ZF #2018-0015: Receive staff report and public comment regarding the CEMEX Mining and Reclamation Plan Permit Amendment Project. The project is located on a 1,902-acre site east of Interstate 505 near the community of Madison. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021020487) has been prepared for the project. A public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's final recommendation to the Board of Supervisors will be scheduled for a future date. (Applicant / Property Owner: CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC and CEMEX Construction Materials South, LLC) (Planner: Heidi Tschudin, Contract Planner)

Staff recommends that the Yolo County Planning Commission:

The purpose of this meeting is to receive a presentation on the Project and receive public comments. The item was intended to be a public hearing to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, but the newspaper did not publish the required notice by the statutory deadline. Accordingly, staff will provide a presentation on the project and the Commission will accept public comment. The item will then be rescheduled for the public hearing. Once the Project is considered at a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission will be asked to make a recommendation regarding approval to the Board of Supervisors on the following:

“The Board hereby finds that acceptance of a reduced Level of Service under existing and future conditions at the intersection of SR 16 and CR 96 is appropriate pursuant to Policy CI-3.1(X) of the General Plan which allows for such exceptions in recognition of the benefits of preserving agriculture or open space land; enhancing the agricultural economy; preserving the rural character of the county; avoiding adverse impacts to alternative transportation modes; avoiding growth inducement; and where right-of-way constraints would make the improvements infeasible.”

 

 

The CEMEX operation is a locally and regionally important source of high-quality construction aggregate material that has helped serve the building and infrastructure needs of Yolo County and the Sacramento-Fairfield Production Consumption Region for over 50 years. The State Department of Conservation has identified the project site as being in the MRZ-2 zone; significant mineral deposits are known to be present and are currently being mined.

This project will ensure the continued supply of construction materials and associated jobs for the region while providing for current reclamation standards to be achieved. Further, maintaining a local source of construction materials will minimize the economic and environmental costs associated with transporting aggregate from distant sources, resulting in reductions in fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic congestion. In addition, promoting the continued use of the existing electric dredge in an efficient manner is environmentally superior to the former wet-excavation method using a diesel-powered dragline.

The project is consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan designations for the site and includes a reclamation plan to return mined lands to a useable condition that includes agriculture, permanent lakes, and wildlife habitat. The project is consistent with the County General Plan and Cache Creek Area Plan, achieves the performance standards set forth in the County Mining and Reclamation Ordinances, and satisfies the requirements of the State’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (“SMARA”).

Furthermore, the final reclamation and “net gains” negotiated between the applicant and the County will result in significant benefits to the County, consistent with the criteria set forth in the Off Channel Mining Plan (“OCMP”). For these and other reasons identified herein, staff supports approval of the project.

CACHE CREEK AREA PLAN
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the CCAP adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1996, and subsequently amended in 2002 and 2019. The Cache Creek Area Plan (“CCAP”) incorporates the OCMP and Cache Creek Resource Management Plan (“CCRMP”), including the Cache Creek Improvement Program (“CCIP”). The CCAP is implemented primarily by the Off-Channel Surface Mining Ordinance (“Mining Ordinance”), the Surface Mining Reclamation Ordinance (“Reclamation Ordinance”), the In-Channel Maintenance Mining Ordinance (“In-Channel Ordinance”), and the Gravel Mining Fee Ordinance. The requirements contained in these ordinances include mitigation measures developed as part of the programmatic EIRs for the OCMP and CCRMP, including the CCAP Update in 2019. The project is required to comply with the requirements contained in these adopted plans and ordinances.

The CCAP establishes a detailed regulatory program that includes built-in safeguards for slope stability, air quality, county road improvement and maintenance, drainage and erosion, flood protection, groundwater quality and monitoring, mercury monitoring, noise control, setbacks from the creek, setbacks from adjoining towns, setbacks from roads and residences, topsoil protection, site aesthetics and maintenance, and habitat, among other items. Yolo County’s mining and reclamation program reflects “best practices” in the industry, and is generally considered one of the top aggregate regulatory programs in the state. Since the inception of the program, mining permits have been granted for eight off-channel operations along lower Cache Creek. These operations, listed alphabetically, are: CEMEX, Granite Capay, Granite Esparto, Syar Industries, LLC, Teichert Esparto, Teichert Schwarzgruber, Teichert Shifler, and Teichert Woodland Plant and Properties.

The CCAP is a long-term, detailed, and self-funded, planning, policy, and regulatory program involving implementation over more than 70 years. The program is focused on long-term adaptation to changing industry standards, environmental protection, and market needs. As the program is implemented over time it will progressively build a network of important habitat sites and recreational properties along a 15-mile stretch of lower Cache Creek. The program has unprecedented built-in check points, monitoring requirements, and performance thresholds, and is held together through a unique partnership between landowners, mining operators, regulatory agencies, and the County.

Two key elements of the CCAP are consistent oversight and adaptive management. Under the Program, each operator is subject to annual inspections and must demonstrate yearly compliance with their development agreement, CEQA mitigation monitoring and reporting program, conditions of approval, and SMARA.

The CCAP also requires mandatory “interim” review of all aspects of the gravel program every ten years, including the plans, regulations, and mining approvals. The interim review concept has been integral to the CCAP since its inception. It ensures that the approved mining and reclamation permits have regular reviews to apply subsequent environmental regulations and statutory provisions. The next interim review is scheduled to take place in 2029. These requirements will continue to apply to all of the mining operations. References to these requirements are included in the proposed Conditions of Approval.

On October 14, 2021, the County’s Natural Resources Division held a 2.5-hour workshop for the Planning Commission, covering the program’s history and all major program components. A recording of the workshop is available online as an education resource. Staff strongly encourages watching the video which is available at the following link: https://youtu.be/OPkY4uuE-mY.

The CCAP was adopted as a “specific plan” pursuant to Section 65450, et seq. of the State Government Code, and was determined to be consistent with the various goals and policies of the County’s General Plan. Additionally, the CCAP is fully consistent with the County Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, contributes funding and preservation lands critical to the success of the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan, and supports implementation of the Cache Creek Parkway Plan.

PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Site History
Prior to surface mining, the project site was predominantly used for agricultural purposes. The operation was originally developed by Solano Concrete Company, Inc. (“Solano”), and has been continuously mined since 1971. In 1999, Solano’s assets were acquired by the Kiewit Corporation, which was subsequently acquired by Rinker Materials in 2002. CEMEX became the current owner and operator after acquiring Rinker’s assets in 2008. A summary of relevant approvals, modifications, and compliance-related communications is provided in Chapter 3 of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“Draft SEIR”), beginning on page 3-8.

Project Summary
Overview
The existing CEMEX off-channel mining facility is operated subject to a 1996 permit approval, as amended, consisting of Mining Permit No. ZF #95-093 and Development Agreement No. 96-287. The 1996 permit approval was evaluated in the Solano Long-Term Off-Channel Mining Permit Application Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #96012034) (“1996 EIR”), certified by the Board of Supervisors on November 25, 1996. The facility is identified by the State Department of Conservation, Division of Mining and Reclamation, as Mine ID No. 91-57-0008.

Under the 1996 approvals, the operation is authorized to extract up to 1,445,783 tons of material annually (with a maximum of 1,200,000 tons sold per year), and a total of 32,170,000 tons over the life of the permit (with up to 26,700,000 tons sold). Mining activities are approved to occur in seven phases, generally progressing from west to east over a 30-year period ending in 2027, to a maximum depth of 70 feet.

On February 28, 2018, CEMEX submitted an application requesting to modify the approved mining permit and reclamation plan for its ongoing mining operation. This application was given County identifier: ZF #2018-0015. The application was revised multiple times, with the final revision being submitted on November 23, 2022. The application requests the following modifications to the pre-existing approvals:

All other aspects of the project and operation remained unchanged, including the maximum annual aggregate production, total mining area, method of mining, maximum mining depth, truck routes, and hours of operation. Draft SEIR Table 3-10, which is located on Draft SEIR page 3-51 and included in this staff report as Attachment H, summarizes the proposed permit amendments compared to the approved operation.

Project Application Review
After the application was submitted in February 2018, the County distributed an early Request for Comments on March 20, 2018, to a variety of local, regional, and Tribal entities. Comments were received from two parties: the California Department of Transportation, District 3 (“Caltrans”) on July 18, 2019, and the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation (“DMR”) on July 31, 2019.

Caltrans noted the requirement for an encroachment permit for any work performed in the State right-of-way, which has been integrated into the proposed conditions of approval (see modified Condition of Approval No. 66 in Attachment F). DMR had no comments.

On February 26, 2021, the County circulated a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an EIR for the proposed project. The NOP was distributed to the public, the State Clearinghouse, the Yolo County Clerk, and responsible, trustee, and other relevant local, State, and federal agencies. The scoping period began on February 26, 2021, and ended March 29, 2021.

A scoping meeting before the Planning Commission was held remotely on March 11, 2021. The NOP and scoping meeting provided an additional opportunity for public agencies, stakeholders, organizations, and interested individuals to comment on the scope of the environmental analysis addressing the potential effects of the proposed project. During the scoping period, 11 public and agency responses were received. Yolo County reviewed and considered all public comments in preparing the Draft SEIR.

On March 21, 2024, the Draft SEIR (SCH #2021020487) was circulated for a 47-day period of review and comment by the public and other interested parties, agencies, and organizations. A public meeting was held by the Planning Commission on April 11, 2024, to discuss the project and receive oral comments on the Draft SEIR. All comments received on the Draft SEIR, including a summary of the comments provided at the Planning Commission meeting, are included in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report / Responses to Comments document (“Final SEIR”), which was released on September 24, 2025. The Final SEIR incorporates the Draft SEIR and includes copies of the 11 comment letters, individual responses to each individual comment, corrections and clarifications to the Draft SEIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the project. The MMRP can be found in Chapter 5 of Attachment A, and Exhibit 2 of Attachment B.

Policy and Plan Consistency
The project site falls within the boundary of the CCAP. The project, as proposed for approval, is consistent with the land use designations and policies of the General Plan, the policies and requirements of CCAP, SMARA, and other applicable laws and regulations. This is substantiated in the analysis that occurs in each of the following tables in the Draft SEIR that examines consistency with applicable standards: Tables 4.1-2, 4.2-10, 4.3-3, 4.4-2, 4.5-2, 4.6-2, 4.7-4, and 4.8-4. This is further substantiated in the letters received from DMR dated July 31, 2019, and March 29, 2021, which document the State’s review of the proposed mining and reclamation plans, and concur that the State offered no comments on the applicant’s mining and reclamation plans. Moreover, DMR did not comment on the Draft SEIR. The two aforementioned letters from DMR are included as Attachment I.

The project, as modified by the recommended conditions of approval including the adopted mitigation measures, is consistent with all applicable regulatory requirements including SMARA, the County General Plan, the CCAP, and the County’s Mining Ordinance, Reclamation Ordinance, and In-Channel Ordinance.

Development Agreement
The proposed project includes amendment of the existing development agreement between the applicant and the County to reflect the project changes. The development agreement vests certain aspects of the requested approvals, commits the applicant to participation in the CCAP, including payment of per-ton mining fees and the provision of other specified public benefits known also as “net gains,” and ties the separately permitted processing plants to the mining approvals (see Section 2.2.10 of Attachment G). The provision of net gains is a fundamental component of the CCAP, and a requirement under OCMP Action 7.4-1, CCRMP Action 5.4-1, and Section 10-4.502(i) of the Mining Ordinance.

Action 6.4-7 of the OCMP and Actions 4.4-10 and 4.4-11 of the CCRMP require alignment with the Yolo County CCAP Parkway Plan (DSEIR Figure 3-19, Cemex Snyder Lakes, Cache Creek Parkway Master Plan). The net gains proposed by the applicant are in general alignment with the Parkway Plan. New proposed dedication of land ensuring connection to the Millsap Property satisfies identified opportunities and constraints in the Parkway Plan. The Parkway Plan also identifies lake recreation, informal parking, trails, and pathways with which the applicant’s net gains proposal is consistent. Approved and new proposed net gains features are described below.

Pursuant to Section 2.2.8 of the Development Agreement No. 96-287, the existing approved net gains for the operation are as follows (and depicted in Draft SEIR Figure 3-20 on page 3-47 of the Draft SEIR volume):

CEMEX proposes to modify the approved net gains as follows (and depicted in Draft SEIR Figures 3-21A and 3-21B on pages 3-49 and 3-50 of the Draft SEIR volume):

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Overview
Although the CEMEX operation previously underwent environmental review in 1996, the existing EIR may not be suitable for all project revisions proposed by the applicant. For projects involving a previously-certified EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that a Subsequent EIR should be prepared if the proposed modifications to the project would result in any of the following:

The County identified physical changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project has been undertaken, and potential new information that emerged since project approval, any of which could result in change to previously identified impacts and mitigation measures (pages 4-3 through 4-6 of the Draft SEIR). Therefore, the County has prepared a Subsequent EIR to assess the potential for this to occur.

As allowed under Sections 15152 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, the CEMEX SEIR tiers from two previously certified, and relevant, EIRs as follows:

This 1996 EIR was certified on November 25, 1996, by the Yolo County Board of Supervisors pursuant to the approval of Resolution No. 96-201. This was a comprehensive EIR that analyzed all topics required under CEQA at the time, with the exception of population and housing, energy and mineral resources, and public services and utilities - topics that were identified in the initial study as being unaffected by the project.

All identified mitigation measures from the 1996 EIR (including changes to Mitigation Measures 4.3-4c, 4.6-5a, and 4.6-5b as reflected in the conditions of approval), were incorporated into the conditions of approval for the approved operation (Mining Permit No. ZF #95-093 and Development Agreement No. 96-287).

At the time, the following impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable:

This CCAP Update FEIR was certified on December 17, 2019, by the Yolo County Board of Supervisors pursuant to the approval of Resolution No. 19-175. This was a comprehensive EIR analyzing all topics required under CEQA with the exception of land use and planning, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and services systems - topics that were identified in the initial study as having no significant effect resulting from the CCAP Update.

All identified mitigation measures from the CCAP Update FEIR were incorporated into the updated CCAP plans and regulations which are applicable to the proposed project. At the time, the following impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable:

Analysis of Proposed Project
The SEIR for the proposed project found that project implementation would not result in new (or more severe) significant impacts in the following issue areas and therefore further analysis of them was not required:

For the resource areas involving new or more significant impacts, or new information requiring further review, the SEIR identifies new mitigation measures in the areas identified below. Mitigation measures in the SEIR take the form of modifications to and requirements of the project.

The CEMEX SEIR concludes that all impacts can be fully mitigated, except for the following:

Draft SEIR Comments and Responses
The County received 11 letters commenting on the Draft SEIR. No late comments were received. The comments raised a variety of issues, which are summarized below (italicized text represents clarifying commentary from staff). The County has provided a specific response to every comment in Chapter 3 of the Final SEIR volume.

Letter #1: Planning Commission Draft SEIR Comment Meeting - The Commissioners asked clarifying questions about the project. Four interested citizens provided oral comments, two of which also submitted written comments. The comments expressed concerns regarding primarily: overlap of the mining program and the work of the Yolo Habitat Conservancy; viability of agricultural reclamation; methylmercury production; lack of reclamation progress by the applicant; overlap of the mining program and climate change goals of the County; and development and implementation of Lake Management Plans for methylmercury control. The speakers were not supportive of the project. The project, as recommended for approval, is consistent with and implements all applicable goals, policies, and regulations of the County. Additional information regarding agricultural reclamation and methylmercury is provided below.

Letter #2: Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation - Had no project comments; asked to continue receiving information about the project.

Letter #3: State Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division - Submitted a summary of requirements for closure of natural gas wells and identified one potentially proximate well. The applicant has confirmed there is no known well on the site, and new Condition of Approval No. 28.4 is proposed to address proper procedures should an unknown well be discovered.

Letter #4: Madison Fire Protection District - Raised a variety of concerns related to emergency vehicle access, equipment and personnel, emergency communications, and traffic generation. Responses to each concern are provided and a number of additional conditions of approval have been identified to address concerns raised by the commenter.

Letter #5: PG&E - Had no project comments; provided service-related contact information.

Letter #6: Caltrans - Expressed concerns regarding highway operations, traffic safety, and hydraulics related to expansion of the project. Provided information regarding encroachment permits if needed. The project does not propose operational expansion.

Letter #7: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board - Submitted standard project comment letter with information regarding water quality control permitting. The project is consistent with all applicable water quality requirements.

Letter #8: Alan Prior, Sierra Club Yolano Group - Expressed concerns regarding agricultural reclamation and remediation of methylmercury. The project is required to comply with all County reclamation and mercury requirements. Additional information on these topics is provided below.

Letter #9: Juliette Beck, Sierra Club Yolano Group - Provided recommendations regarding working with interested Tribal governments. The project has been reviewed with and by all interested Tribal governments, including consultation with Tribal representatives, and compliance with state requirements and local practice. Additional summary information regarding Tribal coordination is provided below.

Letter #10: Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency - Expressed concerns regarding consideration of groundwater and related issues; asked a number of questions regarding the project and Draft SEIR. The project has been and will continue to comply with the extensive groundwater requirements and protections of the CCAP. Additional information regarding the mining program and required groundwater protections is provided below.

Letter #11: Juliette Beck - Expressed concerns regarding public participation and requested an extended comment period for the Draft SEIR. The County did not extend the comment period as there was no evidence such an extension was needed. Oral comments and two sets of written comments were received from Ms. Beck and no late comments were received, which supports the fact that there was ample time for comment. Additional information regarding public comment opportunities is summarized elsewhere in this report.

Alternatives Analysis
Chapter 6 of the Draft SEIR volume examined the project as proposed and four alternatives:

As documented in the CEQA Findings of Fact (Exhibit 1 of Attachment B), Alternatives 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 were shown to be infeasible. On page 6-21 of the Draft SEIR, Alternative 2 is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. However, none of the alternatives eliminate impacts found to be significant and unavoidable for the project. Moreover, the proposed project fully achieves all of the project objectives and fully mitigates impacts in all other topical areas, making it superior to the alternatives.  

ADDITIONAL TOPICS OF INTEREST

Agricultural Reclamation
Some commenters have expressed concerns regarding reclamation to agricultural uses, related primarily to soil quality following reclamation. The CCAP limits aggregate operations countywide to specifically identified areas along lower Cache Creek, thus already significantly limiting impacts to farmland. In keeping with the County’s fundamental commitment to agriculture, reclamation to agriculture is identified as a top priority, where feasible, over other reclaimed land uses. Reclamation to agricultural uses is a successful practice statewide and throughout the country. The state sets the minimum standards for productivity of reclaimed farmland upon which the County relies in the CCAP. All operators are required to monitor and meet or exceed those standards.

As a component of the adaptive management features of the CCAP, the County recently undertook an analysis of agricultural reclamation which culminated in the October 2021 release of a report titled Assessment of Reclamation of Mined Lands to Agriculture Under the Yolo County CCAP. This report, prepared by House Agricultural Consultants and referenced to subsequently as the “House Report,” examined the County’s experience to date with agricultural reclamation; reviewed available literature related to agricultural reclamation; and provided observations and recommendations for consideration by the County related the agricultural reclamation component of the CCAP. The report concluded overall that reclamation to agriculture is a viable end use, that the required standards for acceptable productivity of reclaimed agricultural land can be achieved, and that improvements to soil structure and increased organic matter will occur over time.

The report contained a number of recommendations that were presented to the Planning Commission in the October 2021 workshop. The report did not propose new standards for measuring productivity but did identify changes in methodology and protocols for consistency of monitoring reports between operators. The staff noted at that time that they would be working collaboratively with the gravel operators, the County Agricultural Commissioner’s office, and other relevant stakeholders to discuss and evaluate the suggestions in the report and evaluate their viability and feasibility. This effort is currently identified as a work task for the mandatory recurring ten-year review of the CCAP, which will be due again in 2029.

Methylmercury
Some commenters have expressed concerns regarding mercury. Mercury levels in lower Cache Creek are a reflection of the legacy effects of historic mercury mining in the upper watershed a hundred or so years ago.

Mercury conditions were known and evaluated when the gravel program was developed in the mid-1990s, and have been studied as the program has evolved in the years since. Based on foundational studies of earlier deep-pit lakes, Yolo County determined that pre-existing mercury conditions could be managed and controlled, and should not preclude the opportunity to develop the program and implement the Cache Creek Parkway.

The CCAP requires mercury monitoring because reclamation of the off-channel pits to permanent deep lakes could result in conditions that increase the conversion of inorganic mercury to methylmercury. Methylmercury is the form that can bioaccumulate in fish.

The County has been evaluating and monitoring the relationship between mercury and wet pit mining in the area for over four decades. This concern was relevant in establishing the CCAP and is reflected in the aggressive monitoring and remediation program required by Section 10-5.517 of the Reclamation Ordinance. The County has published a suite of reports establishing baseline conditions and providing required monitoring results and recommendations.

The County’s regulations first require a determination of whether fish mercury levels are elevated compared to background conditions. For those ponds determined to have elevated conditions, the second step is supplemental analysis including water column profiling and analysis of pond bottom sediments. Depending on the results of the supplemental analysis, the regulations require the development and implementation of a lake management plan. If the lake management plan is not effective, the County also has the ability to require modifications to the reclamation of the site.

There are eight pits currently being monitored and more are added as pit lakes occur from approved mining. Summary information regarding the mercury monitoring program is provided in Attachment J.

For the subject project, the proposed changes in the Reclamation Plan include filling of the Phase 3-4 wet pits with final reclamation to agriculture rather than to open water lakes. This is consistent with and achieves the desired outcomes of the County’s CCAP mercury regulations, and will also remove those pits from required mercury monitoring based on the revised end use.

Groundwater
Some commenters have expressed concern regarding water quality effects of aggregate mining. The CCAP was developed based on an extensive analysis of the interaction between groundwater and wet pit mining. The Technical Studies and Recommendations for the Lower Cache Creek Resource Management Plan prepared in October 1995 (“1995 Technical Studies”) provided baseline and historical information about the streamway fluvial morphology, groundwater resources, and riparian habitat, and provided detailed recommendations for managing creek resources as an integrated system. These became the foundation for the CCAP which was adopted in 1996.

Pursuant to Section 10-4.417 of the Mining Ordinance, each operator is required to undertake the following annual groundwater monitoring:

Also, each year, the Cache Creek Technical Advisory Committee is required to, among other tasks:

Lastly, every year the County is required to perform, among other things:

The rigorous analysis, regulation, and monitoring of groundwater that has occurred over decades pursuant to the CCAP demonstrates consistently that groundwater effects of mining, including impacts to flow, recharge, and water quality are less-than-significant. Groundwater levels generally near Cache Creek have exhibited long-term seasonal trends of depression in the irrigation season and recovery in the rainy season, with expected variation during periods of drought, consistent with other areas of the County. There are no indications of adverse effects to groundwater levels or quality as a result of permitted aggregate mining.

The groundwater monitoring well network at the project site includes a total of 19 wells, including 15 dedicated observation wells and 4 production wells. Continuous groundwater monitoring has been taking place in on-site wells since 1990, and Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (“LSCE”) has been preparing annual monitoring reports with cumulative data evaluation since 2003. Monitoring reports are submitted by the applicant to the County on an annual basis, as part of an Annual Report required by the Mining Ordinance Section 10-4.701. The most recent LSCE annual report, 2024 Groundwater Conditions in the Vicinity of CEMEX Madison Plant, concludes that: “The existing data record shows no evidence or indication that the mining and plant operations, including approved Phase 5 dewatering…, have caused any changes in groundwater levels or quality to date.”

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Some commenters have expressed concern about the climate change implications of aggregate mining. The CCAP, both the overall program and continued aggregate mining at the subject site, was considered as part of the County’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and are consistent with its goals. Implementation of the CCAP ensures a local source of aggregate, minimizing the impacts associated with importing aggregate products from more distant locations.

The heavy equipment used in aggregate mining is regulated at the federal and state level which ensure ongoing decreases in emissions over time. These regulations - enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board - include requirements such as clean fleet standards, fuel-efficient technologies, aerodynamic trailer devices, and low rolling resistance tires on tractors and trailer. In addition, SEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-5 specifically requires CEMEX to prepare and implement a project-level Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan to demonstrate that implementation of the proposed project would not result in a net increase in GHG emissions from baseline conditions.

CACHE CREEK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Cache Creek Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”) was created by the County when the CCAP was adopted for the purposes of providing the County with specific expertise and knowledge in implementing the CCRMP and CCIP. The TAC's focus is to assist the County in carrying out its responsibilities under the CCRMP, as well as recommending changes to the CCRMP, CCIP, and related implementing ordinances. The TAC is comprised of a fluvial geomorphologist, a hydraulic engineer, and a riparian biologist, all of whom serve as contractors to the County.

The TAC does not have regulatory authority over mining applications. However, County staff routinely seek technical input from the fluvial geomorphologist and hydraulic engineer on the Committee regarding proposed mining within the Streamway Influence Zone, and from the riparian biologist regarding proposed reclamation plan plantings. The TAC members have individually reviewed these components of the subject project, and their recommendations have been incorporated either into the project design or the draft conditions of approval.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION - DIVISION OF MINE RECLAMATION REVIEW
The operation’s DMR “Mine Identification Number” is 91-57-0008. As mentioned previously, DMR conducted its mandatory review of the proposed project, and informed the County on July 31, 2019, and March 29, 2021, that it had no comments. Upon receipt of final Reclamation Plan from the applicant, and acceptance of the plans by County staff as satisfying the required Reclamation Plan modifications, the County will resubmit the final Mining and Reclamation Plans to DMR, as required under SMARA.

TRIBAL COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION
The County also undertook required Tribal outreach pursuant to standard County practice, CEQA, and AB 52. On March 6, 2018, the County notified the following Native American Tribes (listed alphabetically) of the opportunity to consult on the project pursuant to State law: the Cortina Rancheria Band of Wintun Indians of California, the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the United Auburn Indian Community, the Wilton Rancheria, and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation.

Of the six tribes notified, only the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (“YDWN”) responded. The YDWN requested consultation and project information, which was provided. Consultation was commenced and concluded on July 14, 2021. The YDWN requested cultural resource sensitivity training for workers and contractors, and notification should artifacts or remains be discovered. These requests are included in the proposed conditions of approval (refer to modified Condition of Approval No. 74 in Attachment F). A summary of the consultation process is included on pages 4.4-5 and 4.4-6 of Chapter 4.4 of the Draft SEIR volume.

GENERAL PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS
Notification of the scheduled meetings and hearings for the project were sent to interested Tribal governments and other interested parties as part of the CEQA Notice of Availability for the Final SEIR which was disseminated on September 24, 2025. Notice of the Planning Commission agenda was also sent to the CCAP “Interested Parties” email list. Additionally, a public hearing notice was provided to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site on September 24, 2025. The distribution radius of this “Neighbor Notice” exceeds the state’s 300-foot requirement and complies with the County Planning Division’s standard practice for large projects. Comments received since the release of the Final SEIR are provided in Attachment K.

There was an administrative oversight by the newspaper in the process of publishing notice of the hearing. The statute requires that notice be published at least 10 days before a public hearing. However, notice did not appear in the Daily Democrat until September 30, 2025, less than the 10 day public hearing notice period required by statute. Accordingly, the public hearing will be rescheduled to ensure the statutory notice requirements are met. Any materials and information received at the October 9, 2025 meeting will be made available online in advance of the public hearing.

Any person who is dissatisfied with the decisions of this Planning Commission may appeal to the Board of Supervisors by filing a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Board within fifteen (15) days from the date of the action. A Planning Commission Appeal Form and appeal fee immediately payable to “County of Yolo” must be submitted at the time of filing. The Board of Supervisors may sustain, modify or overrule this decision. The Planning Commission Appeal Form can be accessed at the following link: https://www.yolocounty.org/government/board-of-supervisors/clerk-of-the-board/planning-commission-appeal