haul route from the quarry. Sometime in 2007 .that changed, The
developer wanted to avoid the cost of mitigating impacts to a section of Roblar Road west of the
mining site and decided to avoid this cost if he could run his trucks through the Open Space.
In late 2007 and 2008, and again in 2010, the developer's lawyers, with the help of the
County (see Exhibit 12) asked the Open Space District to allow the developer to drive his gravel
' We do not know why the Countythought it was a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer's money
to pay the developer $2.3 million dollars to remove development rights on land adjoining a proposed
quarry site that Applicant had already applied to the County to develop.
DI32/21714994.3 3
3
trucks through the -land Open S"pace paid the applicant to preserve. See letters o'f the: developer's
lawyer to ScottBriggs at County PRMD dated December 12; 2007 and the Open Space District
dated January 9, 2008, and July 21, 20:1'0.2 (Exhibits T3., 14, and 16).
The number of gravel trucks the County says will drive through Open Space land. (if
permitted by Ehe County) is considerable. County Staff estimates on average .each day at _least 300
more one-way gravel truck trips will use the road the developer plans to construct .through the
adjoining Open Space land. The December P7, 2009 Staff Report, states:
On average, the production of 570,000 cubic yards per year (2,2.60
cy per day) would .result in an average of .151 truck loads or 302
one-way truck trips per day. However, the maximum daily produc-
tion rate, of 3,600 cy of aggregate was used. to determine the
project's effects. On a peak production day, the project would
generate approximately 240 truck .loads per day, or 4:80 one-way
truck trips. (Exhibit 4, p. 24).
This amounts to a gravel truck running through Open. Space every few- minutes during
daylight hours for the next twenty years.
County staff now says that the developer's right to drive his gravel trucks through the Open
Space is a draft condition of approval of the project. See .email from Mr. Hillegas to 1VIr. Newell
dated December 11, 2009. (Exhibit 15).
The purported authority for this transfer deal quoted by the developer's lawyers (Exhibits 13
and 14) is Public Resource Code § 5540.5. It requires the. unanimous consent of every Supervisor on
the Board. The text of the statute is attached as Exhibit 1.6.
We believe this exchange is unprecedented. The Press Democrat newspaper on September
16, 2010, quoted County Open Space officials as saying that the proposed "exchange would amount
to the first private, commercial use, aside'from a wetland mitigation bank, of publicly protected open
2 Questions raised by this proposed transaction are (a) why Open:Space would now release land
to the developer that had been earlier purchased from him with taxpayer dollars so it could be "Kept
Open in Perpetuity," and (b) why the County would nowpermit an access road through Open Space
for a quarry that the County knew the Applicant wanted the County to approve when the County
paid him the $2.3 million.
DB2/21714994.3 4
4
space in the county." See Exhibit 18. Approval of the matter is completely up to the Board of
Supervisors who function as the District Board. The developer himself says, "If (supervisors) ask.
me to go down Roblar Road, I'll go down Roblar Road." See Exhibit 18.
Da2/217149943 5
5
THE OPEN SPACE SWAP AND THE HISTORY OF THE'
GRAVEL MINE ON ROBLAR ROAD
LISTING OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Page
Exhibit 1 - Page 18 PRMD Staff Report - PLP03-0094 December 17, 2009 6
Exhibit 2 - Page 28 PRMD Staff Report - PLP03-0094 December 17, 2009 7
Exhibit 3 - Page 31 PRMD Staff Report - PLP03-0094 December 17, 2009 8
Exhibit 4 - PRMD Staff Report - PLP03-0094 December 17, 2009 I 9
Exhibit 5 - May 2, 2001 Open Space District Letter to Mr. Scott on Appraisal 4:1
Exhibit 6 - April 29, 2002 Open Space District Letter to Mr. Barella 57
Exhibit 7 - July 25, 2002 PRMD FAX to Mackenzie regarding Scott Ranch &Barella. 58
Exhibit 8 - June 6 & August 20, 2002 Open Space District Letter to Mr. Barella on Conservation
Easement offer 59
Exhibit 9 - October 17, 2003 Appraisal Associates appraisal of Barella property for Conservation.
Easement 67
Exhibit 10 -February 26, 2004 Open Space District Agenda item on' Barella property 78
Exhibit 11 -May 19, 2004 North American Title Company Buyer's Estimated Settlement
Statement on Conservation Easement for Barella property 80
.Exhibit 12 -December 18, 2007 email memo from Scott Briggs to Charisse Jacobsen on
Alternative 2 haul route 81
Exhibit 13 -January 9, 2008 Letter from Stephen Butler to Andrea McKenzie on proposals
for release of conservation easement 82
Exhibit 14 -December 12, 2007 Letter from Stephen Butler to Scott Briggs on proposal,
for alternative circulation proposal 84
Exhibit 15 -December 11, 2009 email from Blake Hillegas to Jacob Newell on Open
Space easement condition in staff report 86
Exhibit 16 -Excerpt of Public Resources Code 5540.5 87
Exhibit 17 -July 21, 2010 Letter from Stephen Butler to Bill Keene request for
conservation easement contract amendment with copy of recorded agreement 88
Exhibit 18 -September 16, 2010 Press Democrat article "Petaluma°rock quarry takes
another step forward" 118
~, / ._...
Staff Report - PLP03-0094
December 17, 2009
Page t8
(3) The use will not result in the significant removal of adjacent contracted land from
agricultural or open-space use. (Govt, Code §51238.1, subd. (a).)
Staff has determined that the Alternative 2 haul route is consistent with the Williamson Act's principles of
compatibility, listed above, in that, the haul.route would not significantly compromise the long-term
productive agricultural capability of the contracted parcels or other contracted lands; it`would
not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeable agricultural operations on
the contracted parcels or other contracted lands; and It would not result in the significant removal
of adjacent contracted land from agricultural or open-space use. Continued grazing on the Wilson
Properties (through which Access Road 1 would extend) and (through which Roblar Road would be
widened) would not be hindered. The Neve property (through which Access Road 2 would extend) is
utilized as a plant nursery. However, the development and operation of Access Road 2 would not disrupt
or hinder continued agricultural operation of those facilities.
Staff has determined that the affected lands are currently in compliance with the agricultural production
requirements of their respective Williamson Act contracts. The County's Rules for bath Type I and Type II
preserves, list quarrying operations, not including crushing. or other refining of raw materials, as an
allowable compatible use on contracted land. Therefore, the temporary access roads and the widening of
a 1 mile section of Roblar Road under Alternative Z can be considered incidental to the agricultural
operations and a compatible use. The improvement of Roblar Road and the new access roads would not
only provide access to the quarry, but would improve access to agricultural uses in the area. Staff has
determined that the proposed Alternative 2 haul route is consistert with the County's Williamson Act Rules
and Procedures for Permitting under Williamson Act contracted lands in that the proposed roadways
would be compatible and clearly incidental to the primary agricultural and mining uses, the roads would.
not occupy or isolate more than 5 acres of land on any separate contracted land, and they would not
significantly displace land in agricultural production or cause significant loss of prime agricultural soils.
Issue #9: Open apace District Easem®n4 - Alternativ®2 Haul Rout® (Access Roast 1)
As described in the Alternative 2 haul route description, the land comprising Access Road 1, and a portion
of the land adjacent to andlor along the alignment of the proposed improved section of Roblar Road,. are
currently under an agricultural conservation easement with the County Agricultural and Open Space
District (part of the 700-acre Roblar Ranch, pg. IV.A-~19 of Draft EIR .
a
Under this altemativ ~he applicant proposes to enter into an agreement with the County Agricultural. and
is nc whereby the District would temporarily release its conservation easement on
approximately four acres (encompassing the extent of Access Road 1 and adjacent area to the north on
the Wilson property that would be cut off and isolated by Access Road 1), in exchange for a permanent
open space conservation easement and offer of dedication of the entire project site (198 awes).
As part of the reclamation of the quarry site, the applicant would reclaim the two privateoff-road haul. road'
segments and restore those areas to their natural condition. Upon restoration of those area's,', the,aPplicant
would release its easement over the four acres on the Wilson property (Access Road 1) and the property
owner would reconvey without compensation a conservation easement over the four acres to the District.
Consequently, while there. would be a temporary net loss of approximately four acres of land within. an
Open Space District conservation easement along the alternative haul route (Access Road 1), there would
ultimatey be a comparatively large net increase (initially 128 acres of the project site and ultimately the 70
acre quarry parcel) in land permanently protected in an agricultural conservation easement.
Issue #10: Geology and Soils
Recent geological/geotechnical evaluations were conducted by John H. Dailey, Consulting Geotechnical
Engineer (Dailey 2005). Dailey conducted subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering
analysis on soil and rock samples from the project site (Dailey, 2005), a seismic analysis on the proposed
overburden stockpile slopes (Dailey, 2006); and supplemental analysis of rock slope failure mechanics
and slope stability at the quarry site (Dailey, 2007). Dailey also completed a preliminary geotechnical
evaluation of the site in October 2002 (Dailey, 2002). Miller Pacific Engineering Group (MPEG)
6
~ . ~,.
Staff Report - PLP03-0094
December 17, 2009
Page 28 .
In its adoption of the 1994 ARM Plan Program EIR, the Board of Supervisors adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations indicating thatitte benefits of`iocal aggregate
availability to ihdustry outweigh the adverse unavoidable noise impacts associated with haul
truck noise. •
c. Occasional blasting produces an air blast and ground vibration thaCcould ,impact surrounding
residences and utilities, wildlife, and other uses. However, the highest intensity.;blast noise
usually occurs at frequencies below that of human hearing (<20Hz). The.Dcaft` EIR'
determined that adoption of a blasting plan and monitoring program •for the; quarry would
reduce any potential adverse impacts related to blasting to less than significant levels.
Issue #17; Hazardous Materials
The Draft EIR found that hazardous material impacts would be mitigated~to less tfian. significant.
Hazardous materials transported or used onsite during proposed mining and reclamation activities (i::e.,
petroleum .products, blasting materials) could be spilled or otherwise released through im,propet'handling
or storage.
Mitigation measures require that any hazardous materials storage. or handling, 6e accomplished yin
accordance with federal, state, and local regulations and that a Spilt Prevention, Control and Counter
Measure Plan (SPCCMP) be prepared and submitted to the Sonoma County Department of Emergency
Services to demonstrate completion of the mitigation.
Issu® #18: Aesthetics
The Draft EIR found that aesthetics impacts would be significant and unavoidable,, despite .the.
implementation of mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts. The site is not located within or'in;
proximity to any community separator areas or scenic landscape units. However, the site is'~is,ible. from
long range views from three scenic corridors, including Valley f=ord Road, located.to thejsoufhwest of the
site and segments of Bumslde and Bloomfield Roads, located to the northwest. The sife is also partially
visible from short term views on Roblar Road and Canfield Roads, though views from Canfield Road
would be largely obstructed by the intervening topography of the landfll property.arid Vegetation. Views
from Roblar Road, adJacent to the site, would be partially obstructed by existing`topography~and;riparian
vegetation along Americana Creek. Computer generated visual simulations were~prepared to illustrate the
"before" and "after" visual conditions at the site as seen from representative public view points.
As illustrated in the visual simulations, the most prominent permanent alteration to .the site :would be the
change in topography within the proposed 65-acre quarry pit. The quarry pit and processing, equipment
would constitute a distinctive new visual feature, creating marked contrasts: in form, color, and texture
'compared to existing site features. Seen against the generally rolling ten'ain arid. few,~scattered farm• and
residential structures that provide its visual context, the quarry pit and equipment wou~ld•aPpear dominant
and intrusive in comparison. ,
The Draft E1R found that aesthetic impacts would be significant and unavoidable despite landscaping.
measures proposed by the applicant. The applicant proposes to plant coast redwood trees on-site along
Roblar Road, the proposed access road and in the vicinity of the proposed job offce; equip"meet°sfo"rage
area, and parking lot to help screen views of the facility. Despite the requirement that the reclamation plan
be implemented incompliance with the ARM Plan and SMARO, visual impacts would remain,significant
and unavoidable. This finding is consistent with the visual resource findings of the ARM Plan EIR, for
which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted.
lsaue # 19: Public Services and Utilities
The Draft EiR determined that the impacts on demand for fire protection and emergency medical services
would be potentially significant, but would be mitigated to less than significant with the following mitigation
measure:
7
`____
Staff Report - PLP03-0094
December 17, 2009 ,
Page 31
staff would recommend Alternative 2 with a reduced production rate. Conditions of Approval for a
reduced productlo For example undo a his alte native` faa share clontnbutlolns to road Itmproverments
proposed protect.
would be less.
2. The Planning Commission o mendadonto denty the project not sufficient for any of the project
alternatives and make a rec
STATEf~IENT 4F OVERRIDINC3 COPIStDERATIONS
Impacts to land use traffic, sire uiteltthe mplementationrtortreduce i pacts to the extent feas'ble.uA to be
significant and unavoidable d p
Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for noise and aesthetics impacts with the approval o
the 1994 Aggregate Resources Management (ARMI) Plan.
hydrology 8 water quality, biology, hazardous materials, public services, and
Impacts to geology and soils,
cultural resources were found to be potentially significant but can be reduced to less than significant leve s
with the implementation of mitigation measures.
The decision as to wheth ecpsioncmakees~t The omhmission may wish toacons der thelfoNowing potential
balancing on the part of d
benefits:
1. The local suppry of aggregate is considered an asset to the County in order to keep construction
costs down and reduce environmental impacts and roadway wear impacts asso NiaQ idd weo ide a
importaUoacce~sible sou 9 e of rock consistent wrath the'Gener I Ptanbaand~ARM Plan and would
local and
help keep construction costs down and reduce environmental impacts and roadway wear impac s
associated with importation and/or hauling rock from more distant sources.
2. The demand for additional local sources of hard rock, especially PC and AC grade material for
road construction, has and willtieeause te~race mining stbeing phased out perthe ARMrPIan.
produced from terrace mirnng
Roblar Quarry would provide a reliable and accessible source of PC and AC grade rock. e
location of the Robiaor O forts fulnded by taxoMeasu e M over the next 15 ylears as~hel majority of
regional transports p j
these roadway construction projects are in central and southern Sonoma County.
3. Approval of the pro'ntersections of Stony Poirot Road/RoblaaRoad a duStony Point Rouad/Railroad
signalization of the 116 and Hi hwa 116/01d
Avenue and signal timing improvements at Stony Point Road/Highway 9 Y
Redwood Highway would i tentiae ro'ects to the cost of the oad mpooveme'ntsut may not be tion.
of this project and other po P t
possible for the state and county to fund necessary roadway improvements. Recent shortfalls'in
state and county budgets have resulted in extended delays in funding road improvements,
resulting in a backlog of projects waiting for funding.
the applicant
4. Despite the remortnanet t a70cultural~preservation easement on a 243-acre agricultural property
would place a pe 9 ermission to use
near Petaluma. In addition, in exchange for the Open-Space Districts temporary p
approximately 4 asr o ace a pe manent conservaton easement ovee then 198 project site and
applicant propose p
dedicate the land for potential future public use upon completion of mining.
If the Planning Commissthe P atnn n n Comm sseon cou d Iforvva d a recommendation o approval tolthe
impacts of Alternative 2, 9
Board of Supervisors with. a Statement of Overriding Considerations subject to the attached Conditions o
8
~:
.,~~-• .
y. _ .
~,,s
Sono-na C®un~y POannin~ Commission
S~°.AFF REPORT
Sonoma County Permit and' Resource Management Department.
2550 Ventura,Avenue, 5anta'Rosa, CA 95403.
SUMMARY
ApplicantJOwner: John Barella, North Bay Construction, Inc.
Location: 7601 and 7175 Roblar Road, Sebastopol Supervisoral .District No. 2
APN 027-080-009 and -010
Sub ect: Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FE1R), Rezoning to
add the MR (Mineral Resource) combining district, and Use ~Permit~for a:
mining and reclamation plan fora 70 acre hard rock quarry on a 1:98 acre.
site. .
PROPOSAL: (1) a Zone Change to add the MR (Mineral Resource). combining district to a
198 acre parcel, including a 70 acre quarry designated LEA:(Land Extensive
Agriculture) B6 - 1.60 acre density, Z (Second Unit Exclusion), VOH (Valley
Oak Habitat);
(2) a. Use Permit fora 70 acre quarry with an annual produc4ion:of 570,000
cubic yards per year for 20 years;
(3) Reclamation Plan to reclaim the 70 acre quarry upon completion of mining
to agriculture and open space.use, including a permanent conservation
easement and an irrevocable offer of dedication for public use on the entire
198 acre parcel; and
(4) a Williamson Act easemen4 exchange rescinding; a.Type 11 Williamson:Act
contract on the 70 acre mining site and simultaneously placing a permanent
agricultural conservation easement on a 243 acre agricultural property near
Petaluma.
Environmental
Determination: Environmental Impact Report
General_ Plan: LEA (Land Extensive Agriculture) 66 - 160 acre density Z, (Second Dwelling
Unit Exclusion), VOH (Valley Oak Habitat).
Specific/Area Plan: Aggregate Resources Management PIanlPetalunia Dairy Belt Area Plan;
Land Use: Agricultural production, processing and services/resource uses
Ord. Reference: Sections 26-72-020(x)(1) and Chapter 26A
Zonin LEA (Land Extensive Agriculture) 8-6 160 acre density, Z (Second, Dwelling
Unit Exclusion), V~H (Valley Oak Habitat)
FILE: PLP03-0094 .
DATE: December 17, 2009
TIME: 1:05 p.m. a
STAFF: Blake Hillegas/Scott Briggs ;.
c_
.~
Staff Report - P1.P03-0094
December 17, 2009
Page 2
RECOIVIAAENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board
of Supervisors:
1, Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR)-and adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations after making findings provided in
the draft resolution.
2. Approve a Zone Change to add the MR (Mineral Resources) overlay
zone to the proposed 70 acre mining site (APN 027-080-009) and a 25
foot perimeter setback area around the parcel.
3. Approve the Use Permit and Mining and Reclamation Plan for Alternative
2 (Alternative Haul Route/Contracted sales only) with a production limit of
570,000 cubic yards per year, subject to the conditions provided in Exhibit
A.
4. Authorize a Williamson Act agricultural preserve easement exchange,
rescinding the agricultural preserve easement on the 70 acre mining site,
while simultaneously placing a permanent agricultural conservation
easement on a 243 acre agricultural property near Petaluma.
ANALYSIS
Site History:
In 1986, an application was filed by Stony Point Rock Quarry Inc. to establish a quarry with an annual.
production of 500,000 cubic yards .on the subject property.. The Draft and Final EIR's for the proposal
were circulated, however, never certified by the County, and the project application was withdrawn
following objections from the public.
In 1988, a second application was filed by Stony Point Rock Quarry, Inc., which reduced the proposed
annual production of 500,000 cubic yards of quarried rock from the previous application to an annual
production of 200,000 cubic yards. In 1990, the Planning Commission recommended Certification of the
Final EIR and approval of the project. However, the Final EIR was not certified and the project was denied
without prejudice. The application was withdrawn and the property was subsequently sold to Northbay
Construction.
8a~ckpround:
'The subject application for the proposed Roblar Road Quarry to mine up to 570,000 cubic yards a year
was filed in December 2003. On August 4, 2004, the County sent a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to
governmental agencies, organizations, and persons interested in the project. The `County held a public
scoping meeting on September 1, 2004, at Dunham Elementary School to allow the public to commention
the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR.
The Draft. EIR was circulated on May 20, 2008. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Draft EIR on June 19, 2008. The 45-day public comment period on the Draft EIR closed on July 5, 2008.
A totaa of 36 letters were received. The Final EIR has been distributed to commenting agencies and public
.- hearing notice was provided on November 11, 2009. The EIR serves as aproject-specific EIR as the
~~ project specific impacts were not fully covered by the ARM Plan Program EIR.
Project Description:
The proposed project is to.establish a new quarry encompassing 70 acres of an 198 acre site: Proposed
maximum annual production is 570,000 cubic yards of material per year for 20 years for a maximum.
production of 11,400,000 cubic yards of material Five to 10% of the proposed production is anticipated to
~. !
Staff Report - PLP03-0094
December 17, 2009
Page 3
be recycled concrete or asphalt from Northbay Construction jobs. It is estimated that approximately 90%
of all material produced would be used in Sonoma County. It is also anticipated that-60-80%° of the
material produced at the quarry would be used for North Bay construction projects using North Bay
construction trucks or haulers under contract with North Bay Construction. The applicant proposes to
require haul trucks used for North Bay construction projects to use Roblar Road, west bf the Quarry; which
would reduce impacts to the Roblar community situated along the Roblar Road, east of the' Quarry.
Accordingly, the Draft EIR conservatively assumes that 60% of the project truck traffic will use Roblar
Road west of the Quarry and up to 40% would use Roblar Road east of the quarry., The quarry would.
employ 8-10 people during the heavy construction season and 4-6 people during winter. ;Hours of
operation are proposed from 7:00 a:rtt. to 5,00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 4:Q0 p:m. on.
Saturdays, though the applicant has rdquested to operate during extended evening Hours (unt~t 10:00
p.m.) as needed, consistent with the County Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance (SMARO) and
the Aggregate Resources Mining (ARM) plan.
Phase 1 improvements would include the construcscatef a ob office, equipment storage a~eaeand a shmall
existing site access) and the installation of a truck
parking lot at 250 feet in elevation. Phase I improvements would also include, the excavation and. grading
of the proposed initial processing area, installation of a mobile processing plant at<an elevation of 370 feet,
and the installation of drainage swales and. a sediment pond. Processing equipment would consist of a
jaw crusher, cone crusher, plate feeders, screens and conveyors. The height of plant components would
be approximately 18-28 feet in height.
Redwood trees are proposed to be planted on the project site near Roblar Road, along. the proposed
access road, and adjacent to the proposed job office, equipment storage area, and parking lot: Domestic
and process water would be supplied by an existing on-site well DW-2. Sewagewould disposed of in'a
new on-site septic tank and leach field.
Initial grading would result in approximately 170,000 cubic yards of surplus material,;which would 6e ,
transferred to a stockpile on the upper portions of future Phase 2•and Phase 3~mining areas and reused
as needed for ongoing reclamation. As mining extends easterly, the mobile processing equipment would
be moved eastward into the quarry pit, ultimately being located at the bottom-center of the Phase 1 quarry
floor (250 in elevation) for the duration of the quarry operation. As the quarry`operation .extends eastward,
the topsoil and overburden stockpiles would be utilized for reclamation planting, and/or sold.
Surface drainage outside of the mining area would be captured in surface swales and directed to existing
natural drainages. Drainage within the mining area would be directed to a sediment pond, before being
tested for potential contamination, treated as necessary, and conveyed to storage tanks for reuse in
processing and dust control. All quarry floor drainage would be directed through the sediment pond.
The applicant's proposal includes an easement exchange under the Williamson. Act where the current
Williamson Act Type II contract restricting the 70-acre quarry portion of the site would be rescinded and'
immediately replaced with an agricultural conservation easement over a 243-acre agricultural property
near Petaluma. Cattle grazing would continue on the remaining 128-acre portion of the project site.
remaining under Williamson Act contract during all phases of mining.
Site Characteristics:
The 70-acre quarry parcel is located on a 198 acre site situated on Roblar Road, approximately 5 miles:
southwest of the City of Cotati and 10 miles northwest of Petaluma. The site contains an unoccupied
residence and several accessory buildings and is currently utilized for cattle grazing.. The 70 acre quarry
parcel is currently under a Williamson Act Contract, but was approved for phase out in 2005. The balance
of the property (128 acres) will remain under Williamson Ac:t Contract.
The 198 acre site surrounds the closed 50 acre Roblar Road Road land fill. The 70 acre quarry.would be
situated south of the closed land fill. The natural terrain on the site rises in a southlsoutheasterly direction
from its low point along Roblar Road (110 asl) to a high point of 600 feet asl. Slopes, throughout the. site
range from approximately 10% to 30%. Site f~~tures consists primarily of annual grasslands with oak
~ r
~ ice'
Staff Report - PLP03-0094
December 17, 2009
Paye 4
woodland on the northeast portion of the site and riparian vegetation along Americano Creek and Ranch
Tributary. A stock pond and a couple of wetland swales exist within the proposed mining area and
seasonal wetlands exist on the flat adjacent to Americano Creek.
Surroundlns~_Land Use and Zonln
Existing residences located within proximity to the proposed mining area have been identified through the
use of aerial photography and field observation. Approximately 45 single family residences are located
within a mile radius of the proposed mining area. The majority of these residences are situated to the
northeast and over a hill from the proposed mining area (Exhibit G).
Within atwo-thirds mile radius of the proposed mining area, there are approximately 31 existing
residences; 25 of which are situated to the northeast and five of which are situated across Roblar Road to
the. west. There are seven residences within aone-third mile radius of the mining area'and three .
residences within one-quarter mile radius of the mining area.
North and West: The 50 acre closed Roblar Road landfill, designated Land Extensive Agricultural 160-
acre density, is situated to the north of the 70 acre mining site and is surrounded by the 198 acre project
site. A 384 acre agricultural pasture with a house and a 17 acre poultry ranch with a house are situated
across Roblar Road to the northwest and are Zoned Land Extensive Agricultural 160-acre density. The
residences are approximately 1700 feet from the Phase 1 mining area.
South: Land Extensive Agricultural 160-acre density zoned land also exists on two southerly 368 and 388
acre agricultural pasture lands.
East: The adjoining lands to the east include two 40-acre parcels and one 11 acre parcel zoned LEA 86
60. The 40 acre parcel closest to the quarry is vacant. A residence exists on the 11 acre parcel, near
Roblar Road and three to four residences exist on the 40 acre parcel, situated northeast of the quarry. All
of the residences to the east are situated over a hill ar~d screened by dense tree cover. The nearest
residence is located approximately 600 feet from the northeast edge of the Phase 3 mining area.
Additional residential uses occur further east along Roblar Road and within the Diverse Agriculture 10
zoning designation.
California _EnYironmental uali Act CE A Process:
The Final EIR was distributed to commenting agencies on October 22, 2009 and a public hearing notice
was provided on November 12, 2009. The Final EIR, together with the Draft EIR, are referred to as the
EIR. The EIR provides an analysis of the project as proposed, alternatives to the project, mitigation
measures, comments on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments. The purpose>of the EIR is to~~~
provide the County of Sonoma, public agencies and the general public with detailed information about the
potential environmental effects of the project and the project alternatives.
The EIR analyzes the potential impacts of the project and project alternatives and provides mitigation
measures which are intended to substantially reduce these impacts. Mitigation measures are intended to
be feasible and exhaustive so that if the project is approved, there is a reasonable assurance. that the
implementation of the mitigation measures will prevent or reduce significant adverse environmental
impacts from the project. CEQA stipulates that public agencies should not approve projects unless all
feasible means available have been employed to substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
of such projects.
Prior to approving the project, the Lead Agency must certify the Final EIR. Certification means that the
Final EIR: 1) has been completed in accordance with CEQA; 2) was presented to the decision making .
body and that this body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR before
approving the project; and 3) reflects the.Lead Agency's independent judgement and analysis. The first
action to be considered by the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on
whether to certify the Final EIR.
12
Staff Report - PLP03-0094
December 17, 2009
Page 5
Section 15091 of the CEC]A Guidelines states that na project shall be approved for which a certified EIR
.identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the Lead Agency makes one or more
written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by the rationale for each fin. ding...
Section 15091 also requires that when mitigation measures are required, the agency shall .adopt a
program for reporting on or monitoring the measures which it has either required in;the:-project oc made a
condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects., These, measures
must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.. Each of the..
mitigation measures identified in the EIR has been incorporated into the recommended conditions of
approval with a monitoring program, as required by CEQA.
Section 15092 requires that whenever unavoidable significant impacts remain, the agency may determine
that those effects are acceptable due to overriding considerations. Section 15093. requires the agency'to
adopt a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons that oalweigti the
unavoidable impacts.
Proposed Project-Significant Unavoidable Impacts: The EIR identifies several. significant unavoidable
impacts for project with an annual production of 570,000 cubic yards. These impacts are:
• Impact A.1 -Effect of change in land use (introduction of active mining operations) on
compatibility with residential land uses in the project vicinity.
• Impact E.8 -Potential secondary impacts from implementation of certain off-site
transportation mitigation improvements (reconstruction and widening of the entire~length of Roblar
Road and Pepper Road between Stony Point Road and Mecham Road.
• Impact F.1 -Project emissions of Nitrogen Oxide (fVOx). -
• Impact. F.7 -Project contribution to cumulative regional criteria pollutants and Toxic.Air
Contaminanats (TAC's).
• Impact 1.1 -Substantial. alteration in the visual character of the project site and adverse
effect on views of the site from ,both public and private vantage points.
The following adverse impacts would be significant and unavoidable if mitigation measures identified
in the Draft EIR were found to be infeasible:
• Impact E.2 -Project contribution to Long-Term Cumulative traffic volume at the following
intersections during the weekday a.m. or p.m. peak hour, or Saturday peak hour.
-Stony Point Road and Roblar Road (south bound right turn lane).
-Stony Point Road and Railroad Avenue (signalization)
• Impact E.3 -Addition of substantial truck traffic to certain primary haul roads (Roblar Road and
Pepper Road, east of Mecham) that are designated proposed bikeways and/,or are regularly used 6y
bicyclists or pedestrians, and which do not meet current County roadway design standards..
• Impact E.4 -Addition of substantial truck traffic to certain .primary haul roads (Roblar Road and
Pepper Road) that do meet current County roadway design standards andlor contain limited sight
distance.
• Impact E.5 -Inadequate site access due to right of way constraints.
• Impact E.6 -Project contribution to the degradation of pavement on certain public: roads.
• Impact G.2 -.Project increase in ambient noise levels at certain sensitive'receptors on roadways
used to access the quarry (two houses on Roblar Road, west of the quarry) .
13
I .u 'qi i i
I ~ ~~ a ~ `W ~ I I~
•4
a , ~:~ , .
,. .
4i
Sta&f Report :- PLP03-0094
December 17, :2009
Page„ 6 .
A : ~'I n
i ~.:•.. wl.y
+ Impact, G:4 -Project contribution to iincrease in. cumulative noise' levels. at certain sensitive '
receptors o~n roadways used to access the quarry (two houses on Rgblar Road, west of the quarry):,
If the: County approves. the proiect,despite the identified significant and unavoidable impacts; the.,
County must state ttie'reasons. for"its, action in writing: This "Statement of Over"riding. Considerations" ~~
must be included in the record of project approval. .
' .. ~ ~...
Statement of O~erridlna Consideratfonsc A Statement of Overriding Corisiderations must be adopted ,
in orderto approve the~project or~;any alternative that 'd'oes not;mitigate,impacts to .less than significanf
.levels. As required°in. Section 15093 of the Guidelines; a Statement of Overriding. Considerations~sets
forth the Lead Agency's findings on the ultimate balancing of'the merits of a project against its
unavoidable environmental risks.'
Alternativesc As required py~~ he CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6);~alternatives to the proposed
proiect were developed and analyzed in the'EIR: The Guidelines stipulate that a range of "reasonable"
e selected for their potential to lessen the p'roject's
ed. The alternatives wer
sign fictant effectsdVbe evaluating tte applicant wi fs an o fthe r~o osa he Guidelines specifically state that
' hale proved ~ P 1 .
the alternatives m,, ay be a significantly reduced ve o p p L The three.criteria for selection are:
1) it meets many,, of the;;project objectives; ~ . .
2) it is a feasible alternative; and;
~3)'it avoids or reduces significant environmental impacts of the project.
While this report focuses on the environmental impacts from the proposed Project, a summary of the
alternatives and a comparison of associated environmental effects are summarized later in this report. It
is,im octant to note that Alter ed Sales Only) has' been
p
.determined to b native y(AltPrnative Haul Route/Contract condo im ,acts associated
red se ry p
with construction of thenalte native haul route comteared to ~meheomentat~on of proiect mitigation requiring
the widening and reconstruction of the entire'length of Rgblar Road.. For example project mitigation
requires shoulder vgid`ernng and likely road reconstruction of the entire,length of Rgblar Road and Pepper
Road 6etvreerr Stony' Point Road;and 11Aecham Road (approximately 9.75 miles) compared to 2 miles of
haul route construction under Alternative 2
AI be well enou loped to allow for meaningful
coin nanson.s The merjtsof the ah ;deve p e o loseldn~ro'ect and each other.
p It_
This'com orison is ernatryes are thegn coin aced to,the p p p 1
p summarized m the EIR followin the description of`each alternative: CEQA requires
that one:ofthe alternatives be a' No Project"'alternative: The analyzed altematives are:'
Afitern'a'tive 1,: Pig P~oJect =This alternative includes two versions: ~ .
~, ,
o Subse uent Develo meat -Under the No Pro of ~ o u s
1A Noy .. e
. ~ . ~ ,` Develo mrent Alternative, implementation of the,,proposed,,project would not occur: All'aggregat_ ~,
P
atenals ro osed to be 'V
;. reserves on~site, includrng~,the :estimated 11.4 million cubic,yards (CY) p _ p.. .
mined°'as,a~,result of the~projectwould instead remain in place, and all site characferistics would
.. remain'in their existing'condition.
roject -Reasonably Foreseeablei Development Alternative -Under the No .Project
Reasonably Forese'eabl'e Development Alternative, ,implementation of the proposed project would
not;occur, and,all;aggregate reserves on-site would remain in-place. Unlike Alternative 1A, under .
this alternative, iYis assumed the project site would be,developed with one or more of the land
uses permitted.under the existing zoning for these areas. Potential uses permitted under the LF_A
zoning; include rural residential use; raising, feeding, maintaining and breeding of farm animals, _
commercial agriculture, commercial stable, feed yard; fertilizer plant, or retail nursery. Some of
these uses require approval of a Conditional Use Permit:
,Alternative 2. Alternative~Haui RoutelContracted~Sales Only Alternative -Under Alternative 2_ the
permitted production rate would be'identical to that proposed under the project (570,000. CY per year) for
20 years. The mining approach and techniques,~ard location and design of all quarry related facilities
,. , ~ ~,.
~y~ .~
i b
l
Staff Report - RLP03-0094
.December 17, 2009
Page 7
(e:g.„ sedimentation'pond'snd .drainage~features, stockpiles), processing and mobile egwpment; and
staffing would' be identical to those proposed under the .project:. -
However,-, under~Alterriative. 2 ,100-percent of materials produced at tphe quarry would, be either directly
under~~contract The applicant wool'
used b the a plicant or sold im ose aul route restnctians). Under ,
uck fleet and:stl ulate` ( alt other~cu tomerstusinr the.
' the haul route Exhibit P)`in the contract required for 9 s
quarry (as, opposed`tocustomers being:allowed to;purchase rock without h ,
this alterriatiy oadeast ofuMecham~Road.tAs prev'ous y noted, Altem the 2blar Road; east of ;the quarry
:and. Pepper R " ~ , is the Environmentally
Superior Alternatlve. ~ ` '
The alternative haul route,would:initiafe within ttie southwest portionof-the prolect site, and. extend south
_._ . -
and off-road::from the; existing internal access road.for~approx~mately 2,10Ofeet to anii through adjacent
private property (Willson property Aeces's Road "1)' and`connect to Roblar~Road. The. entrance to Access
Road 1 woutd,be 'gated. at Roblar Road.. This~off-road segmentwould' consist.of'two paved 14-footvride
travel lanes plus drainage improvements on each side: -
The alternative haul route would'then extend westwaed along an imprgvecF and widened ,Roblar Road, fora,
length of approximately one mile:, This section of Roblar;Road would be improved ;to meetcurrent County
road.desigsn: standards, includin .:but not limited{to'two 12-foot wide-,vehicle.t_iavel lanes; two six-foot.
wide shoulders (as-well as assocated~striping/signage o meet Class'll bike:facilities). Moreover, the
roadway would be improded as~needed to meet pavement "structural requirements per Caftrans design.
standards. The roadway~would be~iealigned at~an existing "S-curve° on Roblar Road to reduce the
horizontal curvature' and improve site distance ai this location: Modifications, and/or,new storm drain.
facilities would also tie~required within or adjacent.to this section of Roblar Road..
..
- _ ~ ; pi ate- roe tVeve: roe for~~a roximatess Road; 2 would
The'altemative haul'route would then de art from Roblar Roa ad 1 Access :Road _ ,ouid~al'so consist
.extend"southwest~and oft-road through. pr_v p p rty ( Pasp rty)ss R PP .2 _A2 wy 2,100: feet'
between Roblar Road and=Valley- Ford: Road. As with Access Ro „ , ,
of two paved 1'4-foofvvide travel' lanes plus drainage,improvements<on each°side: Fr,,om this.point;°project
trucks'vvould°travel to/from the east on Valley Ford Road; Pepper Road (west.of`Mecham Road)', Mecham '
Road; and ~a' combination of Stony'Point Road, SR 1.1'6; Railroad Avenue. and/or Olii. Redwood'Highway
to%from l).S. 101.
The;potential benefits of Alternative 2 include the economic: benefit;of•minng,grsvel locally tq reduce. costs
of local construction.~;projects; including costs of local and regional road improvements, planned sand
funded. by tax Measure M overthe next°15 years: The~ma~orityof Measure ,M projects are ~ocated'within
central and southernSonoma. County. The addition of a,local source of high quality PCC- and AC-grade
aggregate: would replace the reduction in mining associated with fiormer terrace pit mirnng,:which is being
phased out,: consistent with .the ARM P-Ian. The proximity oYthe Roblar Quarry to urban areas; where the
majority of rock is often needed would .indirectly reduce air~~:quality, noise, :and roadway wear impacts from
importing and/or hauling-rock from more~distanf locations.:.
A roVatof the Alternative 2 with the requirement to.,,pay afar share contri
sPnalization of the intersections. of Stony Point Road/Roblar Road~and St nytPont Road%Rail oad Avenue
and signal timing improvements~~at Stony Point Road/Highway 116 and Highway 116LO1d Redwood.
Highway~virould' improve.LOS~~and safety at those intersections. Without the.contri6ution' of,this project and
other.;potential projects to the cost of the~road improvements; it°may not., be possible for `the state and
county to fund necessary roadway improvements. Recent: shortfalls in state and' county budgefs haver .
resulted in extended:delays in .funding road improvements, resulting in abacklog~ of projects, waiting for
funding.. .
Despite the removal`of°the'70 acre `mining site from a Williamson Aet~Contract„the applicantwould :place
a permanent agricultural preservation easement'~on'a 243=acre agricultural property. near Petaluma,. Iri
addition, Sin exchange for the Open Space District's temporary permission #o ,use approximately 4 acres of.-
_.
land encumbered by an open s,pace~easementfor quarry access, 'the applicant proposes:to place a
p ~ ~ over4he 1;98 project site and dedicate~the:land for potential future
ermanent conservation easement,
.public"use.. upon completion of mirnng: - ~ ,~ 5 ~ .
~ ui ~ '
I
I~ ".
I i•
~ ~i'
~~~._,
~~ •.. ~,
~i ~. _ I
~ n,
~, 1.,,
Staff Report - PLP03-0094
December 17, 20.09 '
Page 8
steconda noenv~ronm Iternafive 2 would result in substantially fewer potentially significant and unavoidable
ry ~ ental impacts than .the project by reducing road wdeningand reconstruction from 9.7.5
miles tot miles.
If the ,;Planning Commission determines that these benefits outweigh the significantand,unavoidable
p ~ 2, the Planning Commission could forward a recommendation: of~approvai to the
Boardtof Supterviso'rs with a Statement of Overriding Considerations ubject to the attached Conditions of
~` Approval;in Exhibit A.
Alternative, 3: Reduced P'roductfon (285;000 CY) I Reduced
Size (Phases 1 and 2:Footprint}Altematlve -'Under the Reduced. Production (285,000 CY) /Reduced.
Size. (Pleases 1 and 2 Footprint) Alternative aggregate production' at'the quarry would be restricted to a
maximum of 285,000 CY per year (half the maximum annual production proposed, under the project).
Correspondingly, the total volume of aggregate that could be mined at the quarry would'be 5;700,000 CY
over the 20-year use permit. For~purposes.of this alternative, it is assumed that only Phases 1 and 2
footprints would be mined over the 20-year use permit (i:e., no mining within the Phase 3 footprint would .
occur).
,;~ .,
. lWiti4atlon Monitorins~ Proprarte: CEQA Section 21081.6 requires that an agency adopts mitigation
_ monitoring program. to ensure an applicant's compliance with mitigation, measures identified in the EIR.
The EIR°recommends mitigations for each impact and monitoring activities for each mitigation which are
'''"' included in the project Conditions of Approval.
Mining Use'Permit/Reclamation Plan Process: .
ty 9 gy g (. )p signates the Planning Commission
The Coun Surface Minin and Reclamation O
as the decision makm God .::for surface mmm ruse Per'mss, e e t where: a concurrent rezoning is
r"eguested to designate the site with the NiR overlay zone, m which case the Board of Supervisors is the
acting body and the Planning°Commission is advisory. The MR~~overlay zone permits the establishment of
hard rock mining with a lJse Permit (Section 26-72-020 (a)(1).
The SMARO includes 22 general standards'for mining permits and operation 'requiring that projects:
1) Are consistent with the base zoning district
. 2) Provide adequate offstreet parking
~
. 3) mitigation:fees, obtaining
Limit traffic impacts,by keeping roads clean, paying traffic
encroachment permits.and providing safety signage
p~ 4) Control stormwater runoff, flood waters and'protect water quality
~~° ~ • ' °~ 5) Prevent contamination.of surface and ground water
~~ )
~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ 8 aterials
g
a
~~
7
)~°"' ~ edimentation "'
ion and s
Prevent eros
~
~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~
.~ ~ ~
~
' I'°reports
r
°'~~
°.
~
~~
9) ' I no se
Cont
,~
1A) Restrict hours of operation to 6 am to 10 pm Monday through .Friday and 6 am to 4:30 pm
=r 11) Saturdays
Ensure security of the site by providing fencing and warning signs and other measures if
necessary
12) Provide visual screening
13) Slopes and benches must comply with gradingstandards for mines
14) Stock, pile topsoil when appropriate for reclamation of the site
15) Control.ar emissions and dust
16) Avoid damaging cultural resources and train mining personnel on the nature and
importance. of cultural resources
~~ 17) Minimize, off-site glare from night lighting
18) Obtain any permits and approvals required~by other agencies having jurisdiction
^'N 19) Comply with the: State SurfacerMining+and+Reclamation Act and the ARM Plan and
•'° ' ~ reimburse the County for the operator's fair share of staff monitoring costs
20) Comply with Williamson Act requirements if applicable
,, ., , .
Staff Report - PLP03-0094
December 17, 2009
Page 9
21) . °Comply with. building and, health codes, and,
22). Avoid or mitigate impacts-to wildlife habitat,
The ordinance also includes `specific standards for instream, terrace and' quarry mining. The eight quarry
mining.standa~ds"require:
1) ~ A Use Permit period not to exceed 20, years,, and that the mining; permit-can be.eztended
by tfie Planning Commission for an additional: 20 ,years upon :request if there ,are no'
violations or'new environmental impacts,
~2) Screening from public roads'to`the extent feasible-
3) Maximum allowable working slopes as ,approved by a certified engin. eating geologist:and
in conformance with the. state reclamation guideUnes •
," 4) A setback, ofi'25, feet from' the MR zone .boundary, 100 feet from stream banks and
designated wildlife habitat.and 200 feet,from any residential land' use desighation'in the
general plan .
5) A maximum allowable import of 25%: gf the mateiials processed or sold per year;(for
existing quarries only) -recycling is excluded from this restriction'..
g) Provide proof of, aiiequate~water supply and.monitor ground water use forsites:in Water
Availability "zones tl l and`IY (thin site is zone l~
7 Minimize erosion a.nd sedimentation p
) g the su ervisi' of a licensed blasting pcofes"signal to
8) Conduct blastin activities under on _
minimize noise and vibration impacts to off=sate residential areas ,
Mitigation measures and :Conditions of Approval recommended for the p[ojec_f ensure.compliance with. the
ordinance requirements.. ,
A Reclamation. Plan, was submitted in conjunction with the Zone; Change/Use Permit application. in July
20 dace. M ninfeand Rec amaeion Qrdinance9 The omlponents nclude: County ARM Plan and' County
S 9 y
1) .reclaiming finished quarry walls by adding soil and replanting .with ;native egeta4ion at the
completion of each phase
2) regrading the. site after the mined rock is.completely removed,
3) replanting with approved native species; :and...
4) returning the site to agricultural use and open space.. .
As mmmg advances, the firnshed radi
q n ' of s
soil would be the minimum re wr safe copes would Abe"reclaimed so that'the total area of exposed
ed for 9 p ,y g ing is complete, the slopes
eration at an time. As ~ tad
would be terraced, bench drains would 'be. installed; and surfaces would •be covered with: topsoil and
planted with native vegetation. The project is required to meet ReclamaUom Rlan timing;.and` bonding
.standards established by PRMD and'the.State Depactrnent,of Conservation to ensure.that all final .
reclamation! activities take place: in a timely manner: Seep Issues -Section below,;for ananalysis of, the
findings required for reclamation;plan approval. lJpon completion of reclamation, the ;applicant intends to
rriake=an irrevocable offer of dedication of the"entire 198 sera, project~!site to the County::
DISCUSSION'OF'ISSUES
Issue,#1: General Plan""C'onsistency.
The project is •subject to the 1989'General Plan. (updated in 1.998) as the ;application was filed in ZOQ3 'and
accepted as complete-before September 28, 2007.
Land t)se and Agricultural resources: The 198 acre projectsite~is designated Land .Extensive
Agriculture '(LEA) 1'60-acre: density in the Land lJse Element of the General Plan: This.designation is
intended to protect lands for agriculture, but also allows surface mining operations, processingfacilities
related to resource product~on,`as well as incitlental ~eq"uipm,ent and materials storage consistent with t:he
17
' T~~,F~ ~ ~•) 4
~ ~ ~.
„...
~~
~.~.~~~ •
~~ ~~ ~„
Staff Report _ PLP03'-0094
'' December 17; 2009
Page 1'0 '
., ,•.
Aggregate Resources;Mirnng (ARM). Plan and in compliance with SMA. ey ,(CGS) as Mineral Resource
designated by the Department of Conservation California Geologic Surv O.. The mining site is :also
Zone 2b for PCC-, AC- and Class 11-Base-grade aggregate.
The`following Land.Use and Agricultural Resource policies apply to the site.
GOAL LU-B: Protect lands currently in agricultural production and lards with:'soils and other
cha'racferistics which make. them potentially suitable for agricultural use. Retain large parcel sizes and
avoid incompatible non-agricultural uses.
Oblecflve LU•8.1 t Avoid conversion o/ lands currently used for agricultural production to non-
agricultural use.
Objective LU-i3.4: Discourage uses in agricultural areas that are not compatible with long term
agricultural production.
• Oblectlve AR-8.1: Continue participation in the Williamson Act program.
L ~ ,
The project would not result'in the loss or conversion af,Prime Farmland,. Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Significance. However, development of the quarry would ,result in the permanent loss of
approximately 28 acres of the 70=acre: quarry site from productive range land. Of this 28 acres, only one
acre is considered Farmland of Local importance according to the: Department of .Conservation Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring •Program. The FMMP evaluates and classifies, the quality of farmlands
throughout the state largely based on soil suitability. -
~, ct,Conservation Easement on the 70-acre mining
The project would conflict with a Type II 1illiamson Q
' site. A notice of~non~renewal of the Williamson,Act contract on the 70-acre mining site was recorded in
g Wing a 9=year phase';out of the program. Consistent with the Williamson Act. Easement
2005 be in
" Exchange .Program, the project applicant is proposing a land exchange that would immediately rescind the.
"' 10=yearWlliamson Act contract governing-the; 70- acre quarry portion of the project site, while
concurrently Placirig a permanent'~agnculturaf conservation.easement on.a 243 acre° property located
,,, soutf'of Petaluma: The~243°acre easement exchange site is classified as Farmland of Local importance.
• The remainiri`g 128 acres of the projectsite would remain under Williamson Act'Contract and continue to
.. be used'for cattle grazing throughout the 20 year mining period: '
„, °Staff has determined thateonversion~of 70 acres to mining through an"easement exchange and
reclamation back to grazing land: is consistent with'the General. Plan policies calling for°the protection of
agricultural lands. •See fssues~#6'and #7 forfurther discussion,regarding onsite and offsite agricultural
„µ,,, .,, .` m .;, anal opin space conservation easement impacts related to the project and project alternatives.
r~FasOUGC@ C.on
~'' ~ ~ ' ~~~ ~ onser~ation of natu~al resources ncluding m neral resources, soils, water, forests t vegetation and wildlife,
''" ' 'fisheries and' pair: The~following is a summary of Resource Conservation policies that. are. relevant to the
• '' project, followed by a;-brief' taff response. These policy areas are discussed in greater detail under
iridividuaf Issues of this report.
RC-2b: Include erosion control measures for any discretionary project involving construction or grading
'°,'`a„ near. waterways or on lands with slopes over f0 percent.
RC-2e: Retain natural vegefation and topography fo the extent economically feasible for any discretionary
project improvements near, waterways or iri, areas with a high risk of erosion as noted in the Sonoma
. Caunty .Soil Survey.
1"~^~~~~ . RG-Bc Design public and private. projects to minimize daanage fo the'stream environment and to maintain
"' instream flows.
~.,,~ ~ . ~ While a stock pond and three small drainage swales would be removed' by the. proposed project, the ~°.~
,. 18
~,Pr ,.A •jr;,
.. 'r ..
Staff Report - PL-P03-0094
December 1 T, 2009 _
Page 91
ri anan ve elation aloe, the more substantial waterwa s, Americano Creek and Ranch tributary would
p ~ g g y
remain m tact:. Mitigation measures B.2b`, B.,•3b and C.2a call'far~revegetation,of therdisturbed areas,
installation of sediment basins to treat runoff; and development of a.Water'~Quality Protection Program,
including best management practices for minimizing-erosion:
RC-3a::Grading, filling and .construction sho_ u/d not substantially reduce or divert any st"ream flow that
would affect groundwater recharge.
;Project mitigation measure (C:5a) requires the applicant to continue a base flow monitoring.program to
establish.. and maintain base;flows:in Americano Creek~and Ranch Tributary so that the nafural,cgnditions
of the stream and groundwater recharge"is maintained'. In addition, drainage pattern"s and'infiltcation on
the 128 acre portion of the site, not affected by .quarry operations,. will remain.
RC-3b: Require groundwater monitoring: programs for all large scale commercial and indusfrial:uses~ using
wells.
A Water Management: Plan has been prepared for the prod""ect which includes a detailed~analysis>of the
water supply and demand for the project.. The plan includes tfie requirement .that a groundwater `
montormg aril adaptive mans ement ro ram 6e im lemented for the project.
g P g p
RC-3h: Require proof of adequate groundwater in .Class 111 and IV water areas: Require ~test~wells or the
establishment of community,' watersystems in Class IV water areas:: Test wells maybe required in Class
111 areasc Deny discretionary applications unless~a geologic report establishes that',groundwatersupplies
are adequate and will riot be adversely impacted by the cumula#i.ve amount of-additional ,development. •
-...
AWater Management. Plan was prePared'for the: project which includes ~a groundwater monitoring aril an ,•
g..
PP y. ~ ~ p hensrve waterbalance anal se and'. responds
adaptive manage9 ennpwateWSU h Prand demand~l1 A~come retina ement of water use/re ysis and a
groundwater pump tesgwdefS P ~ °f anon, sro ndwo ter seeaaere cnagement Plan. The Vllater•
Management Plan con ' p p' g p g Constant 20 gprn), and the use of DVV-2.
sustained um in as water sources. The plan, relies on the on-site storage.of 60,000 gallons•'of
(18.gpm) p p 9
water„and emphasises the reuse of water captured in the sediment
balance analysis, it is concluded that well DW-2 should be capable . ponds: Given `the detailed .water
• of cyclical andLor sustarned•pumping
.rates. to meet the`waterdemand of~thes~qu_arry despite seasonal fluctuations: They rnoniforing grid adaptive
management plan would. ensure thatground wale"r levels are allowed to rechai=ge;'so that :potential impacts
to groundwater•resources n'the area. remain less thane. Significant. _ ,
. and~endangered spec-es, wetlands, and other~biotic resowces not indicated on
RC-6b: Protection for rare
Figure OS-3,on page 185 shall be accomplished. through•compliance wrth°.applicable•state:and federal.law.
GoaF RC-11 Provide for' production. of aggregates to,irmeet local needs and contribute the County's share
of demand`in the North Bay production-consumption region. Manage aggregate;resources,,totivoid
needless resource depletion and ensure that, extraction results 'in the fewest environmental impacts.
Obiectlve RC-1:7 9: Use the-Aggregate Resources Management Plan :to establish, priority areas
for aggregate production and, to establish detailed~policies, procedures; and standards' for~mineral
extraction. •~
Oblecttve RC-'11.2: Minimize and mitigate the adverse environmental:etfects of mineral
extraction and reclaim mined lands.
The following' policies; in addition to-those in the Land Use;Element, slialf'tie used fo carry out these .
objectives:
ourees. Management, Plan (A'RM) as
RC it as Consider lands designated in fhe,Aggcegate Res
p •h, p nd mineral extraction. and review requests for
non sites for aggregate. production a
..additional designations forconformity with tha general plan and the.ARM plan:.;
19
~... n.N
., . .~ ~L•
,,~ ..,,
,,
'„ ,.
~~ ,
l~ ~)
Staff Report -•PLP03-0094
December 1'7, 2009
Page 12
RC-11b: Review projects for environmental impact and land use conflicts and consider the
following minimum factors when approving mining permits:. topsoil salvage, vegetation,
fisheries. and wildlife; impacts, noise, erosion control; roadway conditions and capacities,
reclam"ation and bonding, air,quality, energy„ consumption;. engineering and geological
surveys, aggregate supply and replenishment, drainage, .and the.need for economicaC .
aggregate materials.
The site is a non site; fora re ate production as :designated in the ARM Plan. Based on drilling and
~~, p. .ty 99 9
testing conducted by theapplicant, a 113.acre area, including-the 70 acre mining site has;been designated
by;the Department of Conservation California Geologic: Survey(CGS) as Mineral Resource Zone 2b for.
` PGG, AC-.and Class II -Base- rade aggregate: The ARM Plan encou"rages local productioh of
a re ates to rnarntain affordable ncin Based on the Coun s a
~ 9 errace pit mining; ,City and County growth projections overthe ne nual production reports, the reduction
xt 20 years, and. planned
. infrastructure improvements, there°will continue to be a demand for a>local.source of aggregate. As
discussed herein, the project and, in particularly the Environmentally Superior Project Alternative 2,
conforms with Resource Conservation policies by permitting mihing while reducing environmental impacts.
RC-t3a: Require that commercial and. industrial development=projects be designed to minimize air
emissions. Reduce direct emissions by°decreasing the need for space heating.
~~
. As noted in the Issue. of Air duality below,,. the project would utilize PG&E~ electricity to power the mobile
°~ processing plant instead of using a diesel generator. ~ Project mitigation requires the applicant to utilize
20.07 model engines or'newer on site equipment and that all quarry owned haul arucks and haulers under
contract with. the quarry operator utilize 20`03 model or newer trucks.
In addition the project is required';to implement a comprehensive wind: monitoring.and dust controC
program, which among other'things, includes the suspension of dust generating activities in areas where
wind speeds exceed 25 mph.
,, ' Open Space: The site is not located along. a designated scenic corridor or within a scenic- landscape unit
or scenic corridor Neither is;, the site designated on General Plan Open Space or Resource conservation
fy p ical re
. maps as containing a maior riparian corridor, or critical habitat opro~tec on of sources. The project EI,R,
p g riparian habitat, wetlands,
and habitat for number of sensi ive animal apeclies that courldhinhabit the site. In, addition, the EIR requires
` native. tree planting and addresses potential impacts to Open Space, District lands by identifying the. need
,,,,, for securing~.permanent agricultural and open space conservation easements over the project site.
Clrculatlon and Transit: The following Circulation and Transit policies are relevant to the project::
~. ~ ~„
minimize disro radical, locate and design improvements and'new circulation and transit`facilities !'o~ 1'
C3' 1 k ~lNhe Pron ofneighborhoods and communities, .disturbance of biotic resource areas, destruction
ru
P
of'trees,. and noise impacts.
Project.Mitigation requires the improvement of haul routes to meet current County road design standards,
• ~ including but not limited to two 12-foot wide vehicle travel lanes; two six=foot wide shoulders, and
- associated striping%Signage to meet Class II .bike facilities prior to the initiation of mining. The widening and
"' possible reconstruction of~~Roblar Road and Pepper Road., east of Mecham Road (approximately 9 miles,
I, would, result in potentially significant and unavoidable secondary impacts in the areas of land use and
~~ agricultural resources,' geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, hazardous materials, biological
„, re"sources, transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, aesthetics; and cultural resources.
~~ ~ As previously noted, the Environmentally Superior Alternative-2•(Alternative Haul Route/Contracted sales)
would substantially reduce .thee amount ofrequired road widening and possible reconstruction of haul
„°; '~, routes from approximately 9 miles to 2 miles, Substantially reducing the secondary roadway construction
impacts and eliminating haul truck noise and ofh'er impacts to the residential communities situated on
Robla~ Road, east of the quarry and Pepper Road, east of Mecham Road.
.20
.~
Staff Report - PLP03-009.4
December 17, 2009.
Page 13
Oblec4lve CT=2.1:, Reduce co.ngesfion onthe countywide highway~system by,maintaining a "C" level of
service or better on designated arterial and collector .roadways unless-a lower level "of service is shown ,on
Figures CT2c,and CT-2d on pages 2,89.- 291, a lower level of seniice's determined'to beacceptable due
_..
to environmental or commurnty values existing m some portions' of the, County, or the. project(s) :which -
would cause'the lowerlevel of service hasaan overriding. public b'eneft which=outweighs the, increased
congestion that would result. •
CT-2a:. Use the levels of service shown •on Figures CT-2c and CT-2d on pages- 289 29.1' to
determine whether°or nat'congestign is exceeding the desired level of service on the° countywide.
highway system. Use area and%rproje`cf`traffic anafyses~to determine whether~intersection
impacts or other•localized congestion may also,'affect these desired levels of service.. -
en afunding m_,echarnsm is.aya~lable for
CT-2b: Assure that: new development occurs only wh
~m rovements needed to achieve these levels of service~specified in'CT 2a'above. !f the Board'
. p
.determines that a project wilt provide-srgriificant; overriding public" benefit; the project may-;be .
exempt from this requirement. • , .
CT:2et Primary~cesponsiblity for;fancJirig int®rsection, right-of-way, and other needed localized
improvements. not identified'as.part of the countywide"highway system belongs to indiyiduel
projects.
These Generaf Plan policies refer to roadway. co'rr'idor L' QS ,rather than intersection ° :O.S which:is the focus
of most of the ".analysis of fkaffic impacts in'the EIR: All of the. roadway segments are expected to meet 4he
General Plan corridor lOS` standards", except for Highway T01, which was addressed in General Plan
2020 and overridden.
For the; purposes'oftlie Draft EIR analysis, if~the LOS at_an intersection drops below L,OS D it~would be
consid"ered'a significant impact reguiring,mitigation. Under Near=Term Cumulative~Base;plus Project
conditions,".impacts to 1:3 study intersections .evaluated fortheproject"are less than signfcant, except'for
the intersection of Stony Point Road and Roblar Road; where, impacts can be mitigated, to~ les"s'than
sigrnficant•with.the in g 'g _g y ty calls for the applicant to
p y stallation of atraffic si nal .Draft EIR Miti anon"measure E..1 ro'ectunty has.
pay a fair share a menu toward si nalization of the intersection b the Coun The Co
completed"the preliminary design and environmental review for the signalizatign p ~
(See issue. #9 Transportation and Traffic° for revised timing of signal installation). „ '
Under Long-Term (2027)".Cumulative°l3ase plus Project conditions the projectywou_Id increase delays by
more than five` seconds at the'intersections of Stony Point Rgad and Roblar Road,, Stony Point Road and
Railroad Avenue;,.Stony Point Road, at-SR 116; and.,SR,116 at Old, Redwood Highway; which .would be
signifcant impacts at these four intersections: Mitigation measures includeahe installation of a
southbound right=turn lane at the intersecton of"Stony.Point Road/RoblarRoad, a_signal of Stony'Point
Road/Railroad Avenue, and the payment of a fair share contribution; toward improv„ed signal timing at
y ~ Id, Redwood Wighway. Since; the installation of'a~southbound
Ston Point RoadISR 116 and SR 116 and O
dedicated right turn lane'at Stony Point Road/Roblar Road ~may1 involve acGuisition~ of right of~way and is
,..
not cdr,rerntly within the scope of .planned and funded: improvements", this:mpact is considered potentially
significant and unavoidable; until.. such time as the improvement is ,in place., In "addtion;'tfie°signalization of
Stony `Point: Road/Railroad Avenue is not.currently planned or funded; therefore; ;the impact would be
significant and, unavoidable. until such time as the: improvement is made.
CT 2k:.7he County may'requ~ce•correction of potential safety deficiencies (approval...
' rol devices; intersecton alignment) prior to, or as part of„ project~nadequate road. width, lack of
raffrc cont.,
`' , that avement stren I th iindex and rima, .haul routes meet current County
Prolecfimifigation also requires; P rY.
road design'standards, including a p 9
n establishes noise~thcesholds to de
Noise: The General Pla -
usm the thresholds in.Table NE-2 (for noise termine land use~conpatibUty The project
was`evaluafed g producing land uses) and policy NE-1b.(for
21. ..
.,,.
. - ~ ~`^.
Staff Report- PLF03-0094
December 17, 2009
Page 14
„~, ..
~, irim, I
,.~.dr
,~M
;,..
t
noise due to traffic on roadways). See Issue #11 below for an analysis of noise impacts:
Issue ~2: ARM Plan Consistency
The Aggregate Resources section ofthe 1.994 ARM Plan. (Figure 5-25) identifies the project site,as a . "
potential quarry.(see Exhibit D): Therefore, no amendment to the ARM plan is necessary to add the MR
zoning to the site.. As previously noted, the 70 acre mining site has been designated by the Department of
Conservation California Geologic Survey ,(CGS) as Mineral Resource Zone 2b for PCC-, AC- and Class II-
Base-grade aggregate. _ ~ ' „
The establishment of a quarry at this location would meet ARNi Plan goals of encouraging the local
production of aggregate to reduce construction costs while minimizing environmental ,impacts associated
with hauling rock from more, distant locations. The primary demand for aggregate in the County has
historically come from the more urban areas of central and southern Sonoma County {68% of total
demand from 1981 to 1990). This, trend has continued over the years and will likely continue over the 20 .
year life. of the. quarry based on City. and County. growth projections and planned .roadway infrastructure
improvements funded by tax Measure M over the next 15years. For example the'Measu~e M strategic'
plan includes major Hlghvray 101 projects extending from Rohnert P,atk and through Petaluma to Novato.
In addition, 9 of the 11 local streef prigrity projects tb receive funding from Measure M are located in either
central or southern Sonoma County. The project would' also `meet a majoi` objective of the ARM plan by
m Hangs Iln addition;the projecttwou d avo d a~numbe ~of s gnif cant impacts identified in~t t to terrace pit
he ARM` Plan
EIR, while incorporating many new project specific mitigation measures #o minimize. project impacts.
~ °' ' The ARM Plan calls for a road. maintenance fee mechanism to.be established as mitigation. The. nexus.
between maintenance needs and .heavy trucks has been well established in engineering literature and
design practice and more recently in a study prepared by Economic and Planning. Systems entitled
' "Aggregate Hauling Impacts on County Roads". When designing roads to accommodate. loaded
aggregate trucks, it is necessary to provide increased :road base depth, lane widths and turning lane
"'`.'" radius. Mitigation. measures E:6a and E.6b included in the EIR require that the developer conduct core
` sampling on primary haul routes to test existing roadway structural conditions, reconstruct roads where
. „ necessary, and enter into a Roadway Maintenance Agreement',with the County. On November 10, 2009;
. ~ the Board of 8upervi"sors adopted a road ,m'aintenance mitigation fee of 10 cents per ton for aggregate
operations to offset a portion of the costs for road repairs. Conditions of approval require the applicant to
pay this road maintenance. mitigation fee on an annual basis..
As discussed under the Alternatives Section below, Alternative 2 (Alternative haul"route/contracted sales)
. would°substantially reduce. potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts associated with
the widening and possible reconstruction. of the.. entire length of Roblar Road and Pepper Road, east of
~~.
,, .
,., _ g sistency with ,the.
ARM P an by permitting a lofcal sour e'lof aggheg to productionVwhile heduc ngrenv ronmental~impacts.;
Issue #3 Petaluma Dairy Belt Plan Consistency
The. Petaluma.. Dairy Belt Specific Plan anticipates a potential quarry on the project site and stipulates that
development~of mineral. resources within the area will require consistency with the ARM Plan. The project
', is consistent with the Specific Plan as the site is designated as a potential quarry and the project would
comply with ARM Plan standards. The Specific .Plan does not contain any relevant project specific policies
. ~ that would be more detailed than existing ARM Plan or General Plan Policies.
'~~ ' Issue #4: Zoning, Consistency
The property is zoned LEA .(Land' Extensive Agriculture) 66 - 160 acre density Z (Second Dwelling Unit
Exclusion), VOH (Valley Oak Habitat). According to the MR Combining District mining may be allowed in
the LEA Zoning Districtwhere consistert with the ARM Plan,and subject to issuance of a mining .Use
~~;' ~ Pemit, approval of a reclamation plan, and compliance~with`the County's Surface Mining Ordinance.
Y~ ,.
u ~ - ~ ~~
Staff Report - PLP03-0094
December 17; 2009
Page 15
The County SMARO limits hours of operation to 6 a.:m. to 10 p:•m. unless otherwise "restricted in the Use
Permit. Proposed hours of operation are from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m: Monday through Friday and.7 a.m. to 4
p.m. on Saturdays, but he applicant would also dike to' operate until 1;0 p.m. as necessary'to meet
evening(righttime construction demands. Staff recommends. that the permit hours be limted.to no later 5
p.m., except under special circumstances as~approved by PRMD. ~ '
In order to grant a •Use'Permt, it must be determined that the establishment, maintenance or, operationpof
the use~will',riot under'the circumstances of'the particularcase be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
comfort orgeneral welfare of persons residing or°working in the neighborhood or to: the general.,welfare pf
the area..
Staff has determined that the Environmentally Superior Alternative 2, (Alternative Haul Route/Contracted
Sales), aswconditivned complies with SMAR'O and, would not: under'the circumstances of the particular
case be detrimental to the health, safety, Peace, corrifort>or general welfare of persons residing or~°workin, g
in the neighborhood or.,to the general welfare of"the area, d®spite the: iridustriat character of the use.. the
circumstances. in the parbcular case are: there. are few residences located within immediate proximity to
the Quarry acid the Alternative ~2 haul route will avoid the residential communities situated on Roblar Road,
east of the -quarry ,and Pepper-Road, east of Mecham Road; visual screening will be provided, hours, of
operation are limited~fo 7:00 a.m. to 5 00 p:m. Monday'- Friday and 700 a. m: to, 4:_00 p:m: on Saturdays:
e~ approved b PRMD, noise morntonng -will occur and, mill aption provided;', advance notice
unless otherwis Y g
of blasting activities is required and:blasting may only: be done underthe~su ervisign of a licensed blasting
p ~ vibration impacts; haul routes are reg9 red to meet Counpty road design
rofesslonal to minimize noise and
9
reau~ ed Scomr liancetwith alrl felasib n fees. are ceguired; a wind"monltorin and dust' control rogram is
' le Air Quality Control Board regulations is requited,; and a water
q ~ - p I has. been
mar%agement plan, detaili ,rig project:mitigation related to water quality and groundwater supp y
provided.
There is no apparent reason that h, a entire 198.76 acre°site, needs to include the MR zoning°overlay. Staff
recommends •that the,MR zoning only apply to the 7Q acre quarry site~arid~ a 25`,foot wide buffer around the-
quarry (AP.N 027-080-009) to meet the mining. setback requirements from the.MR bourid'ary.
Issue. #5: Findings required for Reclamation Plan Approval
The SMARO requires the following findings for approval of'a mining reclamation plan:
1. The: Reclamation Plan coin lies wit
2772{requirements ;to submit and contents for m~rri Wing and Reclamation°Act; (SMARA) Sections
h fhe Surface Mng and reclamation plan) and 2773 (financial
assurances), and any'otherapphcable provisions.
Comment: Several Conditionsof Approval require modification to the Reclamabon Plan to bring. it into.
confoemance with.the project's Water Management Klan andto include the submittal of costoestimates
and financiata surances for reclamation. The permit"will nbt be vested until the Reclamation Plan is
revised. to address these`items: '
2. 'The. Reclamation Plan som lies with applicable requirement's of''state regulations,(CCR 3500-
p
3505,, and Section 3700-3713 (state regulations; pglicies and: star-da~ds for mining and
reclamation plan).
Comment: County requirements for reclamation plans ,are generally more°stnngent and :address the. same
considerations as state re ulations: Topics covered iii state regulations include erosion;, water quality,
9-
revegetation and financial, assurances. The project reclamation plan, by' complying with the County
SMARO, will also cornPli,es with state regulations. .
3. The. reclamation plan will restore mined lands consistent with the Sonoma County General Plan,.
ARM Plan, and any otherapplicable specific plans: or re'soucce plans.
Gornment: The Reclamation Plan proposes to reclaim the site to agriculture and open space, which is
23
w, i
i
r. r ,
., _ ~..-,
` Staff Report = PLP03-0094
December 17; 2009 .
Page 1't3
' consistent with the General Plan.Land.Extensive:Agriculture.landuse designation,. ARM plan,, and
"' ' ` ~ Petaluma Dairy Belt Plan.
..~
4: The reclamation plane.-has been reviewed-pursuant to CEQA and the County environmental review-
guidelines and all signi>rcant adverse impacts from the .mining operation and the reclamation
~„ ~ activities are mitigated to,~the ..maximum extent feasible.
Comment: The projectwould-.result in several: potentially significant impacts as noted below, and-would
'`'` significant unavoidable curnulatiVe impacts. Gonditioas"'ai-e proposed. to minimize iniPaets to
contribute to
xtent feasible.; Recommended Alternative 2 wou
' - the~maximum°e' ial ~ c . o Id sureste'en Ith oduce the secondary
impacts related~`to the widening and potent' reconstru lion f the a t` g Roblar Road and
Pepper Road; eastof.Mecham:
5. ~ The land and/or resources such as water bodies, to 6e reclaimed wip be restored to a condition
that is compatible with, and.blends in with, the surroundingnafura/ environment, topography, and
other resources, or suitable off-site. development will compensate for related disturbance to
resource values.
Comment: An remainin overburden or stock files wiil.be rem
P g q ry P g oved arid/or`regraded to mimic natural site
conditions. To soil will be t?blized on uar slo es fog reve elation. The. sediment basins will be
reclaimed as stock ponds and drainagepatterns will be adjusted; to mimic natural conditions. Ultimately
,~ the site will be restored to agriculture and:oPen space. In addition, the temporary loss of grazing on the 70
~° acre quarry site will be, mitigated by creating a permanent agricultural conservation easement on the 243
acre agricultural easement exchange site. _
~,
mendatr'ons and ob'sct~onsa County decision-making body is at variance with the
recom' the decision of fhe Sonom raised by the State-Oeparfinenf of Conservation, findings have
~ ,
been ado led to explain'the reasons why pecifc comments and suggestions were not accepted.
r P
Comment: The Department of Conservation did not have any comments.on the Draft EIR; but`has asked
' " that .the mining`reclamation"plan be'submitted for their review in.accordance with the"Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act. A revi'sed' reclamation plan will be submitted!: to the Department of Conservation .and
,~ theiFcomments will be responded to by,PRMD prior to final approval..
"' As conditioned,;,the~ Reclamation Plan will comply with the above requirements.. Staff recommends that the
Plannin ance with alt are I c ble lawshand regulations as mod'fied b a ontditi ns of a d rovalt to tie in
con form I PP ~ ~ 9 PP ,y PP
' „ Issue'. #6: Land Use and AgriculturalResources
' Th ~ concludes that the prgject's impacts to agricultural resources would be mitigated to..iess" than;
si a EIR
""' ` ' '" ' ~ 'gnificant through'a'Vltilliamson Act; Easement Exchange, but that the change in land use would be
..9. .
determ nnat on i uravoidable d'ue ;land use conflicts with .residential land uses in the project vicinity. This
s based, on the proposed. establishment of a large scale quarry on a primarily undeveloped
rural site"currently utilized as grazing and the collective environmental effects of the quarry (e:g.,
~° ~ -aestheties,~truck traffc; noise, air quality, hydrology and water quality, and geology and. soils). ° The EIR ,
specifies mitigation measures in each of these areas as noted below to reduce impacts where feasible.
Issue #7:' Williamson Act Easement. Exchange
The project would conflict wth.an existing Type II Williamson Act contract on the: 70-acre mining area.
Therefore, the project.applicant isproposing a Williamson Act Easement Exchange. The Williamson Act
Easement Excchange°Program (WAEEP) is a joint°agreement that is voluntarily entered into between the
property owner and.ahe' local government, and subject to approval, by the Director of the Department of
Conservation and the. County. ,This program is authorized pursuant. to Government Code Section 51256,
which, establishes a number of safeguards to assure the exchange will result in the protection and '
enhancement of agriculture. Under the program, rescission of the Williamson Act contract is exchanged
24
A ~
Staff Report.- PLP03-0094
December `17, 2009.
Page 17
for the ovrner's creation of a permanent agricultural conservation easement overother lanij.locafed in
Sonoma County, not. already under contract, m lieu of actual payment of~the cancellatwn fee.
Consistent with the Williamson Act Easement Exchang®'Program (WAEEP), `ahe p;rojecf applicant intends
to complete an easement ezchange:that would immediately rescind Elie 10-year Willamson.Act contract.
governing the 70 acre:,quarryportion of the project site,'whileYcpncurrently placing a permanent:agricultu~al
conservation: easement on a-243 acre, property located south ot:Petaluma at 77Q0' and 77.50 Lakeville.
,,
Highway (APIVs 068-,130 OQ.1 and -008). The 243` ac~e,easement exchange' site~is classified a"s° Farmland
of t_ocal importance. In addition to th'e' easement exchange; the: remaining 128 acres :of the project site
would, remain under a Type II Williamson Act Confract'and the. quarry site •would be reclaimed to:
agriculture and open space~upon"completion of mining: The remaining;128,acres,of the project site,
ed"to re es! and the,W liamson Act,., including.thtract, meets all requirement for the~cont~act, under
propos der a T, pe II V11illiamson.Act co at it melts the minimum 10'acre. size and 'it will,
the [County Ru ] ,.
continue~to 6e devoted to agriculture,
The easement exchartige is a separate; but related application that~will be: brought to:the Board for-
subsequent action. Prior to future approval of the easement exchange by the~Boacdof Supervisorsahe
Board must make specific findings required under Government Code 151282, (cancellation), Public
Resources Code 10200 et seq.. (agriculture conservation easement); and Goyernroent.Code 51'256
(easement exchange).
It.appears thatthe Board will'be able to make the required findings in that 1.) ;cancellation: is for an
alternative use which is consistent with the General Plan. and~'notice of nonrenewal .has been served; 2)'
the proposed. easement exchange site is expected to~continue to be utilized for. dryland oat hay :..
producEiori, is.large enou h to continue in commercial agriculture production, and the applicant.has
h the. urchase o ~ ease
_ _ ' an ability fo carry out, p. P g . p q ry site ament exchange site;
and 3nth`e easement exchange site_ is over: osal throw the size of the uarh 5%, Of t d it appears, that the
) p p to or greater than 12. he cancellation
value of the ro osed conservation easementes equ l n
valuation of the wand subject to the confract.to be rescinded: ,
Issue.:#8: Haul route conflicts with Williamson Act'contracted'iands
Ian sun e
Pro'ect~ g ~ q g widernn"~.of Roblar.Road~woutdaffectoff~it ord~Road anr~W~IlaimsonAct,"
~ mite ation re uirin .the g " •
Contracts on all lands abutting 'Roblar Road from the ~pco'ect site to Valle F d'on one parcel
.o
abutting Roblar Road,;: east of the proposed quarry. Similarly, the Alternative ~2 Haul R ute would also
affect off-site lands under"Williamson Act:contractafrom therproject site"to Valley'Ford Road. The amount
of land :affected by the Project haul route-and Alternative 2 '{Alternative Haut Route) is approximately the
same.
The Environmentalty,,'SuPerior Alternative 2 (Alternative Haul .Route); as recommended by staff,. would
re wire°haul route im rovements affectin a narrow stri of la
q nd underp3' se arate 1Nilliamson Act:contracts (2nd for:approximately 2~ miles; approximately
8 acres of la p 'acres undera Type"I and 6 acres under
Type II contracts).
To be 'allowed, :nonagricultural uses on I'and under a 1Nilliamson Act contract musf:be~listed„as.a;
„. ,
"compatible use in the County's' Rules and Regulations for Administration of Agricultural Preserves" for
the ty' pe of preserve involved, and'must'be consistentwith the Williamson Act's "principles of compatibility"
listed in Government Code §51238..1, subdivision (a). The principles of compatibility are:;,
(1) The, use wiN not significantly compromise the long-term productive,:agricuftural capability
of the subject contracted Parcel or parcels or on other contracted lands in agricultural
preserves;
,; •
(2)' .The use will not significantly displace.or impair current or'reasonably~foreseeable _,
agricultural ,operations; on the subject` contracted parcel or parcels:or on other contracted.
lands in agricultural preserves., ..:and
25
_ _
y
,_
~v
_ ,
„
- ~~ ~ „
. ,.
' Staff: Report '- PLP03-0094
pecernber 1'7, 2009 ,
~~ Page 18~~
.,.
. ~ (3} The use wilt not result. in the significant temoval•of adjacen# contracted land from
,.
agricultural or~open-space use. (Govt. Code §512;38:1, subd. (a):)
~~
Si:aff has determined that'the Alternatiye,:2,hauf route is consistent with the Williarnson:Act's priniapaes of.'
~,. ~ ~ compatibility;.. listed above, .in that, the haul:route would not significantly, compromise.the long-term
~° productive agricultural:capability of the contracted. parcels or other contracted lands; 'it would
not significanttydisplace or impair;current'.or reasonably foreseeable agricultural operations on
., „' the confracted ,parcels: or other,contracted lands;; and it..would'~not result in the significant,removal
of adjacent°contracted land.from;agriculfural or open-space use. Continued grazing on the Wilson
- Properties (through which Access Road 1 would extend) and, (through which Roblar Road would be
,;
' widened would not be h~ndered. The Neve rope throw P which,Access Road 2 would extend) is
P p rtY ( 9
' utilized as a lant nurse However, the develo meat and o eration of Access Road 2 would. not disrupt
„' or hinder continued agricultural operation of those facilities.
' Staff has determined that-the affected lands are .currently in compliance with the agricultural production
requirements of their.respective Williamson.Act contracts. The County`s Rules for both Type I and Type II
preserves, list quarrying operations;. not including crushing or other refining of .raw,: materials, as an
'' allowable compatible use on contracted land. Therefore, the temporary access roads and the widening of
aP mile section of Roblar Road under"Alteprnative 2 can be considered incidental to the agricultural
o erations antl a com atible use. The im rovement of, Roblar Road;and the new access.. roads would not
,~ only provide access to the quarry; but would imProye,,access, to agricultural uses in the area., Staff has
' ~ ~ - determined' that the proposedAlternative. 2 haul route isconsistent with the County's V1lilliamsoo Act Rules
' and Procedures' for Permitting under Williamson Act,contracfed lands in. that the' proposed. rgadways
„, would be compatible and clearly incidental' to~the primary" agricultura~'and' mining uses, .the roads would
not occupy or isolate more than' 5 acres of land on ariy separate ,contracted land, and they would not
.- .,
,, significantly displace. land in agricultural production or cause significant loss of prime agricultural soils:
,~ . _ ~ ,
Issue #9: Open Space District Easement - Alternative: 2 HaulRoute (Access' Road-1)
„,.
As' described in the Alternative 2 haul route description,: the. land comprising Access Road 1, and a portion
. ~. of the land adjacent to and/or along the algnment~of.the proposed improved.section of Roblar Road, are
~~ currently under~arr agricultural conservation easemer-t vrith the County Agricultural and Open;Space .
~~ District (part of the'700-acre Roblar Ranch, pg: IV.A-19 of Draft EIR).
Under this alternative,. the applicant proposes to enter into: an agreement wth.the County Agricultural and
Open,,SPace District whereby the District would temporarily release its conservation easement on
approximately four. acres (encompassing the extent of'Access Road 1 and adjacent area to the: north on
the Wilson „property that would be-cut off andisolated by Access Road 1); 'in exchange for a permanent
open space conservation easement and offer of dedication of the,entire project`site (198 acres);
he uar site, the a licantwould reclaim theawo rivate.off-road
As art of the`reclamation,of,t
N p ~ ~~ I q rY ~ PP ~ .. P. ;haul„road . .
g - reasrto~their natural condition. Upon restoration of those meas., the applicant
~•~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ se meats'and ~resto~e~~,those:a
would release'its easement over the,fouc acres on th ro e
"~"~ y ~ ut;compensation a copse anon e'aseme (Access'Road,1) "and the' property'
while th4 t over the four'acres to the District:
Cansequen~y~conve erehwould, be a,ternPorary net Igss~of approximately°:four acres of land within an
' Open Space ~Distnct~rconserva_tion easement along the alternative haul route (Access Road 1), there:would
R , ultim gtelyry pa;c°) palande1ermanentl in rotected1 in lain agrc Itueal conservat on eas and ultimately the 70
acre ~ uar arcel in p y p ement.
_~~ „ ,
"' Issue:#10: Geology and Soils .
~~ Recent geological/geotechnicai evaluations.were conducted by John H: Dailey, Consulting Geotechnica!
En ineer Oai1e 2005. Dade conducted subsurface ex location, laborato testin and
analysis on soil. and rock samples. from the; project site (Dailey; 2005), a'se smic analysis engineering ,
on the proposed
.~- ., ~ overburden stockpile slopes (Dailey, 2006); and supplemental„analysis of rock slope failure mechanics
and slope stability at the quarry'site (Dailey, 2007),-Dailey also :completed apreliminary geotechnical
evaluation of the site in October 2002 (Dailey, 2002). Miller Pacific Engineering Group (MPEG)
~~ , 26
e o
~~
Staff Report- PLP03-0094
December 17; 2009 . -
Page 19
provided additional subsurface exploration data'from a'resource;mvestigatio'n completed, in, 2004
and reviewed. work by Dailey for the Preparation .of fhis'ElR. They combined MPEG and _Dailey
subsurface exploration includes seven deep. borings drilled to ;approximately ten.feetbelow tlie~~
proposed .:quarry floor (a drilled depth of up to about 250 feet), 'five shallower borings up to 56
feet in,depth and,'.12 test'pits'. excavated up'to approximately 17'feet:
The EIR, found that the project's geology and soU impacts can. be mitigated to: less than significant: levels:
Based on:. the geologic data reviewed' during the preparation of the Draft EIR, he potential` geologic
hazards are localized slope stability, seiamic~haiards, and excessive erosion.. Other potentially
geologically hazardous conditipns, namely settlement, subsidence; and:expansive soils were found..not"to
present a potential liazard'at :the project site.
The project components will be designed: in conformance with the. best standards ~fo~ earthquake
resistarce.,in accordance with. the California Uniform~Building Code. The'irn,plemeritation of mitigation
measures requiring; eompliarice with; the County Surface,;Mining°snd Reclamation Ordinance (SMARO)',
engineered cuts and "fill`s; :engineered on-site .drainage and storm water management facilities, replanting
of disturbed areas, arid. monitoring by the•project~:geotechnical engineer are required to, reduce impacts ,to
a cess than significant level. ~ ~ '
concern re ardor conclusions drawn rn re ar
to s ome stabiln Drar~tiEu arSn conside at on of`ground water and seismic conditionstof the site, rncludingd
' ~ ~ unh`am Fault~.and the ad'acent closed landfill: Other comments raised
the resence of'the`.Inactive. D 1
p ~ ce of naturally occurong asbestos within the subsurface bed
concern with a resumed~presen ~ ' _ ~ ~ .,_ rock
materials at the site and associated Air Quality. impacts: As noted m the Draft EIR, there vras extensive
..- - : .
evaluation of the geology, of the site, including sulisurfaee exploration. It;was .concluded that the geology
of the site does not contain asbestos bearing_`rock~. See.lssue. #1,0 Air Quality below: regarding Master
Response ~AQ-2, which further addresses public commenf,regarding the ;potential for `ericouritering'
naturally occurring asbestos on the'project site.,,
Response to Comment K.4 explains that Impact„8.,1' in the Draft EIR discusses the': possibility, of lope
failure dunn an earth, uake. and Irn act B=2 discusses the factor of safe anal sls conducted o
g ~ q p .: ~ ..,_ and:
9: 9
R 1. ,. p g_ ._ T . ~ , tY Y r the
ro'ect~, which.:ipnocludes reasonable, assum tions qn rher ~ norev dencelthat the andfill or the Dunlham
structure: Res nse to Comment K:5 reiterates that t
fault would infl.uence'the .flow and/or pressure'exerted' by groundwater on the walls;.of~the quarry;;
Issue #11: Hydrology and Water Quality ~ '
The Draft EIR.found that`.the project's hydrology,~and~water quality'impacts can be'redused to less than
signifcant levels .with required mitigation. In'summary, ..the project Draft EIR identified the "following
impacts and mitigation measures:
a: 'With the-removal of'topsoil,. and overburden,'there would be an inerease'in runoff;resulting in the.
potential for increased. peakflows irfo'Ranch Tributary and Ame"ric;ano Creek; downstream
flooding,, and excessive bank:erosion., Additionally; groundwater seepage from quarry
excavations could' increase runoff from the site. Tar reduce impacts to a'less than significant;
Mitigation' Measure C.1, and :C:3 caU for the establishment of baseline. creek flow data, creek.
9 v.
stage monitoring, and aAstorm water management system to insu6e discharges° (including
grouhdwater seepage)~:do not exceed pre-prgject,baseUne flows,(~i~cluding~flogd even't_s)..
Stormwater sediment ponds, which would also serve as retention basins; 'are included in the
:project description.
b. As a result of grading and'ongoing quarry operations, there is the; potential for polluted, runoff
'from tfie projeet5ite in the form of sediment; that could result in surface,water``impairment. The,.
project includes she eonstructgn of surface drainage swales and; a sediment pondto convey
and retain stormwater from the site:. Draft EIR Mitigation. Measure C.:2 requiresthe
incpude a Sto'~m Water Pollu ionlPreventCOn Plari:9The Sto ~gned: by a Professional'Engineer„ to
~~ rmwater Pollution Prevention. Plan is
27
,i - ,~
ii - ~ ~,
I ...I , , ~~ N p.
Staff Report - PLP03-0094 ~ '
December 17; 2009"
Page 20
required `to"incorporate. best management. practices. to minimize discharge of pollutants in runoff: '
. - The:collection and analysis of water samples are to~6e reported in ari ann, ual report of storm.
water management activities. If storm,water,monitoring uncovers~decreases in water quality,
the operator may be required to employ additional measures fo reduce pollutants to pre-project
"""'` levels.
1.
. ~ c, The excavation of the quarry, could cause, groundwater contamination from fhe adjacent closed
~~ ~ landfili'to enter-the quarry-as`-seepage and enter°Ranch tributary and Americano Creek if not
properly contained and. treated. In addition., water in the supply wells could become
contaminated. Due to'the anomalous groundwater chemistry results in monitoring well MW-2,
~~~~~" and the potential for cross-contamination that may have occurred during the original installation
of the on-site monitoring wells, Mitigation measure C.4a called for the replacement of MW-2, the
` addition of a new monitoring well MW-4, and redevelopment of the remaining monitoring and
production wells (MW-1, MV11-3, DNV-1 DW-2).
It is noted that the above mitigation measure has been implemented as part of a Comprehensive Water
.Management Ptan developed in the Final EIR Response to Comments and other mitigation measures
have been amplified as noted below.
" Draft E1R mitigation measure C.4b requires the implementation of a quarterly groundwater .
sampling and monitoring program. Mitigation Measure C.4c_ requires ground level monitoring to
measure changes in .gradient: If`contaminatibmis identified in a Production well, ;the well is to be
taken offline while a treatment system is designed and installed, (Miti'gation .Measure C.4d)
Should water collected in the~quarry be contaminated, Mitigation Measure C.4e requires it to be
treated prior to use: '
,;, d. Grading and quarry operations would alter approximately 30% of the.Ranch,Tributary
,,,,,, watershed, which could decrease'the base flow, in.Ranch Tributary arid'affect flows in
~~ ; . Americano .Creek: The design' of the draina9e plan to, include measures to replace potential
' ~ base flow loss due to quarry operations would reduce These impacts#o less than significant.
• e. The Draft EIR assessed the potential that the use of two existing on-site wells could impact
",' neighboring wells by causing periodic drawdown or lowering of Iocat groundwater levels. The
Draft EIR concludes that this would be a less than significant impact in that the area.influenced
. l'y pumping domestic.wells DW-1 and DW-2 would not intersect the area of influence of
" neighboring domestic wells because the onste wells are either 1)'fec enough away, and on'the
opposite side of the groundwater divide from other wells drawing from the Wilson Grove '
• Formation (as ih the case of well DW-1 or 2) drawing supply from water held in deeper bedrock
fractures ~exglusively (as in ;the case of well DW-2). As noted below, Mitigation Measure C.4d
~~~~ . '' ~ was~;revsed.in the Final EIR„eliminating the use of'domestic well DW-1 given iYs proximity to
~~ ° ~~ v, ~ the closed Roblar landfill.
',, Comments on Draft EIR: a number of public comments were,raised during the public review period
requesting-additional detail on a range. of project water supply, water use' and water management issues.
The Final EIR'. includes;three Master Responses regarding Hydrologyand Water Quality"and
provides additional detail on the "amount of water that would be required for operation of the proposed
.. ,.
,, ,, project, including that°which would be required for dust control, the ability for the applicant's production
,, wells to provide groundwater for operations without adversely affecting nearby domestic wells, and the
" . potential foccontaminated groundwater that mayentetthe quarry as seepage or be drawn by proposed
waoter ctonta nementr momto rnly and aminated surface water runoff, to reach adjacent creeks, despite the
• g treatment facilities proposed"by the applicant and addressed in the
Draft EIR.
As described in Response to comment HYD-1, the applicant expanded.andrefined the proposed
managemenfof water ~esources.by preparing a comprehensive Water Management Plan (WMP) which
describes the proposed methods and facilities for managing the various sources of water for the project.
Major components of the WMP include a water balance analysis and preliminary designs for a Sediment
28
Staff Report - pLP03-0094
December 17, 2009
Page 21
y g g Pi? measEhe W_MP
Control and Treatment S stem, and an on-site water stora a system. Whe ,
p p and is' desi ned to 6e consistent: with the m~ ga licable res: id nctions i:n
incorporates or ex ands u on, ti anon u
'the Draft .EIR.#or addressing ,potential hydrologic ~amd water quality impacts. Some.important dis
between the WMP'and the planoriginally proposed by°the applicant:are as follows:-
• Qnly surface water runoff occurring, on the ,project site.outside the quarry footprint; or well water .
and water collected within the quarry footprint that is,.datermined through morntonng to "riot~contain
Creek,; any w_ Ti•ibuta and/or me tr
volatile organater that must beOtreated for VOC~removal would be I mited to re use onsite for
_ r' Bated
-quarry operations. (e.g:, dust control, processing, irrigatign, etc:) (i.e., no discharge of any
-water to creeks).
•' production Well DV1L=1 would not;be used,as a water source for any quarry=related, operations due
to its proximrt to the ad'acent closed landfll proPertyY'(groundwater supplywould' be limited t_o
.~Y 1
V11ell D11V-2)':
• Additlonat onste water storage would. be created withahree 10;000-gallon°tanks_for thestorage of
water:from production well DW-2' (30,000 gallons total) and~three• 10,000-gallon fanks'forthe
temporary`storage of treated water (30,OOQ gations~total), if contamination water is detected.
Project water demand estimates: are conservatively revised to account for higher allowance for'
• water allocated for dust.control taking. into consideration windy conditions-'in the area ,It~isynoted
that the' revised water demand estimate :overstates Project.water use, as it assumes water for
dust;control at the.project site would be applied;at'the same rate over the course of~a day rather
than a variable rate;depending on wind conditions.
• Astep-drawdown test of`Well DW=2 was performed'to provide ad'ditiona nforration regarding, the-
capacity.fof the on=site production uvell to, supplement:water required to:meet the project water
demand. Results of the festmg indicate that 1Nell ®W-2 should, be~capable of sustained' pumping
g 9p p
rates that rate the. um5in5 scenar~o contained inrVNNlpfrom 10 to:100 days or longer and
accommod _ p p 9
• The WMP includes implementin,g•a more~detaled:gcoundwater level monitoring and `adaptive .
management .program when the;projectbegins.°to pump groundwater for quarry operations from
Welt OW-2'to' ensure that well pumping would not.not result^in excessive drawdown:
Several:comments expressed concern that the closed Ro61ar Landfill could be the source of contaminants
detected in monitoring data presented.in :the Draft EIR. and requested additional information regarding
groundwater.quality. Master Response;to comment HYD-2 describes the on going groundwater
_ .
_.. .
monitoring program being conducted for the project; -2)' expands.the detail about ttae analytical' resu is o .
the monitoring program; 3) presents additional _groundwate~ data that: has `been. gathered since~pubUcation
of the' Draft' EIR;. and, 4j compares the contaminant levels to :pertinent regulatory thresholds established
for groundwater quality and discusses the relevance of these comparisons..
To date fiye±monitoring^easureaC 4 aeandSSelven bounds of ground watelr semplbin~g have ocDc uredl(two
Pursuant to Mite anon
since the publication of the Draft'•EIR). Analysiu we evidence that VOC conpam nation fo me Iv f b
installed to~ replace well MW 2,_provides concl _s - , 2 a°uea' m ,
UVell MVV-2 is not'present in the' formation. Redevelopment' of V1lells> MW=1 MW-3 "and DW Y pp red to
•
have effectively reduced the"VOCs previously detected m tlaese~welts. The EIR concludes that'the trace
concentrations of`VOCs`found on the project site are 6elow• regulatory drinKing water standard and are
not indicative: of groundwater migration from beneath the landfill:
The response to comments affirms the~Draft~ElR"s"conclusion that'tr..ace metal concentrations found'n the
' the project°site~apPear"to be naturally-occurring background levels•and,notes that'll
groundwater beneath.
is not uncq,mmon for naturally=occurring concentrations of some metals.to exceed'the~established,
Maximumcontaminant level (MCL) when-considering; the geology of'the-region. ,-
29 _ y
a~ ~ '
dl
~~ ..4
l
~
, d ~ .,.
... .
Staff Report -'i'LPQ3-0094
December 1'7; 2t)09
Pag® 22
.,
.'
g P p :
su nethspucce dueaolQtgM oximi gto the cltosed Iandfllltsite..dMltlgationllMeasl shall not be utilized as a
pP y p ty ure G:4e requires the
implementation a more detailed and rigorous sampling, analysis, and treatmen4 program for runoff;
sediment, and supply ":water. For example, the sampling of wel! DW-2 is required' every 24 hours during
non-det of'sustalned' or cyclical pumping and only well water and stored aurface water that tests
enods
ectabl® for VOCs would beu"sed as needed, ,to maintain base flows in Ranch Tributary (i.e., no
water re uirin .VOC treatmentwould,b® di'sctiarged'taRanch'Tributary).
q 9
Master Response HYD 3 was also, prepared to' respond to comments expressing concern with the viability
of Using onsite groundwater production wells for'supply and concem "abou4~the long-term effects of
groundwater pumping to nearby private supply wells :Some cdmments asserted that a pump test"should
be performed to determine "whether the.onsite wells proposed for supply were capable of providing the
adequate supply without causing excessive drawdown.
with res ect to the effect of'` ro;~tot change any of the conclusions previously reached in the Draft EIR
These pproject.refinements.wpou'd n groundwat®r pumping to neighboring wells. As-discussed above, a
pump test conducted in support of ;the WMP demonstrates,that Well ~DW-2 is capable of sustained
pumping. for a range of pumping: rates and durations', in' conjunction with the proposed water storage.
Furthermore; he WMP's groundwater monitoring and adaptive management program would
identify long term. trends in water level changes' in the quarry site wells: and adjust pumping
practices as necessary.
fi'
Issu® #12: Departmen4 of~ Health ~Servlcea (DHS) and Transportation and Public" Works (TP1N)
"I Correspondence RegaMing Pofentlal Groundvdatek Contamination.
Thee: Department of Transportat[on and, Public Works has submitted a letter dated .November 16, 2009
`, expressing concerns~with pote~tiat:aiability if the proposed quarry°were to tlraw contaminants from the
closed_Roblar Landfill. A~ftached to the letter'is an independent~~Professional geologist's analysis of the
°"' groundwater°!monitoring dais collected for the project: The" independent:. analysis concludes that the~landfill
" is not the source of trace VOCs detecfed in: groundwater samples collected from the quarry monitoring
" wells. The DTPW has prepared draft conditions of approval requiring the applicant'to indemnify the:
County°.from any and all~liabilities and losses that relate to migration or threat of migration of contaminants
from the'Roblar landfill as a result of `the Quarry project.
~~
°' The :Department ,of Health'Services EnVironmentai Health Division is the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)
°" for the County. As such, they have the responsibility for overseeing land°filLoperations and closures. Due
'concerns with potential impacts to the landfill," they submitted a letter dated November 4, 2009
flow for or additional information regarding geologic conditions and the deep components' of groundwater
string
",; ,, th'e quarry. After further review of the Draft EIR and Response to Comments document, they have
"' ' ''`'written. another letter°dated"December~2,2009, where they have determined .that additional information'is
no Ion er need
mon~tonn dat ed However, the have asked: that conditions of a rovai r wre tem foe the r rev ew.P A
a collected accordin to Mite ation Measure C,4b be forwarded to th
has also been mclu
draft; condition farted' in `the"; uar dad requiring that the LEA: be~contacted withmg 24 hours., should .
_~ u• ' g q ry ty 1 ould
a conditionehas been~mcluded req nnn'that9u ells•actividdcease nnareaes ad!acent'~toathe landfill sh B.2d,
destab~lizatlon of the~landfill occur.
Issue fi93: Biology
_ Biology" impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation. A' portion of the site contains
Amecicano Creek Viand Ranch Tributary; how_ ever, these;waterways would not 6e disturbed from the
project. A°stock pond and threedrainage swales leading to Ranch Tributary exist within the mining area
and, would 6e,permanentlyremoved, resulting'in the foss of'wetlands and~wildlife habitat until such time as,
the property has'6eerr fully reclaimed. The Draft EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation
'~'~~'~ ~~ measures:
° ~~ a. ' The project~could disturb jurisdictional. wetland and riparian habitat on and off-site. The
^,
Staff Report - PLP03-0094
December' 17; 30Q9' .
Page 23'
appropriate delineation,,avoidance, •preservation, and' replacement.of wetlands.as. .
required by permitting,agencies~would~mitigafe impacts-to--less..than significant:, ~.
b: Project`construction woiald,impact•a cluster of 9, oak.;trees. Other oak.ttees:could be ; .
. impacted:if not pcotected_tluring;the removal_and.placement of-overburdenMitigation .
measures: require.,thatta certified.arbocf§t mventory:,existingtr~es to be saved and
removed and provide recommendations fortree preservation, replacement, and:> ,
r.
montoring~consistentwith County.ordinance~'to reduce impacts to°less.than significant.
c. The-project could, remove~known habitat for tha red''=legged': frogs and potential tiabifat for
foothill yellow-legged.,frogs and;;northwestern:yond turtles .:The; implementation of
measuresrta minimize and'avoid:,the; take:gf~special.status`speces through'fornal;
consultation.with lJnifed States'Fish~and:lNildlife°Se[vice and,issuance of'a~Biological
Oprio~n wilt ensure impacts are reducedFto less than-significant:
d, Project construction could disturb-active riesfs':of raptors,or~other,special-status:birds~and
owl burrow ; ~Preconstruction; surveys shall be conducted°artd.ng-disturbance buffers;
shall be established, for. active raptorriests and other special-status birds if construction
.:occurs during the breeding season ,(Feb: 1 through>August 31).: AaunreY for burrowing
owls~~shall~also.be conducted before°the~.start of'construction on each mining phase, to
.. .
document and mitigate' potentiat impacts to' less than significant:
e. :The project could result in direct impacts„to the Amencan; badger and the loss'of annual
grasslands ahat• support this species:-.,Preconstruction surveys, avoidance,,°and:'refocation
if necessary are required before,thestart of construction on each mining phase to mitigate
potential°impacts to less thane ignificant
1 ,-
f. Pro"ect,construction and. remodeling or:,denolition of existing-ranch buildings could result
in th,' a loss:,of active roosts for special=status bats.:A:qualfied..biologist is;,required: o
perfgrm a bat:survey and. estabtish'a no-disturbance buffer around;activeroosts~during
the breeding season-as-necessary~prior to construction activities to.reduce' impacts to less
than, significant: -
g. linproper quarry or grading techmquescould result in adverse impacts,to surface
hydrology and water quality'of on-safe and, surrounding drainages;. which may impact
. special-status fish species known to occur downstream of'the project site. 'Mitigation,
measures discussed above under tiydrol'ogy:and 1Nater ~uality.would reduce impacts to
less than significant.
.. .
Comments; on Graft EIR a,couple of comments ask thatrthp:possble presence of California Tiger.. .
Safamandec {GTSf not bey dismissed due to breeding sites identified' in the area:
As dscussed'in the Draft- EtR, aquatic surveys for .CTS were conducted on the; prglect_site ,by the
applieant`s-biologist as part of a Biotic Assessment., The assessment and.supplemental report from Dr;
Fawcett did not identify.the;presence of:"CTS. The Draft:ElR. acknowledged that in'March 2007, as part of
a biological°review'of another project, a CTS' breeding site;was identified approximately 1.1 mile northeast
of thee.. quarry property. Given that f riding, l`JSFWS. protocol-level aquatic~surveys .were,.conducted -:for CTS
on the .quarry ;project site (and' adj'acentalternative 2 `haul route,alignment):~~The 2007 protocol, survey
..resulted in negative findings, supporting theyprivr fndings that~CT$ are in=all'likelhood absentfrom
potential b"reeding habitat on the quarry project site and the•Alternative 2 haul route. Furthermore, CTS
breEding~ has not risen identified in other nearby;potential b"reeding ponds.. locatedjust~easf and west of the
:quarry site:
Issue #14 Transportation: and Traffic
The Draft EIR eva,_luated traffic`impacfsalong all primary ,haul routes; which include:Roblar Road; Valley
Ford Road; Pepper Road, Mecham Road, Stony Point ,Road ;and Highway 116.. `The Draft:ElR also
31
~ _ ~~ ,'
r „- ~,
Staff ,
;Report PL'P03-Q094
December 17, 2009
,r ~ Page 24
' ~ ~ 9 Y • g ry ~ y traffic volumes were
,, evaluated~impacfs ap13 stag intersection (Idca; d alon `puma haul routeeav htruck trip. Currently, all
adjusted to reflect`a Essen er~equivalent PCE of; r3 passen ercars for.1 h
n ~ ~ ~ ~ of the study intersections are functioning at Level. of Service (LOS) D or better,, except'the intersections' of ,
' Stony Point Road at Roblar Road (F during the a.m. and p.m. peak)-and. Stony Point Road at 116 (E in the
' p.m.• peak).
,,. ::
" ° On average, the .production of,570;,000 cubic. yards peryear (2,260`cy per day,) would result in an average
• of 151 truck loads, or 302 one-way truck (rips per day,,.. However, the .maximum daily production rate of
' ' 3,600 cy of aggregate: was used to:determne the project's effects. On, a peak production day, the project
would generate approximately 240 truck loads perday, or 480 one-way truck trips.
.. They Draft EIR conservatively assumes that 60% of the projectaruck'traffic will use Roblar Road west of
the Quarry and up~to 40%•would,use Roblar Road eastof the quarry.. The project haul route would also
' include the use of Pepper Road,. east;of~Mechain Road.
~~ ~ .. ~~ ,
The following summarizes the~pro~ecf impacts and Mitigation Measures identified in-the Draft EIR:
' a. Under Near-7erm.Cumulative Base plus Project conditions;, impacts to ali 13 study
intersections are-either less thansignificant or .can be mitigated. to less than significant with
the installation. of a signal at the intersection of Stony Point Road and Roblar Road. Project
~~ 9 includes the project's fair- share, payment toward the installation of the
miti ation measure E.1
signal by the County prior to, the initiation of. mining..
,, The d environmental review is completed forthe~planned'installation of'a traffic
p ry g
si nalratthe ntedrsectton of y blar"Road. However; i etallation has-been delayed
,~ •g Ston Point Road and Ro ,.
'.~ ' due to Department of Transportation and Public Wprks,fundmg pnonttes. Th refore,'if the project were to
be approved, mitigation measure E:1 vrould.need..be modified to require the applicant to_fully or partially
fund signal installation, incase the l7TPW is unable to completely fund and install"the signal prior to the
commencement~~of mining ., Ifthe~ applicant were to pay. for signal installation, they may tie eligible for
partiaf'reimbursementthrough a reimbursement;agreement.
Y` n 'P ( ~ aul. Route) is approved, a fair
It is noted that if the Environmental) Supenor Alternative 2, Alternative H ,
share payment.tovrard the future signalization of Sto y oint Road and Roblar Road intersection would be
se the near term impacts at this intersection would be less than significant because haul
adequate becau,
truck traffic would not use Roblar Road at this intersection.
; b. , Under .Long Term (2027.). Cumulative. Base plus Project conditions the. project-would result, in ,
' ~ potentially significant impacts at the- intersections of Stony Point Road/Roblar'Road, Stony
Point Road/Railroad Avenue, Stony Point RoadLSR 116, and SR 116/Old.RedwoodHighway:
"~ g y e
' '' ~ delays bymore than five seconds . Mite ation measures .include th .
due to an increase im
. ,; _~
,, " ' installation of a southbound right-turn lane'at the intersection of Ston Point Road/Roblar
` Road, a signal at`Sfony Point Road/Railroad Avenue, and~the payment of a fair share,
._
~' ~on toward improved signal timing at Stony Point.'Road/SR 116 and•SR 11'6. and Old
Redwood' Highway. Since the.in'stallation~of a southbound~dedicated right turn lane, at Stony
Point Road/Roblar''Rgad may involve acquisition of right of way and is not currently within. the
°' scope of planned and funded improvements; :this impact is considered potentially significant
and unavoidable .until such time as the.improvement is in place. In addition, the signalization
of StonyPoint Road/Railroad Avenue is not currently planned,or funded; therefore; this impact
would' be significant and unavoidable until such time as the improvement is made..
'~ c. The project,wou.ld"cause a substantial increase in truck traffic on certain public roadways
~''' ~ (Truck Haulroutes on Roblar Road and' Pepper Road, east of Mecham Road) that are
designated' as proposed bikeways, and which do' not meet current County roadway design
',
standards: (including paved shoulders of sufficient width for use by bicycles or pedestrians).
' ~ . To miti ate im -acts, the applicant. shall improve the entire length of Roblar Road and the
9 I?
segment~of Pepper Road, east of Mechain Road (9:75 miles) to meet current. County Road
design standards. However, since the widening of Roblar Road would involve the acquisition
:r
32
,,
„ , ~~
Staff Report - PLP03-0094 ,
December' 17, 2009
Page 25 ,
of land outside of County'ovrned.right-of=way,,which may„not be feasible; this mpact;would be
. potentially significant and unavoidable until such time as improvements are; made.
s previousl ...noted, Alternative 2 would substantially reduce .the amount of required road, widening, and.
a y
possible- reconstruction of haul routes. from approximately~9,75 "miles.to. 2 mile"s, which w,.ould avoid.
significant and .unavoidable impacts related to traffic safety hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists..
identified for'Ehe project. Alternative 2 would alsq'elimnate haul truck:no_ise and construction irimpacts:to
__ .
the resident~al~communitjessituated on Roblar Road, east of the quarry,. and,Pe;pper Road, east of
Mecharr~ Rd. - ~- ~ -
Truck.traffic associated with the project;would contribute to d'egradatio_n~of`pavement.on
public roads. To mitigate these impacts; the applicant shall tosf roadway. structural'conditions~
on primary haul routes andimprove theme.. as necessary, (e g ov.erl"ays;:and/or reconstruction)
si n Stan ar
g ds. Whife thls~miti ation~measure is henroact, it is .feasible
p _ _
er Caltrans De75 miles of `Haul route reconstruction required with t p ly nfeasi6le as it
relates.to the-9.
and required under Alternative 2 (2 miles of haul .route construcbon). The pplicant shall also
enter into a Roadway.Maintenance Agreernentwith.Sonoma Countyproviding the project's
proportjonal'fair share of maintenance of tKe `proposed haul routes:
Issue #15:` AjrIIuality
Project-related air qualityim,pacts fall into twg categories fugitive:d'ust impacts due fo processing. of quarry
material and other on-site operations (unpaved roads;.: handling and;. storage, blasting, wind erosion)', and
criteria pollutant impacts due to the increase yin: heavFy equipment and haul ;truck (on-site and 'off=site)
traffic. Analysis of emissions'contamed'in the Draft;ElR represent`the worst case daily emissions
assuming all' quarry operations, (including processing, :non-road equipment and haul trucks) are
simultaneously occurring; thus; the values. (and, their contribution to the Air 8asin,and. County.)' represent
very conservatively a~igh estimates.
The Draft EIR has'evaluated criteria pollutants accordingao established'tVational Ambient AirQyality~
Standards (NAAG]$s) and California Air'G2uality Standards (CAAQS): NigAQS have been established, for
ozone (02), carbon;monoxide (CO);, nitrogen dioXide (N02) sulfer dioxide:(S02)., particulate matter'equal
to or less than 10 microns (PM10); particulate matter less, Phan 2:5 microns .(PNi2.5); ..and lead (Pb).
The Draft,.EIR also evaluated the_ emissions of`Toxic Air contaminants (TgCs) which are pollutants that
mpacts: are evaluate
.are associated with acute, ..chronic, or carcmo ernc effects. TAC i ~ greenhouse
lished to address risk to human health.; Furthermore, based on the
BAA~MD CEQA.thresholds estab
gases. (GHGs) are°evaluated m the Draft EIR according toy current_ legislation, which among other things,
sets target. dates for reducing~GHG emissions and sets policy framework for the California Air Resources
Board (CgRB) to adopt a.sfatewide GHG:emissions;,liinit and a regulatoryprogram.
In summary, the Draft EIR found that:
a. The proposed~•project=would generate.emissions of criteria pollutants (PM10, NOx, ROG, and
CO) orr the project site and along haul .routes. Project-generated emissions, of ROG, and CO
would be ,less than significant..,Projectconcentrations of C.O and DPM Diesel Particulate
Matter would also be.less'° than signifcant. ~~
Project emissions-of RM10 would be aboxe the applicable significance threshold, butwould
be mitigated, to less than significant by implementing Mitigation Measures F.1a-F.'1d. below.
...
Proje"sf,emis5ions of Nitric'Oxide (NOx)would be above the°applicable s~gnificanee threshold
and result insignificant and'unavoidable impact for daily erriissions of NOic in 2007 and 2027
,and annual NOx,in 2007, despite the following mitigation measures'; However, these
mrtigation? measures would reduce the annual emissions of`~NOx in 2027 to, less than
significant:
Mitigation F.1 a-F:1 d ,requires the: following;,
33
1: Use of'-electnci
,, „ 2. Use~of 2Q07 m dmstead. of a diesel generator to ,operate equipment.
elengines or newer for om=site loaders, dozers, rock: trucks and water
trucks.
. 3. Require quarry operator/owned off-site haul trucks and to the extent feasible;-all off-site
~ . ` haial`trucks that would be under contract with'the quarry operator to utilize 2003 model
or newer trucks:
•
4. • Irriplemenfation'of aformal comprehensive dust control program.
To reducegravel Processing, dust, all processing' equipment, including jaw crushers, deck
~° screens!, conveyers; cones, and stacker belt ends would be fitted with water lines which
° p. produce a mist'overthe• materials. Additional dust control would be provided ,through use of
baghouses on the processing equipment.' The applicant proposes to sprinkle internal access
roads as needed, install a tire, scraper at the quarry°exit and• truck scale, and install a fire wash
area at the exit of the quarry.
b. Due to fugitive.,dust,impacts and Ibcal increases in pacticulatermatter, the dust control
program is further°:refined by Mitigatiin F.4,.whch'°among°other things, includes increased
watering for dust control when wind speeds exceed `15 miles~per hour and suspension.of dust
generating activities when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour.
c. The project, together with anticipated cumulative development in the County; would contribute
to cumulatively, significant and unavoidable impacts for certain regional criteria pollutants and
toxic. air contaminants.
Comments'on Draft EIR A~ number of comments received on the, Draft EIR requested additional
~~~ information and data on wind conditions inahe project site•vicinity. Other commenters indicated the dust
°4 control. Ian identified~in the Draft EIR should be enhanced; including incorporation,of'wind monitoring.
P
Several comments expressed concern regarding the'p~esumed presence of naturally occurring
asbestos within the subsurface bedrock materials at the site.
~~ Master Response AQ-1 Master Response AQ-1 describes general. wind patterns and provides available
data on wind conditions in the area, and uses this wind data to estimate:when wind conditions at the
project site would trigger specific.ihresholds, and provides, expanded mitigation. measures. to further
°' 'nimize project generated;du"st, including implementation of'a wind-screening and a wind monitoring
mi
' program. ,
~~ '' The most comprehensive wind` data available- for the project.area is the wind record collected by
the BAAQMD at~'its Valley Ford meteorological station, located approximately six miles`westLsouthwest
" gf'the~ project, Site within the Petaluma Gap at 50 feet above, sea level (asl).~ Response to~comment AQ-1
' ~ includes~~a new. Figure'ACl 1:1 which shows five years of wind `speed and wind direction data taken from
y
Ih I ~ ' d' meteorologcal'station: Response to comment AQ-1 also includes a new7able AQ 1:1 •
' the Valle For "~
' ~ ~ ~. ~ " ~ ° 'which `shows average wihd'speeds~ by hour of day an'd month. ~~ ~ '
~.,
Aacreenmanalysis of the wind data. from the Valley Ford meteorological station°was conducted
9
to establish a " " ~ al, indication; of when winds at the project -site would be most likely to exceed
' ,gener
` ft'e lower-vend threshold (i.e:, 15 mph) established in Mitigation Measure F.4 in the Draft EIR for requiring
'' greater dust;control the proposed project. A-wind speed of 15 mph (roughly equal.to 13 knots), falls into the
lower half of
Therefore,. ththe 11 to'17 knot wrnd.syeed -ran a sho 9n y 1 and Table AQ-1.1).
e analysis conservatively assumes a, rou hl 7 8 percent ncrease in wind speeds from the
Valley'For'd meteorological Station to the pro~ech site. Further, assuming the ratio applies at higher wind
`, speeds, wintlsof 25;rriph at the;projectsite would:-correspond to 'a wind speed of more than 18 knots at
` the Valle Ford meteorolo ical station, a s ee'
' fre uency in which Quar " o er`at'tons wou d ne recorded app roximately 4% ofthe time per year and the
' q y ry p ed to be sus ended according to Mitigation Measure F.4.
Mitigation Measure F.4 in the Draft EIR has been expanded to:;incorporate the development of an
' on-,goin wind monitoring program to ensureproper'actions are implemented during periods of high winds.
g
°°°' ' ' Specifically, the expanded mitigation m'easu~e requires the applicant to retain a qualified meteorological
34
,~ ,, .
Staff Report.- PLp03'-.0094
December T7, 2009
Page 27
consultant to design and implement a win additionrwn d measurelment techniques have been refined eral
Meteorological Monitoring Gulldelmes. I_
stockpiles. are .required to be automatically sprinkled, add'-tlonal tree planting is required, and' a contact
number tor'the~wind monitorahall be provided. .
Master Response.AQ-2, Master Response~A(1-2-further addresses comments expressing. concern with
., a e~ IV F 12)
the presumedpresence of naturally. occurring asbestos op the sites The Draft.ElR (p g e exist rice ofng
regulations. associated with surface minin operations where naturall occurs
descnbedthe applicable ~ and.discussed that geologic mapping does note indicate th
aspestos'is likely to be found,
asbestos7serpentine rock withi onhas toithe,occu ranee of asbestos m Hera se n Sonoma Couhty ue by
rovidm .back round:aformat
presenting the9esults of asbestos fasting fhaf.was conducted on the,Proiect site, and assessing the
potential for asbestos fo be encountered on the, project site during initial construction and quarrying.
In summa ublished'geologic mapping'by the~tJSGS and the CGS does notidenfify sefPenUnite the
ry, p ., .
rock most likely, tv. contain. asbestos; m the; Franciscan: Complex bedrock. underlying the quarry site.
urthermore,, on-site core sampling did not reveal asbestos =containing material, the quarry operations
F
wouldnot,extend beneath the basal extent:of Tola Volcarncs and would no `,exp g
f-a localized' area that may .be exposed-during gradin 5e Franciscan Complex<
• _ P .anon resented m is totconstruct
bedrock with the exce lion o he Draft
fhe access road. TF-is information .clarifies, but does not; change'the inform p
EIR:: __
Issue #1':6:. Noise
The Draft EIR quantified the existing noise environment by`monitoring-noise levels at four locations on or
roe and at three locations along; truck haul routes on. Roblar
in the immediate vicinity of the quarry p p nY
Road,; Valley: Ford Road, and Pepper Road. The noise enviconment:along haul routes is; influenced by
existing raffle noise, and from various existing agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses.
Several noise sensitive, residential ,race tors are located within the vicinity°~of the: quarry; the closest. of
p__
which is a residence~situated 600feefto he,east., This residenceis,.located on the other, side.of a hillside
that is situated between the project;site,and the.. residential property, and :is not in view of the' proposed
mining area. There~are;additional _residences,located.farther to the northeast, which arealso located on
the other side~of'the hill"side. Existing toe o9 ~aneh houses locatedaapproit'mately 1e800 feet west of the y
shielding th"em from the quarry. ,coup _
Phase 1~ mining<area, would have;an unimpeded views of the proposed quarry. Numerous.: residences a so
exist along the primary haul routes.
In summary, he Draft EIR found that: ~ .
a: Noise impacts should not exceed Gene~aleSlawoweveN there as stillthe.potentaltfor s gnifcant
noise monitoring at°other,.hard rock qua- .
. impacts due to differences in equipment-. Mitigation requires ~a monitoring prograiii be
initiated at the start of,each mining phase=and, at regular-intervals.during mining for areas that
. en the ath from•the center~of the: _
• • 'P hat direction. Should nolquarry..operations and the
are on the direct line: e e
' • se.exceed G ance.I The. Draft;
nearest offsite; sensitive receptor in t , .
' ..
. ~ standards; the appheant w tai uP of ~o d equ pment'not occur before 7.00 a.m. to insure
_ EIR also requires that the
compliance with Genera_I Paan Table NE-2 standards.
b: Project noise impacts from haul `trucks using R9blar Road,•west of the proposed quarry, would
result ;in potentially; significant impacts. to two existing residences, Similarly, the prolecf weuld
contribute to potentially significant cumulative noise impacts to the same'two residences:
:,Mitigation ;requires'the applicant"to offer to fund residential noise insulation ,upgrades on the.
awo-residences on Roblar'Road, If residents refuse to allow-the noise insulation, this impact
would. be significant ahd unavoidable.
35
~~ . ~, .
~w
. ,:.,
4 `
,~~
,, _
: ~-
'Staff Report - PLP03'-0094
'Decem'ber 17,'2009
Page" 2$'
In°its adoptign of the~1,994 ARM Plan Progcam.ElR;, the'Board of Supervisors adopted a
Statement of'Overciding Considerations mdicating'that;the~tienefit`s otlocal aggregate
availability to industry outweigh the adverse unavoidable noise impacts associated with haul
truck noise.
c. Occasional blasting~pro'duces an air blast. and 'ground vibration that.,could .impact surrounding
residences and utilities,, wildlife, and'`other uses.: However, the highest intensity blast noise'
usually occurs at frequencies belowthat~of human bearing (<20Nz):.The Draft EIR
determine
reduce and that adoption of"a blasting plan and monitoring program for the quarry would
y potential~adverse impacts related to blasting to less than significant levels.
issue #17: Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials transported or used.on5ite-during proposed mining and reclamation activities (i.e.,
petroleum products, blasting materials) could be spilled or otherwise released through improper handling
or storage.
Mitigation measures require thatany hazardous materials storage or handling be accomplished in
accordance with federal;,,. tate, .and local regulations and that a ~Spilf Prevention, Control and Counter
Measure Plan (SPCCMP)' be~ prepared and'submitted to the Sonoma County Department of .Emergency
Services 40 demonstrate completion of the mitigation.
The Draft EIR found that hazardous material impacts would' be'mitigated to less than significant.
Issue #1'8: Aesthetics
The Draft.ElR.found„that aesthetics impacts would be significant and. unavoidable;. despite the
irnplem°entaton of mitigation, measures to reduce visual impacts. The site is not located within. or in
proximity to any. community separator areas or scenic. landscape units. However, the site is visible from
long range views from'three scenic corridors, including; Valley Ford:ROad; .located to the southwest of'the
g ~ side and BloomfieldRoads, located to the; northwest. The site is also partially -
vis b e f om short teorm views on,' Rob~ar Road and Canfield .Roads, though views from Canfield Road
would be largely obstructed'°by the,. intervening~,fopography of the landfill 'property and vegetation. Views
` acent'to the
from Roblar Road, a ' "' ` ' '
ve etation alon Amencano Cree site,".would be partially obstructed,by~existing topography and. riparian
g g _ n ' k. Computer generated~visual simulations were prepared to illustrate the
"before" and "after" visual conditions. at the site as seen from representative public view points.
' As' illustrated in the visual simulations, the most prominent permanent alteration to the site would be the
change in topography within the proposed_65-acre quarry. pit. The. quarry pit and processing equipment
:
:,, 'would constitute' a distinctive new visual feature; creating marked contr"asts in form, color, and .texture
~' " '' :compared #o existing site features. 'Seen. "against^the genei`ally rolling terrain and fevv, scattered:.farm'snd
~' residential structures that provide its visual context, the quarry pit and equipment would ap`peacdominant
and intrusive: in comparison:
,, .
. ~ hat,aesfhetic impacts vrquld be:significanf and::°unavoidable despite..landscaping
The Draft ELR found ~t
measures :proposed. 6y the.. applicant. The applicant~proposes to plant coast redwood trees on-site along
Roblar Road,, the proposed access road and in the vicinity of`the proposed job~office, equipment storage
area, and parking lot° o help. screen views of the facility:. Despite the requirement that the reclamation plan
,,, be:implemented incompliance with the ARM Plan and SMARO", visual .impacts would remain. significant
,.. - and unavoidable. This finding is consistentwith the visual resource~findings of the ARM Plan EIR, for
,~ which a Sfatement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted.
:~,
Issue: #,49: Public Services and Utilities
The Draft.ElR determined that the impacts on demand for fire Protection and emergency medical services
would be'potentially significant, buf would be mitigated to less than significant with the following mitigation
measure:
36
Staff Report:- PLP03-0094 .
December 17, 2009 ,
Page 29 '
royal, the
As part of the County's Use Permit and Design Review process and prior to project app
Goldridge Fire Protection District (GRFPD) hall review•the project site `plans' to ensure, proper emergency
access and fire prevention features-.are incorporated. into the project.
Issue. #20: Cultural';and 'Paleontological Resources ~ _ -
The Draft EIR, determined that potential impacts: to~cultural resources can be :mitigated to .less than
significant provided that< all construction a a~pwo k shall halt should cult gal hesources be discovered during
orientation and training and. provided that ,
initial grading and ongoing quarry operations. Also, should prehistoric Native. American, burials be
,..
encountered consultation shall occur according Ito established requirements:
The Draft EIR determined that potential impacts ion measu~le ~belimplemen ed-n be mitigated to less,
than significant provided that the following mitigat ,.
1. Prio~•to the start of construclion,_all construction, employees involved in earth.moving activities' shall
undergo raining, presented bya qualified paleontologist.:
2. Prior to~initiation of quarry activities, a: preliminary,surve~;and surface°salvage shalt be conducted. by a
qualified paleontologist.
3. Prior to ttie initiation of quarry activities and.for all other ground disturbance; th'e consulting
paleontologist shall prepare a monitoring and mitigation; program and' implement the, program during
the excavation phase at'the quarry site:
4. An ongoing monitoring and salva9e program and;pcogress report (at 50% of quarry eiieavation) shall
be implemented:
Issue #21: Secondary Impacts from' project road widening and reconstrwcton (Mitigation Measures. E.3a
and,E;4a):• •
Impact. E 8: 'Im,plementation of:Mitgation, Measures E.3a.and,•E.4a could result in
short=term and/orlong-term environmental impacts on land use and. agricultural cesources~
hydrology and water quality, hazardous materials, biologcal'resources,
..geology and soils,
transportation ,and circulation, air` quality, noise, aesthetics and cultural resources:, This
would 6e a potentially significant...-impact.
Mitigation MeasuresE:3a/E.4a identify improving the, entire;approxirnate 65 mile length of
'Roblar Road,, and approximately: 3'/. miles of Pepper Road (between Mechani. Road and Stony
`Point Road) to meet current.. County road .'design- standards.,. including; but not.limited to, two
12-foot~wide.vehicle travel;lanes, tyro ~ ix=fogt wide,shoulders, and associated striping/signage to
meet Class II bike facilities.
Over theaong-term, the'identified;off-sitee improvements would serve to mitigate Project impacts,
and. provide; a benefjcial effectors the•movement of large. vehicles, .cars and bicyclists om haul
routes, and decrease the potential for conflicts between these modes of transportation. However,
construction and .implementation of~these off-site transportation improvements would also result
' in their own potentiallysignificantiteinporary and long-term ~environmental'impacts A-detailed
•
analysis of the specific off'-site impacts: cannot; be completed "until design work" is undertaken that;woul~t
provide information'on;the specific alignment and structural. improvements that may be:required along
R'oblar and Pepper Roads to,accommodate the proposed widening: If the;proposed roadway
improvements were pursued, subsequent detailed environmental.analysis~and County~approvaLwould.tie
required. In the absence of this environmental analysis,.this impact is considered significant.and
unavoidable. •
Issue #22: Alternatives
37,
,, ~ w
... ~ ,
~.
Staff Report =„PLP03=0094
December 17, 2009'
Page' 30 '
The No Project NaSubsequent Development Alternative would 'not meet any ofthe.project
sponsoc's,objectrves. Section 15126.t3(e)(2) of the CfQA Guidelines states that.if the
,,. • en"vironmentally superior alternative is .the no project alternative, the•EIR shall also identify an
~, ,, enwronmentaliy superior alternative~among. the other alternatives.
- Amon the other alternatives, Alternative 2 - Alternative Haul Route:;/ Gontracted:Sales Only is
9
determined to be the , , ` ' y p •e. Ttiis•alfernativewould require
• substantially less off-s to roadwayamprovementst dentified as mitigation, measures for the •
proposed project "and`Alternatwe; 3: Correspon-Jingly; Alternative 2 would have comparatively
less significant short- and long-term secontlary impacts associated with implementation of those
g herinore,
u
trans ortation miti anon measures 9wen°tlie potential infea"sibility of some of the:off-site
' forthe ro "osed ro'ect,~
- " p p , p ) Alternative 2:would avgid certain
si 1~rnficant and unavoidable'` ro'eet`ni acts includm ~ ~ is saf z r -
p ) p g the traff ety ha and fo bicyclists and
Ro estrians, increase in the .potential for traffic accidents, and' deg~ad"anon of pavement on Roblar
'ad and Pepper Road,,east of IVlecham•Road. '
i '
Alternative 3 would" result in incrementally less direct on-'and. off-site impacts-due to the reduced
production and smaller quarry footprint as. compared~to he proposed project and Alternative 2,
although it would not.avoid ;any direct significant and ;unavoidable impacts of the proposed
project: In addition, sincett9is alternative would require the~~same off-_ste transportation mitigation
as the proposed. project, i# would ~have'.the same secohdary impacts.,associated with-the. ;
implementation, of off-site transportation mprovemehts as the. proposed project. Also, since this
d ce h
p alf the aggregatematerials of the;. proposed project and Alternative 2,
dir
Alternative 3 wouldrereate;in ' ect.mpacts associated with th'e deficit in `materials;coming from
. the other idenffed'in-county-and/or out-of county options:
p -
It should be noted that variations gf;identified alternatives could`also;be considered by the
decisionmakers; mcludmg, but not limited to, a hybrid of'Alternatives 2 and 3, or some variation
in the :quarry productio`n~ grid/or foo#print of'Alternative 3'
., STAFF RECOMAflENDATION
Staff recommends, that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Qerti 'the: Final"
al Impact Report (Final EIR•) and a
Overriding, Cons deratio s after making:. findings provided in the dvpt,a Statement of
'draft resolution.
2. Approve'°a'Zone Change to add the MR (Mineral Resources) overlayzone~to the proposed 70
"~ ~ acce~mining site (APN 027-080=009):_and<a 25°foof perimeter setback area around-the parcel
i, ;, ,
~~ ~~ ~ :
3 A rove ;the Use Permit and'. Minis - and Reclamation: Pia,n.for Alternative 2, Alternative Maui ~ °
,~~~ ._~ ~ ,. 9 _ ._ (;~~ .. .
RoytelCOh
' ` PP r tracted sales only] wiiF a.production limit of 570;000'cubic;yards~per year; subject
~.- ~ to the con
ditions:prouided in Exhibit A:'
,. ~_ r
g p ent exchange; rescinding the
-• .. 9
4 a uriculfu I Vrelserve easement onltthe170 acre m nine site, while; simultaneously placing a
Williamson Act agricultural preservation easement on a 244=acre agricultural property near
Petaluma: -
°Based on~~directon from the: Commission, staff will prepare the appropriate resolution and findings for
consideration on a subsequent agenda. "
~ ALTERNATIVES
~~ ~ ~ 1. „ If the Planning.Commission,finds that the project~benefits do•inot support a recommendation to the
., ~ ~ Board forapproval of Alternative 2 at the 570;OOO;cubic yard annual-production level as proposed;
~~ a ~~
,,. ~w .,
~.
Staff: Report - PLP03-0094 ~ .
December, 17, 2009; ,
Page 31
staff would ~recomrnend;Alternative 2 with a.reduced production rate Conditions: of Approval for a
reduced~Producton rate~that reduces errvirone natvema~cshare aontebutolns to road'improverments
proposed pro}ect. For example .under this alt. r, ,. -, .
would be ess.
2. Th'e' p annmg Commission- could findat on~Po dent t he "project. notsufficient for' any of the project
alternatives and make a recommen Y
.. . _~...
STATEME1dT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDER~4TIONS'
Im' "acts to land use traffic; "airaquality; Noise.. (primarily from truck tl facts to'the extent feasible.uA to be
P _,P_.
significant and unavoidable despite-the mplementation to reduce
Statement of, Overriding Considerations was adopted for noise;and aesthetics impacts"with the approval, of
.the 1994: Aggregate Resources:Management (ARM) Plan. -
- hydro gy ~ g biol y hazardous materials, public services; :and
Impacts to geology to & water quality,. 09
and soils,
.. _
ewltural:resources we"re found to be potentially si rnficant but can, be seduced to less than s~gnificant,levels
with the irriPlementation of~mitigation measures..
't voidable impacts involves a careful
The decision
balancing on
benefits;•
3'.
,,
as.to whetherproject benefits outweigh sigrn Iran. una , , _ _. _ ,
the part of decision makers. The Commission: may wish to eonsider.the following°potential
'The: local" supply of aggregate is; considered' an asset #o the .County in order to k"eep~construction
and reduce. environmental impacts,and roadway-wear impact` associated with
costs down:
and/or hauling rock from more distant locations. The Roblar Q,uar r would rove a ;a
importation, -~e of rock consistent with the General Plan and' ARM Plan and would
local sand .accessible sourc
hel keep .construction costs down.•aridreduce. env mental impacts and roadway- wear impacts
- nn
P
assoeated'with importation and/or haultng~ rock fro more dtstant sources:.
The demand' for additional k, especially°PC and;AC grade m"aterial for
local sources of hoed roc
road construction, has and will continue to increase due to tkie decreased•utilization of gravel
produced :from terrace mining, because~terrace mining, is being~phased out per the ARM Plan..,
Roblar Cluarry would provide a r~eliatile V d for effic ~ent del very_of,Cockao pla~rned loc I.ande
location', of'the Roblar Quarry would pro _
regional transportation projects: funded.by tax;Measure'M oventhe;next 15 years as the majority of
the"se roadway construction'projects are in central and southern Sonoma`County.
Approval of'.the Yo ect~-with the<'re u~ement to pay a fair share~•contnbution toward future
p j _ q
signalizabon of the: intersections` of Stony Pomt•.Road/Roblar Road and, Stony P.omt RoadlRailroad
Avenue and signal timing improvements at Stony Point Road/Highway 1°16 and Highway 116/O1d
Redwood':Highway would'improve LOS and {safety at those, intersections. ~W:ithout.the contribution
of this project and~other Potential projects~to the cost of the road improvements,'it may~nottie
p ty fund necessa"ry'roadway improvements. Recent shortfalls in
ossible:for the state and coup to .
state and~county budgets' have. resulted"in extended delays -n.funding road .improvements,
resulting in a backlog of ,projects waiting for funding; ,
Despite,the removal of the 70; acre mining=site from a Williamson Act Contract; the applicant.
would place a permanent agricultural'; preservation easementon a 243=acre agricultural property
.near Petaluma. In addition; in :exchange; for~the Open Space Districts, temporary permission to use
approximately 4 acres of land;;.encumbered: by an open s,pace•easement~for quarry access, the
PP • ~ ~ onseruation easement over the 198 project site_and
a licant, proposes to place a permanent c
dedicate"the land for potential futurepublic.use upon completion of mining.
If the.;. Planning .Commission deterrnines that,.these benefits outweigh. the significant"arid unavoidable.
impacts of •Alte"rnative 2, he; Planning Commission could•forward a recommendation of. approval to .the
~- - .. g ~
p o-the attached Conditions of
B'oard~of Su ernsors• with a'Statement of Overndin . Considerations sub'ect t
39
~~~ ~ ~ r ~ . ,.
r--- ~ ~-- ~ ,., .. ... ..
r~
~~ i ~ ~
. L
Staff Report - PLP03-0094 .
December 17, 2009
Page 32
' ~ Approval in Exhibit A.
' LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ~ " "
EXHIBIT A: - .Draft Conditions of ApprovaVMitigation Monitoring Program
EXHIBIT B: Vicinity Map, _
EXHIBIT C: General. Plan lane lJse Map ~ '
' , EXHIBIT D: Zoning 11Aap ,
EXHIBIT E ARM Plan Map
EXHIBIT F: Regional Map .
EXHIBIT G: Topography Map
EXHIBIT .H: Aerial"IVlap
EXHIBIT I: Aerial Showing Location of.Existing' Residences
EXHIBIT J: Phase I Initial Grading and Drainage
EXHIBIT K: Phase l Grading
EXHIBIT L' Phase II Grading
EXHIBIT M: Phase III Grading ,
EXHIBIT N:~ ~~ Site Sections, ~' ~"'~
EXHIBIT O: Roadway Netv+-oi-k and Study Intersections
EXHIBIT P: Alfernative~2 Alternative Haul Route/Contracted Sales
EXHIBIT Q: ' Location~of Groundwater wells
EXHIBIT,.R Estimated Ground'WaterContours
EXHIBIT`S: Williamson Act Easement Exchange Site
.. EXHIBIT T Quarry Noise~Thceshold Zone
EXHIBIT lJ;; ,'Visual-Simulations
EXHIBIT V: Site :Photos
EXHIBIT W:~ Departriment of Public 1Norks.Correspondence --
„ ~ ~ EXHIBIT X: ~ Depatm,ent of Health Services Correspondence
,, EXHIBIT Y: Letter from Sebastopol~Water Information Group
Draft Enyironmerital Impact Report Previously Provided to Commissioners
40
~, •~,~
~I.1.
r1GRICUGT[I:R'A.L
PRESERVATION
& OPEN `SPACE
~ i s T R I c. `r
May 2, 2001
Ntr. & Mrs. John Scott
427 Corona Road
Petaluma, CA 94954
Re;• Proposed :Conservation Easement; PurcRase
Roblar Ranch 1~ 067) .
Dear I~[r. and Mrs. Scott.
,>
The District has. ;received ~an appraisal .from Bill. Groverman of Appraisal Solutions.
7.4T Mendocino Avenue establishing th'e fair=market value of a~conservation easement over a, 767f85-acre portion.
Su;ce 1.00 of the above referenced property. The; appraisal~was reviewed arid. accepted by the Open
Santa .Rosa, GA~ Space Authority on April 5, 2001.: In light: of the inforrnatitin contained in the appraisal.:
95401-4850 and our discussions, we `feel it would be desirable to i,denti£y,~ a recommended pur""chase
.(707) 524-7360 price for the property at°thistime..
Fax: (707) 524-73:70 ~ '
`'The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation ..arid Open Space. Distri'st is; interested, in
acquiring a conservation. easement over your property: With consideration: given, to the
oration of the gcoperty, its agricultural conservation value; ;and 'the. evaluation. of .the:.
:appraisal information received, Dtstrict' staff is pleased to recommend a purchase price of
.$1,600,000 for the purchase of :the easement; this is the. full value of the appraisal; This
recommended price is sutiject_ to ~tlie~ approvals of the Sonoma County Open :Space
Authority and. the. District Board,of Directors. . ,. -
Please respond prior to 1Vtonday, May 21", 20Q1 in wri ing,; indicating your acceptance or
.rejection of'this recommended purchase price. If you have any ,further questions, please
do not hesitate to contact Paul Rowan or me: Thank you for°yourcontinued cooperation
while working.with `the District;on this transaction.
.Sincerely,
Q1~:.~ ~/
Andrea. Mackenzie
General Manager
c'.~P~~ A:. Rowan,.ASA, Land` Acquisttion Spesiali t
~Glisfi. Arias, Associate- Open Space. Planner
~:~
wbin[ oG iv,doc
41