Bill Hocker | Jun 10, 2021 Update 6/10/21 Syar 5-yr review
Ag land or one big hole?
(5 years already?!) Under the Conditions of Approval for Syar's 2016 expansion Surface Mining Permit, monitoring data must be presented to the PC every 5 years. That review is upon us
and will be heard by the Planning Commission on June 23, 2021
Syar Monitoring Documents
NVR 6/28/19: Tentative Napa County court ruling favors expansion of Syar quarry
NVR 6/2/19: Napa judge hears more arguments on Syar quarry expansion
NVR 5/23/19: Napa Court releases Syar tentative ruling
The Tentative Ruling is here
From the judge's ruling:
"One of the principal project locations is the so-called Pasini Parcel, which has a General Plan designation of Agricultural, Watershed, and Open Space (AWOS). Of note, it appears as though the EIR contains no discussion of the apparent inconsistency between the General Plan's stated goal of preserving agricultural land use, and the conversion of this parcel into use for mining operations."
It's becoming clear that residents have valid legal complaints about the development that Napa County has been pursuing in the last few years. There are impacts that have not been properly considered in the approval process, flagged by residents in the numerous hearings that vet projects, with Supervisors ignoring those concerns as being less-than-significant in order to move the projects ahead. In the past, residents may have been intimidated by the business and government forces arrayed against them. But the level of impact that development is beginning to have on the rural character that residents treasure is no longer possible to ignore, and appeals and lawsuits are becoming the norm.
In this case the judge has highlighted a primary inconsistency not properly discussed in the EIR as required by CEQA: the County is nominally committed in its General Plan to the protection of agriculture, but at the same time has approved a project that is not agriculture on land zoned for agriculture. (like the AmCan solar farm
) The judge is not saying that the two are incompatible; only that the EIR failed to discuss and mitigate the conflicting attitude about mining operations on ag land.
If only it were possible to reconsider the same inconsistency of using agricultural lands for entertainment venues and housing estates.