SISKIYOU COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: ALTES USE PERMIT (UP1802)

APPLICANT: Matt & Ruth Altes P.O. Box 1048 Mt Shasta, CA 96067

PROPERTY OWNER: Matt & Ruth Altes P.O. Box 1048 Mt Shasta, CA 96067

PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposed project consists of a use permit to establish an equestrian and event center.

LOCATION: The parcel is approximately 9 acres, located at 138 Big Canyon Drive, Mt Shasta, CA 96067, Siskiyou County, California on APN 037-260-510 (Latitude 41°17'05.12"N, Longitude 122°17'52.50"W).

GENERAL PLAN: Woodland Productivity

ZONING: Highway Commercial (CH)

EXHIBITS: A. Proposed Use Permit Findings B. Resolution PC-2019-024 B-1. Proposed Notations and Recommended Conditions of Approval C. Recirculated Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration D. Public Comments

Altes Use Permit (UP1802) Page 1

SITE DESCRIPTION

The 9-acre project site is located at 138 Big Canyon Drive. The project site is accessed via Big Canyon Drive. The project site is located in an open woodland area. Adjacent parcels are largely developed with residential and commercial uses and the property is near the intersection of Interstate 5 and Highway 89.

Figure 1, Project Location

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project is a proposed use permit to bring an existing nine-acre equestrian and special event facility into compliance with County Code as well as to facilitate future development of the site. The facility is currently used for horse boarding/training, riding lessons, trail riding, and outdoor events, such as weddings, parties, and retreats. The use permit would allow these unpermitted uses to continue, as well as allow for training clinics and development of a septic system and two additional structures: 1) a multi- use building containing offices, restrooms, storage, and a caretaker’s residence and 2) a barn for storing hay, tack, and other horse-related materials.

Access to the site would be via Big Canyon Drive, which leads to the parcel.

Altes Use Permit (UP1802) Page 2

ANALYSIS

General Plan Consistency

The Land Use Element of the Siskiyou County General Plan identifies the project site as being within the mapped overlay area for Woodland Productivity – High Suitability. In addition, Planning staff has identified that Composite Overall Policies 41.3(b), 41.3(e), 41.3(f), 41.5, 41.6, 41.7, 41.8, 41.9, 41.12, 41.14, and 41.18 all apply to the proposed project. As detailed in the findings contained in Exhibit “A”, this project is consistent with the Siskiyou County General Plan.

Staff has conducted a detailed analysis of each of the required findings and has found that the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies governing the subject site. The proposed project has been designed and/or conditioned to mitigate any potential impacts to area resources or hazardous conditions. In addition, the use (as designed and conditioned) would be compatible with the surrounding land uses, has adequate roadway access for transportation and public health and safety provisions, and would not create environmental impacts to on- or off-site resources. These findings are detailed in the General Plan Consistency Findings Section of Exhibit “A” attached to this staff report and are submitted for the Commission’s review, consideration, and approval.

Zoning Consistency The project site is situated in the Highway Commercial (CH) zoning district, and the proposed project is a conditionally permitted use, pursuant to Section 10-6.1502(c) of the Siskiyou County Code. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the Siskiyou County Zoning Ordinance provided that the Commission approves the requested Use Permit.

In order for the Commission to approve the subject Use Permit, the Commission must find that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, and not be incompatible with the character of the area due to noise, dust, odors or other undesirable characteristics. Based on staff’s analysis of the proposed Use Permit, staff believes that the necessary findings can be made for the subject application. These findings are detailed in the Zoning Consistency Findings Section of Exhibit “A” attached to this staff report and are submitted for the Commission’s review, consideration, and approval.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

CEQA Compliance Requirements The approval of the Use Permit is a discretionary action by the County and triggers the need to evaluate the project under CEQA. Upon completion of the Initial Study, staff determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of Environmental Significance was the appropriate environmental document for the project because, in staff’s opinion, the proposed mitigation measures reduced the level of potential impact below the level of significance. The proposed MND was reviewed by the applicant who indicated that the proposed mitigations were acceptable. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were sent to the State Clearinghouse (SCH#2018112061). The circulation period began on November 26, 2018 and ended on December 25, 2018.

CEQA requires that prior to approval of a MND, the Planning Commission must consider the proposed MND together with any comments received during the public review process and that the MND shall only be approved if the Commission finds that on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the MND

Altes Use Permit (UP1802) Page 3 reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. The following is the description of the comments received.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: To date, the County has received public comments on the proposed environmental document. (Exhibit D) These comments centered on concerns about potential impacts from noise. As such, a noise study for the project was prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. and submitted to the Planning Department on May 10, 2019. The results of this study indicate that with implementation of the feasible noise mitigation measures mentioned in the study, all potentially significant noise impacts at the nearest existing residences can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which includes the noise study prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, is attached as Exhibit “C”.

If comments are received following distribution of this staff report, those comments will be provided to the Planning Commission at the meeting.

AGENCY COMMENTS:

Environmental Health – April 16, 2018: Comments were received regarding the need for chemical toilets for guests and employees and compliance with the food code and event permit requirements.

Conditions related to the need for chemical toilets and food permit regulations were added to the Conditions of Approval.

Cal Fire – March 27, 2018 Comments were received related to compliance with the Cal Fire 4290 requirements.

Conditions of approval were added regarding 4290 compliance.

AB 52 Consultation AB 52 mandates early tribal consultation prior to and during CEQA review for those tribes which have formally requested, in writing, notification on projects subject to AB 52, i.e. projects which have published Notices of Preparation (NOPs) for Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) or Notices of Intent to adopt Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations since July 1, 2015 (PRC section 21080.3.1). The bill establishes a new category of Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR’s) for which only tribes are expert; these resources may not necessarily be visible or archaeological, but could be religious or spiritual in nature. Significant impacts to a TCR are considered significant effects on the environment (PRC section 21084.2).

AB52 notification was sent on May 29, 2018. In the case of this project, no tribes requested consultation.

A Public Hearing notice was published on June 19, 2019. Public comments were received and have been included in Exhibit “D”.

Altes Use Permit (UP1802) Page 4

PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION

• Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to the proposed findings listed in Exhibit “A”.

• Approve the Use Permit (UP1802) subject to the proposed findings and conditions listed in Exhibits “A” and “B”.

SUGGESTED MOTION

I move that, on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received, we make the finding that the proposed project could not have a significant adverse effect on the environment because the Mitigation Measures described have been added to the project, and direct that a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program be adopted and, further, that we grant approval of the Altes Use Permit (UP1802) subject to the Findings and Conditions in the staff report.

PREPARATION

Prepared by the Siskiyou County Planning Division.

For project specific information or to obtain copies for your review, please contact:

Christy Cummings Dawson, Director Siskiyou County Community Development Department 806 S. Main Street Yreka, California 96097

Altes Use Permit (UP1802) Page 5 Exhibit “A” Proposed Findings – July 17, 2019 Altes Use Permit (UP1802)

FINDINGS

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS

MAP 11: WOODLAND PRODUCTIVITY

Policy 31 – The minimum parcel size shall be one acre on 0-15% slope, and 5 acres on 16-29% slope.

No new parcels are proposed as part of this project.

Policy 32 – Single family residential, light commercial, light industrial, open space, non-profit and non- organizational in nature recreational uses, commercial/recreational uses, and public or quasi-public uses only may be permitted.

The permitted uses will not create erosion or sedimentation problems.

The proposed equestrian and event center is a permitted use per Policy 32 and will not create erosion or sedimentation problems.

Policy 33 – All land uses and densities shall be designed so as not to destroy timber productivity on large parcels of high suitability woodland soils. (Class I and II.)

The subject parcel is not large and no new land use or change in density is proposed as a part of this project.

COMPOSITE OVERALL POLICIES

Policy 41.3(b) All light commercial, light industrial, multiple family residential, and commercial/recreational, public, and quasi-public uses must provide or have direct access to a public road capable of accommodating the traffic that could be generated from the proposed use.

The project site has direct access to Big Canyon Road, a county-maintained roadway capable of accommodating the traffic that could be generated from the proposed use.

Policy 41.3(e) All proposed uses of the land shall be clearly compatible with the surrounding and planned uses of the area.

The equestrian and event center is a conditionally permitted use in the CH zoning district. The proposed use of the site is clearly compatible with surrounding heavy industrial, neighborhood commercial, and rural residential uses.

Policy 41.3(f) All proposed uses of the land may only be allowed if they clearly will not be disruptive or destroy the intent of protecting each mapped resource.

No mapped resources will be disrupted or destroyed as a result of the proposed use.

Exhibit “B” – Planning Commission Conditions of Approval – UP-1802 – Page 1

Exhibit “A” Proposed Findings – July 17, 2019 Altes Use Permit (UP1802)

Policy 41.5 All development will be designed so that every proposed use and every individual parcel of land created is a buildable site, and will not create erosion, runoff, access, fire hazard or any other resource or environmentally related problems.

The project will not create erosion, runoff or fire hazard issues. Access to the site is from Big Canyon Road.

Policy 41.6 There shall be a demonstration to the satisfaction of the Siskiyou County Health Department and/or the California Regional Water Quality Control Board that sewage disposal from all proposed development will not contaminate ground water.

Any future sewage disposal systems must comply with all adopted rules and regulations of the Environmental Health Division of the Siskiyou County Public Health and Community Development Department.

Policy 41.7 Evidence of water quality and quantity acceptable to the Siskiyou County Health Department must be submitted prior to development approval.

The existing well located on the subject property has been approved by the Environmental Health Division of the Siskiyou County Public Health and Community Development Department. There is adequate groundwater in the area for the proposed uses.

Policy 41.8 All proposed development shall be accompanied by evidence acceptable to the Siskiyou County Health Department as to the adequacy of on-site sewage disposal or the ability to connect into an acceptable central sewer system serving an existing city or existing community series district with adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. In these cases the minimum parcels sizes and uses of the land permitted for all development will be the maximum density and land uses permitted that will meet minimum water quality and quantity requirements, and the requirements of the county’s flood plain management ordinance.

The project site has been evaluated and approved for an on-site sewage disposal system with a capacity capable of accommodating the proposed development.

Policy 41.9 Buildable, safe access must exist to all proposed uses of land. The access must also be adequate to accommodate the immediate and cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed development.

Access to the property is from Big Canyon Road, a county-maintained roadway capable of accommodating the immediate and cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed development. Moreover, the project site is approximately 150 feet from Highway 89, and 1300 feet from Interstate 5.

Policy 41.12 All significant historic and prehistoric places and features when identified shall be preserved and protected in accordance with accepted professional practices.

The project site is extensively disturbed from historic and existing uses and structures. No features exist on the property that could be considered as having cultural value to California Native American tribes, or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. Should any tribal cultural resources be discovered on the project site, they shall be preserved and protected by MM 5.1, MM 5.2, and MM 5.3 of the Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.

Exhibit “B” – Planning Commission Conditions of Approval – UP-1802 – Page 2

Exhibit “A” Proposed Findings – July 17, 2019 Altes Use Permit (UP1802)

Policy 41.13 All rare and endangered plant species as identified and recognized by state and federal government shall be preserved and protected in accordance with accepted professional practices.

The project site is substantially developed and does not provide suitable habitat for special- status plants and wildlife.

Policy 41.18 Conformance with all policies in the Land Use Element shall be provided, documents, and demonstrated before the County may make a decision on any proposed development.

Staff has reviewed all Land Use Element policies and has determined that the proposed equestrian and event center conforms to the General Plan.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS

1. An Initial Study was prepared by the County of Siskiyou for the project pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. While this Initial Study identified potentially significant effects, revisions in the project plans, specifications, and/or conditions under which the project would operate were agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects will occur.

2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the County of Siskiyou has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the processing and noticing requirements of CEQA.

3. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments submitted and has determined that the record, as a whole, demonstrates that there is no evidence that the proposed project will have an individually or cumulatively significant effect.

4. Consistent with CEQA Section 15074(b), this Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Department’s independent judgment and analysis.

5. The Planning Commission has determined that the custodian of all documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings shall rest with the County of Siskiyou Planning Department.

6. The Planning Commission has considered all written and oral comments received by staff and the public and based on its analysis of the entirety of the record before it, the Commission has determined that the project as designed and conditioned would be compatible with existing and planned uses of the area and would not create an adverse environmental impact.

7. In approving the project, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has also been adopted pursuant to the conditions of approval to report on and/or monitor the changes which have either been required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. Any changes to the project, information contained in the environmental review, or mitigation measures represent clarification and amplification of the information already presented in the environmental review, and is not new significant information to cause recirculation.

Exhibit “B” – Planning Commission Conditions of Approval – UP-1802 – Page 3

Exhibit “A” Proposed Findings – July 17, 2019 Altes Use Permit (UP1802)

ZONING CONSISTENCY/USE PERMIT FINDINGS

1. The proposed Use Permit, as recommended for approval, is consistent with the applicable policies of the Siskiyou County General Plan as documented herein.

2. The proposed equestrian facility and event center is consistent with the uses conditionally permitted within the Commercial Highway (CH) zone district, pursuant to Section 10-6.1502(c) of the Siskiyou County Code.

3. Due to size, scale, intensity and location of the project, the proposed uses will not result in a signif- icant change in the existing environment that would in any way threaten the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience or general welfare.

4. Due to the size, scale, intensity and location of the project, the proposed uses will not cause damage or nuisances from noise, smoke, odor, dust, vibration, explosion, contamination, fire or traffic and will be reasonably compatible with the existing and permitted uses in surrounding areas.

5. The Planning Commission has considered all written and oral comments received and based on its analysis of the public testimony and staff’s analysis, the Commission has determined that the project as designed and condition would be compatible with existing and planned uses of the area.

Exhibit “B” – Planning Commission Conditions of Approval – UP-1802 – Page 4

RESOLUTION PC 2019-024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF SISKIYOU, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ALTES USE PERMIT (UP1802) WHEREAS, Section 10-6.1502(c) of the Siskiyou County Code permits establishments or enterprises involving large assemblages of people within the CH zoning district, subject to approval of a use permit and provided specific conditions are met; and

WHEREAS, Matt and Ruth Altes have applied for a use permit pursuant to Section 10- 6.1502(c) of the Siskiyou County Code to establish and equestrian and event center at 138 Big Canyon Drive, near the City of Mt. Shasta on Assessor Parcel Number 037-260-510; and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that identified the following environmental factors as being potentially affected by the proposed project: Cultural Resources, Transportation/Traffic, and Noise; and

WHEREAS, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce all potential impacts to a less-than-significant level; and

WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b) and thereafter circulated with the Initial Study to responsible agencies and made available for public review and comment; and

WHEREAS, a number of conditions of approval have been recommended by staff (Exhibit B); and

WHEREAS, all mitigation measures have been reproduced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for use by County staff, participating agencies, project contractors, and mitigation monitoring personnel during implementation of the project; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Division presented its oral and written staff report on proposed use permit UP1802 at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 17, 2019; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Division recommended approval of use permit UP1802 subject to the conditions of approval included in Exhibit B to this resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Division recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the project (SCH#2018112061) subject to the conditions of approval included in Exhibit B to this resolution; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Siskiyou Daily News on June 19, 2019; and

WHEREAS, hearing notices were posted pursuant to Siskiyou County Code Section 10- 6.2805 et seq.; and

Resolution PC-2019-024 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT B Resolution PC-2019-024 Use Permit UP1802

WHEREAS, on July 17, 2019, the Chair of the Planning Commission opened the duly noticed public hearing on use permit UP1802 and Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH # 2018112061) to receive testimony, both oral and written, following which the Chair closed the public hearing and the Commission discussed the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Use Permit UP1802 prior to reaching its decision.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission adopts the recommended findings set forth in Exhibit A of the written staff report; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the evidence in the record and the findings set forth in Exhibit A, adopts the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2018112061) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approves the Altes Use Permit UP1802 subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit B to this resolution.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing Resolution PC-2019-024 was duly adopted on a motion by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner at a regular meeting of the Siskiyou County Planning Commission held on the 17th day of July 2019 by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SISKIYOU COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

______Tony Melo, Planning Commission Chair

WITNESS, my hand and seal this 17th day of July, 2019.

______Rick J. Dean, Secretary of the Commission

Resolution PC-2019-024 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT B Exhibit “B-1” Proposed Conditions of Approval – June 19, 2019 Altes Use Permit (UP1802)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

1. The project shall substantially conform to the Plans, as approved by the Siskiyou County Planning Commission on July 17, 2019. Any proposed amendment shall be submitted for consideration by the Deputy Director of Planning to determine the review process pursuant to the Siskiyou County Code.

2. All proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval if not mentioned herein.

3. All mitigation measures in the MMRP shall be conditions of approval of this Use Permit.

4. Building permits must be obtained from the Building Division of the Siskiyou County Community Development Department for any structures, plumbing, electrical, or mechanical work.

5. The applicant shall meet all applicable and appropriate Fire Safe Regulations and California Fire Code requirements for the proposed project and any associated uses or development occurring within a State Responsibility Area. The applicant shall obtain verification of compliance with these Fire Safe Regulations from the Director of the California Department of Forestry (Cal Fire), or their assigned designee prior to the final inspection of any project-related improvements or building permit.

6. The applicant shall comply with all adopted rules and regulations of the Siskiyou County Public Works Department, Environmental Health Division of the Siskiyou County Public Health and Community Development Department, and all other local and state regulatory agencies.

7. The applicant shall provide one chemical toilet for every 15 employees and 1 chemical toilet for every 20 guests.

8. Applicant shall comply with CA Food Code requirements on the on-site snack bar and for community events for which food is prepared for the public. When applicable, applicant shall obtain an event organizer’s permit and provide an associated list of vendors.

9. Pursuant to Section 10-11.04 of the Siskiyou County Code, a “Notice of Disclosure and Acknowledgment of Agricultural Land Use Protection and Right to Farm Policies of the County of Siskiyou” shall be signed, notarized, and recorded prior to the use commencing.

10. The applicant, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively, "Action") against the County, its agents (including consultants), officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the Approvals, or any part thereof, or any decision, determination, or action, made or taken approving, supplementing, or sustaining, the Project or any part thereof, or any related approvals or Project conditions imposed by the County or any of its agencies, departments, commissions, agents (including consultants), officers or employees, concerning the Project, or to impose personal liability against such agents (including consultants), officers or employees resulting from their non-negligent involvement in the Project, which Action is brought within the time period provided by law, including any claim for private attorney general fees claimed by or awarded to any party from the County. Said responsibilities shall be pursuant to the County’s standard Agreement for Indemnification in effect at the time of application approval or Agreement for Indemnification if signed and effective prior to the date the application is approved. In the event that the applicant fails to comply with the terms of the applicable agreement, the applicant does hereby consent and agree to all remedies in said agreement and does hereby agree and consent to the County rescinding all applicable project approvals.

Exhibit “B-1” – Planning Commission Conditions of Approval – UP1802 – Page 1

Exhibit “B-1” Proposed Conditions of Approval – June 19, 2019 Altes Use Permit (UP1802)

11. Pursuant to Section 66020(d)(1) of the California Government Code, the owner is hereby notified that the 90-day approval period, in which the applicant may protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions, begins on the date that the project is approved by the Planning Commission.

12. The Use Permit shall lapse and shall become null and void two (2) years following the date that the Use Permit became effective, unless prior to the expiration of two (2) years the proposed use has been established. A Use Permit involving construction shall lapse and shall become null and void two (2) years following the date that the Use Permit became effective, unless prior to the expiration of two (2) years a building permit is issued by the Building Official and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site that was subject of the Use Permit application. A Use Permit may be renewed for additional periods of time, if an application (by letter) for renewal of the Use Permit is filed with the Planning Commission prior to the permit’s expiration date. Should the use be discontinued for a period of one-year or more the use shall only resume under the condition that the Planning Director has made a written determination that the use has not been willingly discontinued and that the circumstances and findings under which the Use Permit was granted are still valid. Should the Planning Director be unable to make these required findings, the use shall not recommence without approval of a new use permit by the Planning Commission.

13. Within ten (10) days following the date of the decision of the Siskiyou County Planning Commission, the decision may be appealed to the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors. The appeal shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

14. This entitlement does not become effective, vested, or operative, and no work shall be commenced under this entitlement until the State Department of Fish and Game filing fees required and authorized by Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code are submitted to the Siskiyou County Planning Division. Within one business day of initial project approval, a check in the amount of $2354.75 (or fee as may be modified by Fish and Game) to cover this fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division (made payable to the Siskiyou County Clerk) in order to allow the project’s Notice of Determination to be filed within the statutorily required timeframes. The applicant has the sole responsibility to ensure timely compliance with this condition.

Exhibit “B-1” – Planning Commission Conditions of Approval – UP1802 – Page 2

A L T E S U S E P ERMIT (UP- 18- 0 2 ) RECIRCULATED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

COUNTY OF SISKIYOU 806 S. MAIN STREET YREKA, CA 96097

May 2019

EXHIBIT C TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXHIBIT C TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance ...... 1.0-1 1.2 Lead Agency ...... 1.0-2 1.3 Purpose and Document Organization ...... 1.0-2 1.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...... 1.0-3 1.5 Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ...... 1.0-3

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ...... 2.0-1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Project Location ...... 3.0-1 3.2 Existing Site Conditions ...... 3.0-1 3.3 Adjacent Land Uses ...... 3.0-1 3.4 Project Overview ...... 3.0-1 3.5 Project Approvals ...... 3.0-2 3.6 Relationship of Project to Other Plans ...... 3.0-3

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

4.1 Aesthetics ...... 4.0-1 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...... 4.0-3 4.3 Air Quality ...... 4.0-5 4.4 Biological Resources ...... 4.0-10 4.5 Cultural Resources ...... 4.0-14 4.6 Geology and Soils ...... 4.0-16 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 4.0-19 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 4.0-21 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 4.0-25 4.10 Land Use and Planning ...... 4.0-28 4.11 Mineral Resources...... 4.0-31 4.12 Noise ...... 4.0-32 4.13 Population and Housing ...... 4.0-36 4.14 Public Services ...... 4.0-37 4.15 Recreation ...... 4.0-39 4.16 Transportation/Traffic ...... 4.0-40 4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 4.0.43 4.18 Utilities and Service Systems...... 4.0-45 4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 4.0-47

5.0 REFERENCES ...... 5.0-1

6.0 ATTACHMENTS

A. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Search Results ...... A-1 B. Commercial Highway (C-H) Zoning District Regulations ...... B-1 C. Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment ...... C-1

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i EXHIBIT C TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES

Table 4.3-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 4.0-6 Table 4.3-2 Siskiyou County Air Quality Data ...... 4.0-7 Table 4.12-1 I-5 at SR 89 Historic Traffic Counts ...... 4.0-35 Table 4.12-2 SR 89 at I-5 Historic Traffic Counts ...... 4.0-35

FIGURES

Figure 3.0-1 Project Location ...... 3.0-5 Figure 3.0-2 Site Plan ...... 3.0-7 Figure 3.0-3 Project Site Oblique (Looking North) ...... 3.0-9 Figure 3.0-4 Outdoor Event Area and Parking (Looking East)...... 3.0-9 Figure 3.0-5 Round Pen and Arena (Looking Southwest) ...... 3.0-11 Figure 3.0-6 RV Sites with Horse Pens (Looking Southeast) ...... 3.0-11 Figure 3.0-7 Parking Area and Arena (Looking South) ...... 3.0-13 Figure 3.0-8 Outdoor Event Area Montage ...... 3.0-13 Figure 4.4-1 Wetlands Map ...... 4.0-12 Figure 4.8-1 ALUCP Compatibility Zone C2 ...... 4.0-25

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 ii EXHIBIT C

1.0 INTRODUCTION

EXHIBIT C 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE

This document is an Initial Study, with supporting environmental studies, which concludes that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA document for the Altes Use Permit (UP- 18-02). This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.

An initial study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if an initial study indicates that the proposed project under review may have a potentially significant impact on the environment that cannot be initially avoided or mitigated to a level that is less than significant. A negative declaration may be prepared if the lead agency also prepares a written statement describing the reasons why the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore why it does not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a negative declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:

a) The initial study shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, or

b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:

(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and

(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

If revisions are adopted in the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), including the adoption of mitigation measures included in this document, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared.

1.2 LEAD AGENCY

The lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over a proposed project. Where two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15051 provides criteria for identifying the lead agency. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(b)(1), “The lead agency will normally be the agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose.” Based on the criteria above, the County of Siskiyou (County) is the lead agency for the proposed Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02).

1.3 PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

The purpose of this Initial Study is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02). This document is divided into the following sections:

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0-1 EXHIBIT C 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction – This section provides an introduction and describes the purpose and organization of the document.

2.0 Project Information – This section provides general information regarding the project, including the project title, lead agency and address, contact person, brief description of the project location, general plan land use designation, zoning district, identification of surrounding land uses, and identification of other public agencies whose review, approval, and/or permits may be required. Also listed in this section is a checklist of the environmental factors that are potentially affected by the project.

3.0 Project Description – This section provides a detailed description of the proposed project.

4.0 Environmental Checklist – This section describes the environmental setting and overview for each of the environmental subject areas, evaluates a range of impacts classified as “no impact,” “less than significant,” “less than significant with mitigation incorporated,” and “potentially significant” in response to the environmental checklist.

5.0 References – This section identifies documents, websites, people, and other sources consulted during the preparation of this Initial Study.

1.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Section 4.0, Environmental Checklist, is the analysis portion of this Initial Study. The section provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the project. There are eighteen environmental issue subsections within Section 4.0, including CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance. The environmental issue subsections, numbered 1 through 18, consist of the following:

1. Aesthetics 11. Mineral Resources 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources 12. Noise 3. Air Quality 13. Population and Housing 4. Biological Resources 14. Public Services 5. Cultural Resources 15. Recreation 6. Geology and Soils 16. Transportation/Traffic 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 17. Tribal Cultural Resources 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 18. Utilities and Service Systems 9. Hydrology and Water Quality 19. Mandatory Findings of Significance 10. Land Use and Planning

Each environmental issue subsection is organized in the following manner:

The Environmental Setting summarizes the existing conditions at the regional, subregional, and local level, as appropriate, and identifies applicable plans and technical information for the particular issue area.

The Checklist Discussion/Analysis provides a detailed discussion of each of the environmental issue checklist questions. The level of significance for each topic is determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the impact. Four levels of impact significance are evaluated in this Initial Study:

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 1.0-2 EXHIBIT C 1.0 INTRODUCTION

No Impact: No project-related impact to the environment would occur with project development.

Less Than Significant Impact: The impact would not result in a substantial adverse change in the environment. This impact level does not require mitigation measures.

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that may have a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). However, the incorporation of mitigation measures that are specified after analysis would reduce the project-related impact to a less than significant level.

Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that is “potentially significant” but for which mitigation measures cannot be immediately suggested or the effectiveness of potential mitigation measures cannot be determined with certainty, because more in-depth analysis of the issue and potential impact is needed. In such cases, an EIR is required.

1.5 RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) was prepared for the Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) and circulated for a 30-day public review period from November 26, 2018 through December 26, 2018. The County of Siskiyou provided copies of the document to select local agencies and to the State Clearinghouse for subsequent distribution to state and regional agencies (SCH # 2018112061). Accompanying the Draft IS/MND was a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Public Hearing Notice (PHN), both of which were also published on the County’s website and in the Siskiyou Daily News. Written comments on the Draft IS/MND were received from one local agency (Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District) and from two individuals (Dale La Forest & Associates and Anne Marsh).

State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an IS/MND when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given, but prior to its adoption. A substantial revision is defined by the CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 as one of the following:

1. A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or

2. The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required.

Upon review of comments by County staff, it was determined that further analysis of potential noise impacts may be warranted. This generated a more thorough review of the existing and projected noise environments, the identification of additional mitigation to reduce potential noise impacts to a less-than-significant level, and the preparation of this Recirculated Draft IS/MND in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5.

Changes to the text of the Draft IS/MND (outside of Section 1, Introduction) are identified with strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new text.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0-3 EXHIBIT C 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Substantial Revisions

The two comment letters received from individuals opined that potential noise impacts had not been adequately addressed in the Draft IS/MND. As a result, the County determined that a noise study should be prepared to ensure that County noise standards were being met and would continue to be met by the project. This resulted in the preparation of an Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment by Bollard Acoustical Consultants (BAC 2019) that has been incorporated herein and included in its entirety as Attachment C.

In general, the noise study found that the project would not have significant noise impacts, but that noise impacts could occur if there is a change in the location and/or orientation of the sound system used during events or if there is an increase in the volume of amplified sound beyond 80 dB. As a result, the noise assessment includes recommended mitigation to ensure that potential noise impacts associated with the sound system remain less than significant. In addition, the noise study recommends supplemental measures beyond the mitigation included in the Draft IS/MND to address potential construction noise impacts. Accordingly, this Recirculated Draft IS/MND has been prepared to incorporate the results of the noise assessment.

Unsubstantial Revisions

In addition to the substantial revisions made to the Draft IS/MND to address potential noise impacts, additional revisions have been made that are not considered substantial revisions per CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. These revisions have been made to reflect comments made by the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District regarding the District’s discontinued sampling for fine particulate matter. The revisions do not affect the assessment of potential air quality impacts included in the Draft IS/MND.

Summary of Revisions

The following revisions were made to the IS/MND:

Section 4.3, Air Quality. The discussion regarding air quality monitoring located at the bottom of page 4.0-6 has been updated to reflect the information submitted via comment by the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District.

Section 4.12, Noise. The analysis of noise impacts found on pages 4.0-32 – 4.0-35 has been updated to reflect the findings of the Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants.

Attachment C. An attachment was added to the Draft IS/MND to support the conclusions made regarding potential noise impacts.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 1.0-4 EXHIBIT C

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

EXHIBIT C 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project title: Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02)

2. Lead agency name and address: Siskiyou County Community Development - Planning Division 806 South Main Street Yreka, CA 96097

3. Contact person and phone number: Christy Cummings Dawson – Deputy Director (530) 841-2100

4. Project location: The project site is located at 138 Big Canyon Drive approximately 0.4 mile south of the City of Mt. Shasta on APN 037-260-510, Section 27, Township 40N, Range 4W, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian (Latitude 41°17'05.20"N, Longitude 122°17'52.90"W). (See Figure 3.0-1.)

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Matt & Ruth Altes PO Box 1048 Mt. Shasta, CA 96067

6. General Plan designation: Woodland Productivity – High Suitability

7. Zoning: Highway Commercial (C-H)

8. Description of project: The project is a proposed use permit to bring an existing nine-acre equestrian and special event facility into compliance with County Code as well as to facilitate future development of the site. The facility is currently used for horse boarding/training, riding lessons, trail riding, and outdoor events, such as weddings, parties, and retreats. The use permit would allow these unpermitted uses to continue, as well as allow for training clinics and development of a septic system and two additional structures: 1) a multi-use building containing offices, restrooms, storage, and a caretaker’s residence and 2) a barn for storing hay, tack, and other horse-related materials.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project site is bordered by Big Canyon Drive to the west; commercial and industrial development to the north; an undeveloped parcel, Big Canyon Drive, and Interstate 5 to the south; and rural residential development to the east.

10. Other public agencies whose approval may be required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) • Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District (SCAPCD) • Siskiyou County Public Works Department

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0-1 EXHIBIT C 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

11. Environmental factors potentially affected:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Agriculture and Forestry Aesthetics Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hydrology and Water Quality Materials Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of

Significance

12. Determination: (To be completed by the lead agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or

NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

May 14, 2019 Signature Date

Christy Cummings Dawson County of Siskiyou Printed Name Lead Agency

Deputy Director of Planning Title

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 2.0-2 EXHIBIT C

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The project site is located at 138 Big Canyon Drive approximately 0.4 mile south of the City of Mt. Shasta in Siskiyou County, California. Accessible via Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 89 (SR 89), the site is situated approximately 720 feet east/southeast of the I-5/SR 89 interchange on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 037-260-510 in Section 27, Township 40N, Range 4W, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian (Latitude 41°17'05.20"N, Longitude 122°17'52.90"W). (See Figure 3.0-1.)

3.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

For many years the approximately nine-acre project site operated as a drive-in theater known as the Mountain View Drive-In. During this period, the site was improved with drive aisles, vehicle parking with field speakers, concessions, a projection booth, and a large outdoor movie screen. However, by the time the current owners acquired the property in 2016, the theater had long since closed (approx. 30 years), the structural improvements had been removed, and manzanita and small evergreens had reclaimed large portions of the site.

Although most of the trees and several clusters of manzanita were left standing, the property was subsequently cleared of encroaching brush, lightly re-graded, and developed into an equestrian training and special event facility. As a result, the property currently includes: an approximately 16’ x 2,200’ looped all-weather gravel driveway; five large gravel parking areas that range in size from 6,600 square feet to 18,000 square feet; a 90' x 170' outdoor riding arena; a 60' round pen; a 10’ x 20’ storage shed; an 8’ x 12’ snack bar; nine parking sites capable of accommodating RVs and horse trailers; 17 overnight horse pens; and an outdoor event area that features a covered area for catering, a covered DJ/band area, a 625-square foot dance floor, a large fire pit, and a “saloon” (see Figures 3.0-1 through 3.0-8).

3.3 ADJACENT LAND USES

The project site is bordered by Big Canyon Drive to the west, a residential triplex on commercially zoned property to the northwest, limited commercial and industrial development to the north with SR 89 beyond, single-family rural residential development to the east, and an undeveloped residentially zoned parcel, Big Canyon Drive, and I-5 to the south.

3.4 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The project is a proposed use permit to bring an existing unpermitted equestrian training/event facility located on property zoned Highway Commercial (C-H) into compliance with Siskiyou County Code as well as to facilitate future onsite improvements to support existing and proposed uses. The nine-acre project site is currently used for horse boarding/training, riding lessons, trail riding, and outdoor events, including weddings, parties, retreats, etc.

In general, training and lessons occur Monday through Saturday between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., while special events are principally held on Saturdays during the summer months between 12:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Depending upon the type of event, there are usually one to five employees working onsite, with riding lessons, training, and overnight guests averaging approximately 20 guests per day during the busiest time of the year. Except for one annual event at the facility that attracts up to 600 persons, special events typically include fewer than 250 guests.

The use permit would: 1) allow these unpermitted land uses to continue; 2) allow for training clinics 3-5 times per year with up to 75 people and 25 horses; 3) establish a limit on the number of

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0-1 EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION special events to 30 per year; 4) establish other conditions of approval to ensure operations remain compatible with adjacent land uses; and 5) allow for the development of an onsite septic system and two additional structures: 1) a multiuse building containing offices, men’s and women’s restrooms, storage, and a caretaker’s residence; and 2) a barn for storing hay, tack, and other horse-related materials.

3.5 PROJECT APPROVALS

The County of Siskiyou is the Lead Agency for this project. In addition, permits and/or approvals may be required from the following agencies:

Siskiyou County Airport Land Use Commission

According to the Siskiyou County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2001), roughly 0.90 acre in the southern portion of the nine-acre project site is located within the area of influence of Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport. Projects within an airport’s area of influence are potentially subject to review by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Until such time as (1) the ALUC finds that a local agency's general plan or specific plan is consistent with the ALUCP, or (2) the local agency has overruled the ALUC's determination of inconsistency, state law requires that local agencies refer all actions, regulations, and permits involving land within an airport influence area to the ALUC for review (State Aeronautics Act Section 21676.5(a)). Further, only those actions which the ALUC elects not to review are exempt from this requirement.

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (RWQCB)

The RWQCB typically requires a General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff (Construction General Permit) be obtained under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for projects that disturb more than one acre of soil. Typical conditions associated with such a permit include the submittal of and adherence to a storm water pollution and prevention plan (SWPPP), as well as prohibitions on the release of oils, grease or other hazardous materials.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire)

Cal Fire provides wildland fire protection services to the project area, which has been identified as being located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). Fire Safe Regulations have been prepared and adopted by the state to establish minimum wildfire protection standards for development within the SRA. Fire Safe Regulations are not intended to apply to existing structures, roads, streets, private lanes, or facilities. However, these regulations are applicable to all construction activities in conjunction with the creation of new parcels, new roads, use permit, and building permit approvals within the SRA, approved after January 1, 1991.

Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District (SCAPCD)

SCAPCD is responsible for enforcing federal, state, and local air quality regulations and ensuring that federal and state air quality standards are met within the county. These standards are set to protect the health of sensitive individuals by restricting how much pollution is allowed in the air. To meet the standards, SCAPCD enforces federal laws and state laws on stationary sources of pollution and passes and enforces its own regulations as necessary to address air quality concerns. SCAPCD has promulgated numerous rules and regulations governing the construction and operation of new or modified sources of air pollutants emissions within the air basin.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 3.0-2 EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Siskiyou County Public Works Department, Road Division

Encroachment permits are required from the Siskiyou County Public Works Department, Road Division for any improvements to publicly maintained roadways, including connections made by private driveways and/or private roadways.

3.6 RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO OTHER PLANS

SISKIYOU COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

The proposed project will be located entirely within the unincorporated area of Siskiyou County. The Siskiyou County General Plan is the principal document governing land use development in the unincorporated area of the county. The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies pertaining to land use, circulation, noise, open space, scenic highways, seismic safety, safety, conservation, energy, and geothermal. The proposed project will be required to abide by all applicable goals and policies included in the County’s adopted General Plan.

SISKIYOU COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN

As noted above, a little less than one acre in the southern portion of the project site is within the area of influence for Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport and is therefore subject to compliance with the Siskiyou County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The basic function of the ALUCP is to promote compatibility between the airports in Siskiyou County and the land uses that surround them. To do so, the ALUCP establishes land use designations, or compatibility zones, surrounding Siskiyou County airports to: 1) minimize public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, and 2) allow for future airport expansion (Shutt-Moen 2001).

BASIN PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

The project site is located within the Sacramento River Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). One of the duties of the RWQCB is development of "basin plans" for the hydrologic area over which it has jurisdiction. The Basin Plan sets forth water quality objectives for both surface water and groundwater for the region, and it describes implementation programs to achieve these objectives. The Basin Plan provides the foundation for regulations and enforcement actions of the RWQCB.

In May 2018, the RWQCB adopted the most recent version of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan defines existing and potential beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and sets forth water quality objectives for these waters (RWQCB 2018).

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0-3 EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This page intentionally left blank.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 3.0-4 EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0-5 EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This page is intentionally left blank.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 3.0-6 EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0-7 EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This page is intentionally left blank.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 3.0-8 EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Figure 3.0-3, Project Site Oblique (Looking North)

Figure 3.0-4, Outdoor Event Area and Parking (Looking East)

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0-9 EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This page is intentionally left blank.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 3.0-10 EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Figure 3.0-5, Round Pen and Arena (Looking Southwest)

Figure 3.0-6, RV Sites with Horse Pens (Looking Southeast)

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0-11 EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This page is intentionally left blank.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 3.0-12 EXHIBIT C 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Figure 3.0-7, Parking Area and Arena (Looking South)

Figure 3.0-8, Outdoor Event Area Montage

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0-13 EXHIBIT C

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic

vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Setting:

The project site is located adjacent to Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 89 (SR 89) approximately four miles south of the City of Mt. Shasta in an area with sweeping vistas to the south and west. Prominent topographic features visible from the project site include 9,037’ Mount Eddy to the northwest, several lower elevation peaks in the Trinity Mountains to the west and southwest, and 14,192’ Mount Shasta to the north.

As noted in Section 3.0, Project Description, the project site is currently improved with an equestrian facility capable of hosting large groups. Only two additional structures are proposed (a barn and a multiuse structure). The project site is bordered by a mix of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses, and is largely buffered from adjacent uses by intervening tress, manzanita, and topography.

There are no officially designated state scenic highways in the project vicinity, however, the stretch of Interstate 5 between State Route 89 immediately northwest of the project site and State Route 97 approximately 10.6 miles to the north, is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2018) and is identified as a scenic highway in the Scenic Highways Element of the Siskiyou County General Plan (Siskiyou County 1974).

Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project site is located in a scenic area, it is not part of a scenic vista. The visual character of the project site is very similar to its surroundings and would remain so even if further developed with additional structures as proposed. As such, potential impacts to scenic vistas are considered less than significant. b) No Impact. Although there are no state scenic highways in the project vicinity, Interstate 5 (approximately 760 feet to the north) is designated as a scenic highway in the Siskiyou County General Plan. Due to intervening topography, vegetation, distance, and a State Route 89 overpass, however, the project site is not readily visible from that portion of Interstate 5 designated by the County as a scenic highway. Therefore, the project would

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-1 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

have no impact to scenic resources along or within view of a locally designated or state- designated scenic highway. c) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response 4.1(a). Although the existing visual character of the project site would change somewhat with the development of two additional structures (i.e., the office and barn), such changes would be consistent with existing development on the site and in the project vicinity. As a result, potential changes to the visual character and quality of the site are considered less than significant. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose any new sources of light or glare. While special events may result in nighttime lighting, all outdoor lighting is subject to Section 10-6.5602 of the Siskiyou County Code, which requires that exposed sources of light, glare, or heat be shielded so as not to be directed outside the premises. Compliance with County Code Section 10-6.5602 ensures that potential impacts associated with light or glare remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-2 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resource Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland

(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or

nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Setting:

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

The project site is zoned Highway Commercial (C-H) and is surrounded by lots zoned Rural Residential Agricultural, One Acre Minimum (R-R-B-1), Neighborhood Commercial (C-U), and Heavy Industrial (M-H). There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the project site or on surrounding parcels. According to the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the project site and surrounding area are designated as Urban and Built-up Land (DOC 2016). This designation is not considered an agricultural resource. There are no Williamson Act contracted lands in the vicinity of the project site.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-3 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

FORESTRY RESOURCES

Forest lands are defined under Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g) as “land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. Timberland is defined under Public Resources Code Section 4526 as “land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce timber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis.”

Discussion of Impacts: a) No Impact. As identified on the 2016 Siskiyou County Important Farmland Map published by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, none of the land within or adjacent to the project site is considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) No Impact. The project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Further, there are no project components that have the potential to impact agricultural activity and/or a Williamson Act contract. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project site is identified in the Siskiyou County General Plan Land Use Element as having a high suitability for Woodland Productivity, the project site is zoned for commercial development, has been substantially developed with an equestrian/special event facility, was developed as a drive-in movie theater prior, and does not contain “forest land” or “timberland.” As such, this potential impact is considered less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response 4.2(c) above. e) No impact. See Responses 4.2(a) through 4.2(d) above. The project would not involve other changes in the environment that could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-4 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.3 AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute

substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an

applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Setting:

The project site is located in a region identified as the Northeast Plateau Air Basin (NEPAB), which principally includes Siskiyou, Modoc, and Lassen counties. This larger air basin is divided into local air districts, which are charged with the responsibility of implementing air quality programs. The local air quality agency affecting the project area is the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District (SCAPCD). Within the SCAPCD, the primary sources of air pollution are wood burning stoves, wildfires, farming operations, unpaved road dust, managed burning and disposal, and motor vehicles.

As noted above, the SCAPCD is the local air quality agency with jurisdiction over the project site. The SCAPCD adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs and regulates agricultural and non-agricultural burning. Other District responsibilities include monitoring air quality, preparing air quality plans, and responding to citizen air quality complaints.

Ambient Air Quality Standards

Air quality standards are set at both the federal and state levels of government (Table 4.3-1). The federal Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish ambient air quality standards for six criteria air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and suspended particulate matter. The California Clean Air Act also sets ambient air quality standards. The state standards are more stringent than the federal standards, and they include other pollutants as well as those regulated by the federal standards. When the concentrations of pollutants are below the allowed standards within an area, that area is considered to be in attainment of the standards.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-5 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Table 4.3-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary 1 Federal Secondary 1 California 2

8 Hour 0.07 ppm 0.07 ppm 0.07 ppm Ozone 1 Hour -- -- 0.09 ppm 8 Hour 9 ppm -- 9 ppm Carbon Monoxide 1 Hour 35 ppm -- 20 ppm Annual 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.03 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide 1 Hour 100 ppb -- 0.18 ppm Annual 0.03 ppm -- -- 24 Hour 0.14 ppm -- 0.04 ppm Sulfur Dioxide 3 Hour -- 0.5 ppm -- 1 Hour 75 ppb -- 0.25 ppm Fine Suspended Annual 12.0 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 Hour 35.0 µg/m3 35.0 µg/m3 -- Suspended Particulate Annual -- -- 20 µg/m3 Matter (PM10) 24 Hour 150 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 Sulfates 24 Hour -- -- 25 µg/m3 30 Day -- -- 1.5 µg/m3 Lead Calendar Qtr 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3 -- Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour -- -- 0.03 ppm Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour -- -- 0.01 ppm 8 Hour Visibility-Reducing Particles -- -- ( 3 ) (10 am - 6 pm PST) Source: California Air Resources Board, 2015 1 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight- hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration 3 above 150 µg/m is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies. 2 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 3 Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer - visibility of ten miles or more (0.07 - 30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Method: Beta Attenuation and Transmittance through Filter Tape.

Air Quality Monitoring

Ozone (hourly and 8-hour average) and suspended fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are is the only contaminants that receives continuous monitoring in Siskiyou County., while suspended fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is monitored every six days. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is located approximately 35 miles northwest in the City of Yreka. This station monitors both ozone and particulate matter. According to the SCAPCD, the District ceased its ongoing monitoring of PM10 at the Yreka station at the end of December 2015 and ended its one-in-six day monitoring of PM2.5 at the end of June 2018. Table 4.3-2 shows the results of monitoring efforts from 2015 - 2017 at the Yreka station.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-6 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Table 4.3-2 Siskiyou County Air Quality Data

Year Pollutant Standard 2015 2016 2017

Ozone (O3)

Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.076 0.092 0.053

Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.066 0.068 0.049

Number of Days Exceeding State 1-Hour Standard > 0.09 ppm 0 0 0

Number of Days Exceeding State/Federal 8-Hour Standard > 0.07 ppm 0 0 0

Inhalable Particulates (PM10)

Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) 65.5 * *

Estimated No. of Days Exceeding State Standard > 50 µg/m3 6.1 * *

Estimated No. of Days Exceeding Federal Standard > 150 µg/m3 0 * *

Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5)

Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) 51.0 26.1 78.8

Estimated No. of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 35 µg/m3 * 0 26.3

Measured No. of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 35 µg/m3 2 0 4 Source: California Air Resources Board, 2018 * Insufficient data

Monitored Air Pollutants

Ozone is a gas comprising three oxygen atoms. It occurs both in the earth’s upper atmosphere and at ground level. Ozone can be either beneficial or detrimental to human health, depending on its concentration and where it is located. Beneficial ozone occurs naturally in the earth’s upper atmosphere, where it acts to filter out the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. Bad ozone occurs at ground level and is created when cars, industry, and other sources emit pollutants that react chemically in the presence of sunlight. Ozone exposure can result in irritation of the respiratory system, decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, and possible lung damage with persistent exposure.

PM10 (i.e., suspended particulate matter less than 10 microns) is a major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles (about 0.0004 inches or less) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they may be deposited.

PM2.5 (i.e., suspended particulate matter less than 2.5 microns) is similar to PM10 in that it is an air contaminant that consists of tiny solid or liquid particles; though in this case the particles are about 0.0001 inches or smaller (often referred to as fine particles). PM2.5 is typically formed in the atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions that include sulfates emitted by power plants and industrial facilities and nitrates emitted by power plants, automobiles, and other types of combustion sources. While the chemical composition of fine particles is highly dependent upon location, time of year, and weather conditions, the most common source of elevated PM2.5 in Siskiyou County is smoke from wildfires.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-7 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Inhalation of PM2.5 and PM10 can cause persistent coughing, phlegm, wheezing, and other physical discomfort. Long-term exposure may increase the rate of respiratory and cardiovascular illness.

As shown in Table 3.2 above, despite the lack of data for PM10 and elevated concentrations of PM2.5 in 2017, Siskiyou County has not been identified as having significant air quality problems and is considered to be in attainment or unclassified for all federal and state air quality standards. As a result, the County is not subject to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan.

Discussion of Impacts: a) No Impact. Siskiyou County is classified as being in attainment or unclassified for all federal and state air quality standards and, as a result, is not subject to an air quality plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. See response 4.3(a) above. While particulate matter (i.e., dust) and diesel emissions could be generated during development of the septic system and additional structures on the site, the amount of emissions likely to be generated during this construction activity is considered minor. Further, construction emissions would be temporary and cease once construction is complete. Proposed uses, such as the horse clinics, are also unlikely to generate significant air pollutants. As a result, there would not be a violation of air quality standards associated with the project, nor would project-related emissions contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. c) Less Than Significant Impact. See Responses 4.3(a) and 4.3(b) above. Any air contaminants likely to be generated due to further development of the project site or use of the project site as proposed would have a negligible impact on the County’s ability to meet federal and state air quality standards. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are generally defined as facilities that house or attract groups of children, the elderly, persons with illnesses, and others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Schools, hospitals, residential areas, and senior care facilities are examples of sensitive receptors.

The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences immediately east and southeast of the project site, a triplex to the northwest, and the Golden Eagle Charter School roughly 0.2 mile to the northwest. Nevertheless, any land disturbance associated with further development of the project site and/or use of the project site as proposed is unlikely to result in substantial emissions. As such, the project’s potential impact on sensitive receptors is considered less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm; however, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as daycare centers and schools, are of particular concern. Major sources of odor-related complaints by the general public commonly include wastewater treatment facilities, landfill disposal facilities, food processing facilities, agricultural activities, and various industrial activities (e.g., petroleum refineries, chemical and fiberglass manufacturing, painting/coating operations, feed lots/dairies, composting facilities, landfills, and transfer stations).

Further development of the project site could result in temporary, localized odors as a result of construction activity. Construction odors would be generated by tailpipe emissions from

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-8 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

diesel-powered construction equipment. However, construction odors would not affect a substantial number of residences for an extended period of time and are considered less than significant.

In addition, due to the potential for up to 25 horses on the project site during clinics with fewer horses present throughout much of the year, the project has the potential to generate odors capable of impacting nearby land uses if manure and associated waste are not properly managed. According to the applicant, soiled bedding and manure are removed from the pens, arenas, corrals, and other areas on a daily basis and are removed from the site as frequently as needed to control odors. This typically entails hauling waste offsite for disposal every week or every other week. While onsite, the waste is stored sufficiently distant from residences (approximately 530 feet) such that potential odor impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-9 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,

policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not

limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community

conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Setting:

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) document species that may be rare, threatened or endangered. Federally listed species are fully protected under the mandates of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). "Take" of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), depending upon the species.

Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), CDFW has the responsibility for maintaining a list of threatened and endangered species. CDFW also maintains lists of “candidate species” and “species of special concern” which serve as “watch lists.” State-listed species are fully protected under the mandates of CESA. "Take" of protected species incidental

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-10 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST to otherwise lawful management activities may be authorized under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code of California.

Under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders of Falconiformes or Strigiformes (raptors) or to take, possess or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.

The Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1900-1913) prohibits the taking, possessing, or sale within the state of any rare, threatened or endangered plants as defined by the CDFW. Project impacts on these species would not be considered significant unless the species are known to have a high potential to occur within the area of disturbance associated with the project.

Special-Status Species

Special-status species are commonly characterized as species that are at potential risk or actual risk to their persistence in a given area or across their native habitat (locally, regionally, or nationally) and are identified by a state and/or federal resource agency as such. These agencies include governmental agencies such as CDFW, USFWS, or private organizations such as CNPS. The degree to which a species is at risk of extinction is the limiting factor on a species’ status designation. Risk factors to a species’ persistence or population’s persistence include habitat loss, increased mortality factors (take, electrocution, etc.), invasive species, and environmental toxins. In the context of environmental review, special-status species are defined by the following codes:

1) Listed, proposed, or candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.11 – listed; 61 Federal Register [FR] 7591, February 28, 1996 candidates); 2) Listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code [FGC] 1992 Section 2050 et seq.; 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 670.1 et seq.); 3) Designated as Species of Special Concern by the CDFW; 4) Designated as Fully Protected by the CDFW (FGC Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515); and 5) Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR Section 15380) including CNPS List Rank 1B and 2.

Database Results

Although the project site is largely developed, a review of the California Natural Diversity Database was conducted (see Appendix A). According to the CNDDB, 16 special-status plant species and 12 special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur in the project vicinity. Of the 16 special-status plant species and 12 special-status wildlife identified, none were noted as being likely to occur within the project site due to the lack of suitable habitat.

CDFW Early Consultation

Prior to development of the Initial Study, County staff contacted CDFW for the purpose of early consultation. On April 10, 2018, the agency responded that CDFW appreciated the opportunity to review the application materials and has no comment on the project.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-11 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

USFWS Databases

In addition to consulting with CDFW, County staff reviewed potential critical habitat designations in the general vicinity of the project site using the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2018). No critical habitats were identified within or adjacent to the project site. Staff also reviewed the USFWS National Wetland Inventory, which resulted in the identification of potential jurisdictional wetlands approximately 180 feet east of the project site (see Figure 4.4-1 below).

Figure 4.4-1, Wetlands Map Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant Impact.

Special-Status Plants: Based on a review of the CNDDB, eight CNPS List 1B species and eight CNPS List 2B species have the potential to occur in the project vicinity. However, with the exception of woolly balsamroot (Balsamorhiza lanata), the project site does not provide suitable habitat for the plant species identified. Furthermore, because the project site is already substantially developed and only two structures are proposed, potential impacts to special-status plant species, including woolly balsamroot, are considered less than significant.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-12 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Special-Status Wildlife: Twelve special-status wildlife species have been identified as potentially occurring in the project vicinity (see Appendix A). However, due to the lack of suitable habitat for identified species on the project site and the project site’s location at the juncture of two major highways (i.e., Interstate 5 and State Route 89), potential impacts to special-status wildlife species are considered less than significant. b) No Impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community within or immediately adjacent to the project site. In addition, a review of the USFWS Critical Habitat online map tool (USFS 2018a) indicates the nearest critical habitat for threatened and endangered species is more than three miles distant to the west. c) Less Than Significant Impact. A review of the USFWS National Wetland Inventory database (USFS 2018b) did not indicate the presence of wetlands within or immediately adjacent to the project site. While an ephemeral drainage is located approximately 180 feet to the east, there are no project components that are likely to affect this drainage. As a result, potential impacts to wetlands are considered less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Migratory birds are known to occur in the vicinity of the project site and are likely to pass through it as well. However, the project will not substantially interfere with the movement of avian species, or the migration of any other species. e) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f) No Impact. No habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans apply to the project area.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-13 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Setting:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines the term “historical resources.” Generally speaking, a “historical resource” includes sites that are listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, sites that are included in a local register of historical resources, or a resource that is considered “historically significant.” A lack of designation at the national, state, or local level does not preclude a resource from being determined to be a historical resource.

Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No significant historical resources have been identified within the project site; however, ground disturbance associated with development of the septic system, barn, and multiuse building has the potential to impact subsurface historic resources should any be present. Therefore, to ensure that impacts to previously unrecorded historic resources remain less than significant, mitigation measure MM 5.1 is provided below. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. While no evidence of significant archaeological resources has been identified within the project site, ground disturbance has the potential to impact subsurface archaeological resources should any be present. Therefore, to ensure that impacts to previously unrecorded archaeological resources remain less than significant, mitigation measure MM 5.1 is provided below. c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no records of paleontological resources being discovered within or immediately adjacent to the project site. Nevertheless, unanticipated and accidental discoveries of paleontological resources are possible during ground disturbing activities associated with construction of the septic system, barn, and multiuse building. Therefore, in order to ensure that potential impacts to paleontological resources remain less than significant, mitigation measure MM 5.2 is provided below. d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. There is no record of Native American or early European burial sites within or adjacent to the project site. Regardless, there is a possibility for an unanticipated and accidental discovery of human remains during ground-

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-14 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

disturbing project-related activities. Therefore, mitigation measure MM 5.3 is provided below to address the potential discovery of any unrecorded or previously unknown resources.

Mitigation Measures:

MM 5.1 If, during the course of project implementation, cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic features, isolated artifacts, and features such as concentrations of shell or glass) are discovered, all work shall cease in the area of the find, the Siskiyou County Community Development Department – Planning Division shall be immediately notified, and a professional archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. The County shall consider mitigation recommendations presented by a professional archaeologist and implement a measure or measures that the County deems feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures.

Timing/Implementation: During ground disturbance activities associated with development of the site Enforcement/Monitoring: Siskiyou County Community Development Department - Planning Division

MM 5.2 If, during the course of project implementation, paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are discovered, all work shall cease in the area of the find, the Siskiyou County Community Development Department – Planning Division shall be immediately notified, and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. The County shall consider the mitigation recommendations presented by a professional paleontologist and implement a measure or measures that the County deems feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures.

Timing/Implementation: During ground disturbance activities associated with development of the site Enforcement/Monitoring: Siskiyou County Community Development Department - Planning Division

MM 5.3 If, during the course of project implementation, human remains are discovered, all work shall cease in the area of the find, the Siskiyou County Community Development Department – Planning Division shall be immediately notified, and the County Coroner must be notified, according to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(d) and (e) shall be followed.

Timing/Implementation: During ground disturbance activities associated with development of the site Enforcement/Monitoring: Siskiyou County Community Development Department - Planning Division

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-15 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of

topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code

(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative

wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Setting:

As indicated on the 2010 Fault Activity Map of California (DOC 2010), there are a number of faults located in the region. The closest of these include the Mount Shasta faults located approximately nine miles to the northeast. None of these faults, however, have shown evidence of displacement within the last 700,000 years. The nearest potentially active faults (i.e., faults along which displacement has occurred within the past 200 years) are located in the Cedar Mountain Fault Zone approximately 23 miles northeast of the project site. The largest earthquake originating along this fault zone in recent times had a magnitude of 4.6 and occurred in August 1978 (USGS 2018).

The Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the Siskiyou County General Plan states that over a 120-year period, nine or ten earthquakes capable of “considerable damage” have occurred in the region. No deaths have been reported from these quakes and building damage was

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-16 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST considered minor or unreported. Regardless, Siskiyou County, like much of California, is located in an area with potential for major damage from earthquakes corresponding to intensity VII on the Modified Mercalli Scale.

Although much of area around Mount Shasta was impacted by a massive debris flow during the collapse of ancestral Mount Shasta (i.e., a volcano that was located on the site of contemporary Mount Shasta until roughly 160,000 to 360,000 years ago), landslides are not prominent in the area. The project site is relatively level, generally with slopes of approximately five percent or less. Further, standard construction practices limit the amount of potential erosion, and the California Building Code addresses necessary construction techniques to accommodate soils with expansive characteristics.

According to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which classifies soils throughout the United States, the project area soils are classified as #209 Ponto-Neer complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes. The Ponto-Neer complex consists of deep, well-drained soils derived from volcanic ash and rock. These soils have low to moderate shrink-swell potential, rapid permeability, low to medium runoff, slight water erosion potential, and slight to moderate wind erosion potential.

Discussion of Impacts: a)

i) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known active or potentially active faults within or adjacent to the project site. The closest mapped faults to the project area lie approximately nine miles to the northeast. The California Geologic Survey does not identify the project site as being in an area affected by this fault or any other Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

ii) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response 4.6(a)(i) above. The project site is located in a potentially seismically active area and, as a result, any structures that may be developed in the future would likely be subject to future seismic activity. Improperly designed and/or constructed structures could be subject to damage from seismic activity with resulting injury or death for the occupants. However, any future development would be required to be designed to meet all California Building Code seismic design standards, as well as site-specific and project-specific recommendations contained in the geotechnical analysis required prior to building permit issuance.

iii) Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose sand and silt that is saturated with water behaves like a liquid when shaken by an earthquake. Liquefaction can result in the following types of seismic-related ground failure:

• Loss of bearing strength – soils liquefy and lose the ability to support structures • Lateral spreading – soils slide down gentle slopes or toward stream banks • Flow failures – soils move down steep slopes with large displacement • Ground oscillation – surface soils, riding on a buried liquefied layer, are thrown back and forth by shaking • Flotation – floating of light buried structures to the surface • Settlement – settling of ground surface as soils reconsolidate • Subsidence – compaction of soil and sediment

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-17 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Three factors are required for liquefaction to occur: (1) loose, granular sediment; (2) saturation of the sediment by groundwater; and (3) strong shaking. Impacts associated with liquefaction are unlikely given the well-drained soils on the project site and low incidence of seismic activity in the region.

iv) Less Than Significant Impact. Because much of the project site is relatively flat (approximately 5% slopes or less on average) and does not show a history of instability, the potential for landslides is considered low. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Erosion is the process by which soil material is detached and transported from one location to another by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally in most systems but is often accelerated by human activities that disturb soil and vegetation. The rate at which natural and accelerated erosion occur is largely a function of climate, soil cover, slope conditions, and inherent soil properties.

Use of the project site as proposed, including development of the septic system, barn, and multiuse building, is expected to result in only minor land disturbances. Further, according to the Natural Resource Conservation Service, project site soils exhibit only a slight potential for water erosion and a slight to moderate potential for wind erosion (USDA-NRCS 2018). As such, potential erosion impacts associated with the project are considered less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The potential for landslides on the project site was addressed under Response 4.6(a)(iv) and was determined to be less than significant. The potential for lateral spreading, liquefaction, subsidence, and other types of ground failure or collapse was addressed under Response 4.6(a)(iii) and was also determined to be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive or shrink-swell soils are soils that swell when subjected to moisture and shrink when dry. Expansive soils typically contain clay minerals that attract and absorb water, greatly increasing the volume of the soil. This increase in volume can cause damage to foundations, structures, and roadways.

Project site soils contain a high percentage of sand (67%) relative to clay (13%) and, as a result, are considered to have low to moderate shrink-swell potential. Nevertheless, the County requires the preparation of a geotechnical analysis prior to the issuance of building permit(s), which if necessary, include project-specific recommendations to reduce the potential for shrink-swell impacts. Incorporation of these recommendations, along with standard practices required by the California Building Code, would further reduce the potential for project-related shrink-swell impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The Siskiyou County Environmental Health Division has evaluated the ability of the project site to accommodate development of a septic system to serve the project and determined that it can, resulting in sewer clearance being issued to the project and site.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-18 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses?

Setting:

With adoption of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 97, the State of California established GHG reduction targets and has determined that GHG emissions as they relate to global climate change are a source of adverse environmental impacts. However, neither the State of California nor the County of Siskiyou have established significance criteria for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by a proposed project. Indeed, many regulatory agencies are sorting through suggested thresholds and/or making project-by-project analyses. This approach is consistent with that suggested by CAPCOA in its technical advisory entitled CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through the California Environmental Quality Act Review (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2008):

“In the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other specific data to clearly define what constitutes a ‘significant project’, individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice.”

The impact that GHG emissions have on global climate change does not depend on whether the emissions were generated by stationary, mobile, or area sources, or whether they were generated in one region or another. Thus, consistency with the state’s requirements for GHG emissions reductions is the best metric for determining whether the proposed project would contribute to global warming. In the case of the proposed project, if the project substantially impairs the state’s ability to conform to the mandate to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, then the impact of the project would be considered significant.

Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction Emissions

Use of fossil fuel powered heavy equipment during construction of the barn and multiuse structure would result in minor GHG emissions. These emissions, however, would be limited in scope, temporary and intermittent in duration, and are considered less than significant.

Long-Term Operational Emissions

Use of the project site as proposed is expected to generate minor intermittent and ongoing GHG emissions associated with the use of passenger vehicles to travel to and from the project site. As discussed in Section 4.16, the project is not likely to generate a substantial

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-19 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

number of trips each day, and traffic associated with special events is intermittent and seasonal. As such, impacts are considered less than significant. b) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-20 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or

waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a

public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety

hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Setting:

A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. A hazardous material is defined in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Section 662601.10, as follows:

A substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-21 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed.

Most hazardous material regulation and enforcement in Siskiyou County is managed by the Siskiyou Community Development Department - Environmental Health Division, which refers large cases of hazardous materials contamination or violations to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). When issues of hazardous materials arise, it is not at all uncommon for other agencies to become involved, such as the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District and both the federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA).

Under Government Code Section 65962.5, both DTSC and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are required to maintain lists of sites known to have hazardous substances present in the environment. Both agencies maintain up-to-date lists on their websites. A search of the DTSC and SWRCB lists did not identify any hazardous waste violations in the vicinity of the project site.

Discussion of Impacts: a) No Impact. There are no project components that are likely to result in the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response 4.8(a). Although unlikely, a potential accidental release of hazardous materials could occur during construction of the septic system, barn, and multiuse structure. Any such release would likely be minor spillages of fuels and oils associated with the use of heavy equipment during ground work. However, there is nothing specific about the project or project site to suggest an elevated potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials. As such, potential impacts are considered less than significant. c) No Impact. The Golden Eagle Charter School is located approximately 0.2 mile northwest of the project site. No other existing or proposed schools are located within one-quarter mile of the site. There is no project component that has the potential to produce hazardous emissions or that entails the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. d) No Impact. According to the DTSC Envirostor database and SWRCB GeoTracker database, which were reviewed on September 21, 2018, the project site has not been identified as a hazardous material spill site, nor is it located adjacent to such a site. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately 1.7 miles north of the Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport, a public use airport with a 2,800’ runway that is open to general aviation aircraft during daylight hours. As of 2015, the airport averaged 42 aircraft operations per week (Coffman Associates 2018). There are no other public or private airports within two miles of the project site.

According to the Siskiyou County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which addresses land uses surrounding Siskiyou County airports for the purpose of: 1) minimizing public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, and 2) allowing for future airport expansion, roughly 0.9 acre in the southern portion of the project site is within the area of influence of Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport (see Figure 4.8-1). Specifically, this portion of the project site is designated by the ALUCP as being within Compatibility Zone C2.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-22 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Within Compatibility Zone C2, overflights at altitudes of 1,000 feet and less are common; however, whereas compatibility zones A and B are used to delineate high and moderate risks to safety respectively, the C zones (C1 and C2) are principally used to identify areas subject to potential annoyance by overflights. Nevertheless, the ALUCP does note that hazards to flight, such as tall objects (>50’), visual and electronic forms of interference, and land uses that attract birds are prohibited in Compatibility Zone C2. The plan further notes that schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, and nursing homes should be avoided in Zone C2 (Shutt Moen Associates 2001).

Therefore, because the project site is located outside of those areas identified by the ALUCP as being at elevated risk from air operations at Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport, and because the project does not include hazards to flight or land uses to be avoided per the ALUCP, the potential for safety hazards to persons working, recreating, and potentially residing in the project area are considered less than significant. f) No Impact. See Response 4.8(e). The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Less Than Significant Impact. There is nothing about the proposed project that would substantially interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. h) Less Than Significant Impact. There is the potential for wildland fires in the region given the dry summer climate, with hot days and wind, and the project site’s location in a wildland- urban interface. Nevertheless, the project would not substantially increase the risk of fire on the project site, and the project will be required to comply with Fire Safe Regulations enacted pursuant to Public Resources Code Sec. 4290 to minimize potential impacts.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-23 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Figure 4.8-1 ALUCP Compatibility Zone C2

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-24 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or

substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned

stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard

Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including

flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Setting:

The most significant hydrologic features in the project vicinity are the Upper Sacramento River approximately 1.2 miles to the southwest and Lake Siskiyou approximately 1.5 miles to the west. No other significant surface water features exist in the project vicinity.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-25 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

With no municipal sewer and water infrastructure located in the vicinity of the project site, water and wastewater services would be provided by an existing onsite well and a proposed onsite sewage disposal system, the latter of which will require a permit from the Siskiyou County Community Development Department - Environmental Health Division prior to construction. The Siskiyou County Environmental Health Division has previously evaluated the site and approved an onsite sewage disposal area for the project.

As mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Mapping program, the project site is located in Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard (FIRM Map 06093C3025D).

Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not violate water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements. It is anticipated that some ground disturbance will be necessary during development of the septic system, barn, and multiuse structure. Nevertheless, the Upper Sacramento River, Lake Siskiyou, and other hydrologic features in the project vicinity are all sufficiently distant that there would be no adverse impacts to these features. As a result, potential impacts to water quality are considered less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project would result in the creation of impervious surfaces due to development of the barn and multiuse building, these impervious surfaces would be relatively limited and would not interfere with groundwater recharge. The soils at the site are considered well drained and the project site is large enough to accommodate stormwater on-site and not impede groundwater recharge. The project site also includes an existing well of sufficient production to serve current and proposed uses, resulting in Siskiyou County Environmental Health Division issuing water clearance for the project. Therefore, potential impacts to groundwater and groundwater recharge are considered less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response 4.9(b) above. Because sufficient undeveloped land would remain adjacent to existing and future impervious surfaces, any potential minor increase in stormwater runoff would be accommodated on site. Further, the limited development potentially resulting from the project would not substantially alter drainage patterns on-site or result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. d) Less Than Significant Impact. See Responses 4.9(b) and 4.9(c) above. The minor grading activities associated with future development of the barn and multiuse building would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern such that there would be increased flooding on- or off-site. e) Less Than Significant Impact. See Responses 4.9(b) through 4.9(c) above. Any minor increase in stormwater runoff resulting from development of impervious surfaces would be negligible relative to the amount of undeveloped land that would accommodate runoff on the project site. f) Less Than Significant Impact. See Responses 4.9(a) through 4.9(e). g) No Impact. The project is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. h) No Impact. See Response 4.9(g).

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-26 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST i) No Impact. The project would not result in the failure of a levee or dam, nor would it expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. j) No Impact. The project site is not located near an ocean or large body of water with potential for seiche or tsunami. The project is located more than one mile from Lake Siskiyou and the Upper Sacramento River. As discussed under Responses 4.6(a)(iii) and 4.6(a)(iv), the project area is not at risk of mudflows.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-27 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Setting:

Siskiyou County General Plan

The basis for land use planning in the unincorporated areas of Siskiyou County, which includes the project site, is the Siskiyou County General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan provides the primary guidance on issues related to land use and land use intensity. The Land Use Element provides designations for land within the County and outlines goals and policies concerning development and use of that land.

The primary goal of the Land Use Element of the Siskiyou County General Plan is to allow the physical environment to determine the appropriate future land use pattern that will develop in the County. This is contrary to conventional planning practice in which one master land use map indicates future land use patterns based primarily on social, political, and economic factors. Its focus is for future development to occur in areas that are easiest to develop without entailing great public service costs, that have the least negative environmental effect, and that do not displace or endanger the county’s critical natural resources.

The technique used for the development of the Land Use Element involved preparation of a series of overlay maps identifying development constraint areas. Constraints take the form of both natural, physical barriers or problems and those culturally imposed on the basis of resource protection. The combination of overlay maps provides a visual display of tones representing physical constraints in a particular geographic area in terms of the perceived effect of development. In identifying an absence of physical constraints, it also indicates where development may proceed without encountering known physical problems.

The Land-Use Element of the Siskiyou County General Plan identifies the project site as being located within the following mapped areas: Woodland Productivity – Highly Suitable. The following are the applicable policies established for development within the mapped resource and natural hazard area:

Policy no. 31 The minimum parcel size shall by one acre on zero to 15 percent slope, and five areas on 16 to 29 percent slope.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-28 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

The permitted density will not create erosion or sedimentation problems.

Policy no. 32 Single-family residential, light industrial, light commercial, open space, non-profit and non-organizational in nature recreational uses, commercial/recreational uses, and public or quasi-public uses only may be permitted.

The permitted uses will not create erosion or sedimentation problems.

Policy no. 33 All land uses and densities shall be designed so as not to destroy timber productivity on large parcels and suitability woodland soils. (Class I and II).

In addition to the policy noted above, the following composite policies have been determined to be applicable to the proposed project:

Policy no. 41.3(b) All light commercial, light industrial, multiple family residential, and commercial/recreational, public and quasi public uses must provide or have direct access to a public road capable of accommodating the traffic that could be generated from the proposed use.

Policy no. 41.3(e) All proposed uses of the land shall be clearly compatible with the surrounding and planned uses of the area.

Policy no. 41.3(f) All proposed uses of the land may only be allowed if they clearly will not be disruptive or destroy the intent of protecting each mapped resource.

Policy no. 41.5 All development will be designed so that every proposed use and every individual parcel of land created is a buildable site, and will not create erosion, runoff, access, or fire hazard or any other resource or environmentally related problems.

Policy no. 41.6 There shall be a demonstration to the satisfaction of the Siskiyou County Health Department and/or the California Regional Water Quality Control Board that sewage disposal from all proposed development will not contaminate ground water.

Policy no. 41.7 Evidence of water quality and quantity acceptable to the Siskiyou County Health Department must be submitted prior to development approval.

Policy no. 41.8 All proposed development shall be accompanied by evidence acceptable to the Siskiyou County Health Department as to the adequacy of on-site sewage disposal or the ability to connect into an existing city or existing Community Services District with adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. In these cases the minimum parcel sizes and uses of the land permitted for all development will be the maximum density and lands uses permitted that will meet minimum water quality and quantity requirements, and the requirements of the county’s flood plain management ordinance.

Policy no. 41.9 Buildable, safe access must exist to all proposed uses of land. The access must also be adequate to accommodate the immediate and cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed development.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-29 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Policy no. 41.12 All significant historic and prehistoric places and features when identified shall be preserved and protected in accordance with accepted professional practices.

Policy no. 41.13 All rare and endangered plant species identified and recognized by state and federal government shall be preserved and protected in accordance with accepted professional practices.

Policy no. 41.18 Conformance with all policies in the Land Use Element shall be provided, documented, and demonstrated before the County may make a decision on any proposed development.

Siskiyou County Zoning

In concert with the General Plan, the Siskiyou County Code establishes zoning districts within the County and specifies allowable uses and development standards for each district. Under state law, each jurisdiction’s zoning must be consistent with its general plan. The zoning of the project site is Highway Commercial (C-H). Pursuant to Section 10-6.4402 of the Siskiyou County Code, uses permitted in the C-H zoning district include: restaurants; convenience stores; recreational vehicle parks; campgrounds; motels and hotels; a caretaker’s residence; and emergency shelters. A complete list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the Highway Commercial District is included in Attachment B.

Siskiyou County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

According to the Siskiyou County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), a little less than one acre in the southern portion of the project site is within the area of influence for Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport. The basic function of the ALUCP is to promote compatibility between the airports in Siskiyou County and the land uses that surround them. To do so, the ALUCP establishes land use designations, or compatibility zones, surrounding Siskiyou County airports to: 1) minimize public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, and 2) allow for future airport expansion.

Discussion of Impacts: a) No Impact. The project is located adjacent in an area of sparse development and would not result in the division of an existing community. b) No Impact. The project would not conflict with applicable plans that have jurisdiction over the project area. The project, including future development of the barn and multiuse building, would be consistent with the County’s general plan and zoning. c) No Impact. See Section 4, Biological Resources. No habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans are applicable to the project area.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-30 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known

mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

Setting:

Historically, gold mining was responsible for the establishment of several communities within Siskiyou County. Although some mining still takes place, the resource is greatly diminished and no longer plays a significant role in the economy. Nevertheless, gold continues to draw interest in the region, especially when gold prices are high.

The State Mining and Geology Board has the responsibility to inventory and classify mineral resources and could designate such mineral resources as having a statewide or regional significance. If this designation occurs, the local agency must adopt a management plan for such identified resources. At this time, there are no plans to assess local mineral resources for the project area or Siskiyou County.

Discussion of Impacts: a) No Impact. The project would not result in the loss of an available known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or residents of the state. b) No Impact. See Response 4.11(a) above. There are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites within the project area delineated in the County’s general plan.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-31 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.12 NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the

local general plan or noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a

public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people

residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Setting:

The Siskiyou County General Plan Noise Element identifies land use compatibility standards for exterior community noise for a variety of land use categories for project planning purposes. For commercial land uses such as the project, an exterior noise level of 65 Ldn (Day-Night Level) is considered “acceptable” and requires no special noise insulation or noise abatement features unless the project is itself considered a source of incompatible noise for a nearby land use. For those residential uses adjacent to the project site, an exterior noise level of 60 Ldn (Day-Night Level) is identified as acceptable. The outdoor noise level planning criteria identified in the Noise Element are intended to “assure that a 45 Ldn indoor level will be achieved by the noise attenuation of regular construction materials.”

As discussed elsewhere herein, the Siskiyou County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) identifies approximately 0.9 acre in the southern portion of the project site as being within the area of influence of Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport. The basic function of the ALUCP is to promote compatibility between the airports in Siskiyou County and the land uses that surround them. To do so, the ALUCP establishes land use designations, or compatibility zones, surrounding airports in the county to: 1) minimize public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, and 2) allow for future airport expansion. These compatibility zones are accompanied by noise contour maps for each of the airports and the lands that surround them. According to the ALUCP, less than one acre of the project site is located in Compatibility Zone C2, a zone that is

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-32 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST indicated as not generally being affected by aviation noise exceeding 55 dB Ldn and where such overflight annoyances are likely moderated by noise from traffic on I-5 (Shutt-Moen 2001).

Existing noise sources in the project site include local traffic on Big Canyon Drive, through traffic along Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 89 (SR 89), and aviation from Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport. The most consistent noise at the project site is through traffic along I-5, approximately 175 feet south of the site. The speed limit on this section of I-5 is 65 MPH for passenger vehicles and 55 MPH for trucks with 3 or more axles and vehicles pulling trailers. Historic traffic volumes for I-5 and SR 89 in the vicinity of the project site are shown in tables 4.12-1 and 4.12-2 below.

Table 4.12-1 I-5 at SR 89 Historic Traffic Counts

Location 2006 2012 2016 Peak Peak Peak AADT AADT AADT Interstate 5 at Month Month Month SR 89 20,700 26,000 17,900 22,000 21,100 27,500 Source: Caltrans Traffic Census Program

Table 4.12-2 SR 89 at I-5 Historic Traffic Counts

Location 2006 2012 2016 Peak Peak Peak AADT AADT AADT SR 89 at Month Month Month Interstate 5 3,650 4,900 3,100 4,000 3,050 4,050 Source: Caltrans Traffic Census Program

Following circulation of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review and comment, an Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment was prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. The results of that study (BAC 2019) have been incorporated herein and the entire study is included as Attachment C.

Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction Noise

The project would generate temporary construction noise levels as a result of development of the septic system, barn, and multiuse building. Although construction noise is temporary in nature, it could pose a nuisance to noise-sensitive receptors adjacent to the project area. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 12.1, which establishes limits on hours of construction and other noise reducing strategies, would reduce potential construction noise impacts to a level that is considered less than significant.

Facility Noise

Noise levels contributed by the project include amplified music and sound, live music, and sounds emanating from event guests and their vehicles. The designated events area on the project site maintains a separation of approximately 125 150 feet from the nearest noise-

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-33 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

sensitive structure, located east of the project site. No noise information from existing noise generating sources were provided. However, assuming standard spherical spreading loss (-6 dB per doubling of distance), and the distance of the events area from the nearest noise- sensitive structure, noise levels are anticipated to be within established noise criteria. Additionally, noise from the project site is expected to be intermittent, with amplified sounds and music being turned off by 10 pm. As part of the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment prepared for the project, the existing noise environment was assessed along with projected noise levels generated by the project. In general, it was found that project noise impacts would be less than significant, whether from vehicles arriving and departing, doors opening and closing, event attendees, amplified music, air-conditioning equipment, or off- site traffic (see Attachment C). However, the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment also identified the potential for a significant noise impact to nearby land uses if the location and/or orientation of the sound system is deviated from or if amplified sound volumes are increased above 80 dB when measured at a distance of 50 feet in front of the speakers. Therefore, to ensure that potential noise impacts associated with amplified music and speech remain less than significant, mitigation measure MM 12.2 is provided below. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The use of blasting and/or pile drivers during construction activities is not included as part of the project. However, during construction of the septic system, barn, and multiuse building, heavy equipment would be utilized that can generate localized groundborne vibration and groundborne noise perceptible to residences or other sensitive uses in the project vicinity. However, since the duration of impact would be brief and would occur during less sensitive daytime hours (i.e., between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.), potential impacts from construction-related groundborne vibration and groundborne noise are considered less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The primary contributors to the existing noise environment surrounding the project site include motor vehicle traffic along area roadways. No permanent noise sources would be introduced to the existing noise environment by the proposed project, as noises associated with training and lessons would begin shortly prior to 8:00 a.m. and cease at 6:30 p.m. each day. d) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response 4.11(a). The project may create temporary impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors on days a special event takes place at the facility. The applicant’s use of amplified music includes commitments taken by the applicant to reduce the exposure to surrounding receptors, such as directing speakers away from adjacent properties with residences, prohibiting amplified noise after 10 p.m., and potentially installing other sound reduction measures. A condition of approval would also be included into the use permit for the applicant to have noise levels tested in the event of complaints and identifying additional measures to reduce obtrusive noises. Application of proposed permit conditions to reduce noise levels would further reduce temporary noises levels and result in a less-than-significant impact to neighboring properties. e) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response 4.8(e). According to the ALUCP, approximately 0.9 acre in the southern portion of the project site is located within Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport’s Compatibility Zone C2. Although the C zones (i.e., C1 and C2) are potentially affected by aviation noise, the ALUCP indicates that land uses within Dunsmuir Municipal- Mott Airport’s Zone C2 are not generally affected by aviation noise exceeding 55 dB CNEL. The ALUCP further notes that within Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport’s Zone C2, the threshold for annoyance with aircraft overflights is usually higher than in rural locations because of traffic noise along I-5.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-34 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST f) No Impact. The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Mitigation Measures:

MM 12.1 To reduce the potential for construction noise impacts, the following measures shall be incorporated into the project construction operations:

• Construction activities during project site development are prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays, and shall occur from Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

• All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.

• All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity.

• Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal- combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.

• Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise sensitive receptors.

• Nearby residences shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.

Timing/Implementation: During grading and construction of improvements Enforcement/Monitoring: Siskiyou County Community Development Department – Planning Division

MM 12.2 In order to reduce the potential for an exceedance of the applicable Siskiyou County residential noise level standard and FICON increase significance criteria at adjacent land uses, the following measures shall be implemented:

• Amplified event music and speech shall not exceed noise levels of 75 dB Leq and 80 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the front of the sound system speakers.

• Event sound system speakers shall not deviate from the location and orientation outlined in the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.

• All amplified event music and speech shall be restricted to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).

Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during each event at the site; Ongoing

Enforcement/Monitoring: Siskiyou County Community Development Department – Planning Division

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-35 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Setting:

The project site is located approximately 0.4 mile south of the City of Mt. Shasta and 1.6 miles north of the City of Dunsmuir in an area developed with rural residential, commercial, and light industrial land uses. Adjacent zoning designations include Rural Residential Agricultural, One Acre Minimum (R-R-B-1) to the south and east, Neighborhood Commercial (C-U) and Highway Commercial (C-H) to the north, and Heavy Industrial (M-H) to the west.

Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project has the potential to result in the development of a single caretaker’s residence. As such, the project would not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly and potential impacts are considered less than significant. b) No Impact. No housing would be displaced by the project. c) No Impact. No people would be displaced by the project.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-36 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities?

Setting:

FIRE PROTECTION

Fire protection services for the project site are provided by the Mt. Shasta Fire Protection District (MSFPD) and the site is also located in a Cal Fire State Responsibility Area. The MSFPD station is located at 600 Michele Drive, approximately 2.3 road miles northwest of the site. Additionally, the Mt. Shasta Fire Department, located at 303 North Mount Shasta Boulevard, is approximately 2.8 driving miles from the project site.

POLICE PROTECTION

Police protection services at the project site are provided by the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department. The nearest Sheriff’s Department substation is located at 241 Ski Village Drive, Mt. Shasta, located approximately 4.5 road miles from the site. Additionally, the California Highway Patrol and Mt. Shasta Police Department are both located within three miles of the project site. These agencies are likely to provide additional support to the Sheriff’s Department in case of an emergency.

SCHOOLS

The area is served by the Mt. Shasta Union Elementary School District for kindergarten through 8th grade and the Siskiyou Union High School District for high school-aged children in grades 9 through 12 at Mt. Shasta High School. Both schools, located in the City of Mt. Shasta, currently operate well below capacity. Both schools also impose development fees on new construction to offset any impact development would have on increased enrollment.

RECREATION

Recreational opportunities for both youth and adults are varied and plentiful in the project area. The Upper Sacramento River and Lake Siskiyou provide opportunities for water recreation, including boating, swimming, fishing, and other outdoor activities. The Mt. Shasta Ski Park, approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the project site, includes opportunities for downhill and cross-country skiing as well as summer activities such as hiking and mountain biking. In addition, the Mt. Shasta Recreation and Parks District operates Mt. Shasta City Park, Shastice Park, and

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-37 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST youth sports fields at Sisson School. Features at these three facilities include playgrounds, walking and hiking paths, picnic and barbeque facilities, sports and recreational areas, skateboard park, and a roller skating/ice skating rink.

OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES

Other public facilities found in the project vicinity include the Siskiyou County Library – Mt. Shasta Branch, the U.S. Postal Service Mt. Shasta post office, and public lands owned and administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.

Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Mt. Shasta Fire Protection District and within a Cal Fire State Responsibility Area. Cal Fire PRC 4290 regulations are applicable at the site. The project would not affect the provision of fire protection services. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not expected to generate a significant increase in calls for police protective services or affect the provision of police services in the community. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project may include a caretaker’s residence within the multiuse building when constructed, the project is a commercial endeavor and will not generate a substantial increase in school enrollment. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is unlikely to result in increased use of nearby parks. However, trail rides could generate a slight increase in activity on the trail surrounding Lake Siskiyou. Nevertheless, the Lake Siskiyou Trail and associated facilities around the lake can accommodate any minor increase in use. e) No Impact. The project would not impact any other government services or facilities.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-38 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.15 RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of

recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Setting:

Recreational opportunities for both youth and adults are varied in the project area. Parks and outdoor recreational facilities described in Section 4.14, above, provide the opportunities for a variety of public outdoor recreation activities including, fishing, boating, swimming, and water recreation.

Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant Impact. Any potential minor increase in population resulting from the project would have a negligible impact on local recreation facilities and would not cause deterioration or the need for expanded or new facilities. b) No Impact. See Response 4.15(a). The project is a commercial recreational facility. All potential impacts associated with its use and expansion have been addressed in this initial study and where warranted have been mitigated to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-39 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact

4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand

measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a

change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or

pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Setting:

The project site is accessed via Big Canyon Drive, a county-maintained roadway with 24’ of pavement width within a 60’ right-of-way. However, most vehicles would only be on Big Canyon Drive a short distance (approximately 100’), as Big Canyon Drive and the project site are most easily accessible from State Route 89 (SR 89) immediately to the north. SR 89 is a north-south trending California highway that extends between Interstate 5 (I-5) approximately 0.25 mile west of the project site and US 395 approximately 243 miles to the southeast. In the vicinity of the project site, SR 89 includes two 12’ travel lanes and has a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour (MPH). As previously indicated, SR 89 intersects with I-5 approximately 0.25 mile west of the project site. I-5 is the primary north-south arterial along the west coast and in the vicinity of the project site includes three northbound lanes and two southbound lanes, all with a posted speed limit of 65 MPH for passenger vehicles and 55 MPH for trucks with 3 or more axles and vehicles pulling trailers.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-40 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

The County of Siskiyou provides a public bus system, Siskiyou Transit and General Express (STAGE), which makes several stops in Mt. Shasta and in other communities along the I-5 corridor. The nearest bus stop is located approximately 1.1 miles north of the project site at Mt Shasta Fitness.

Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant Impact. Use of the project site for lessons and training, trail riding, and overnight horse boarding does not generate substantial traffic, particularly in light of the capacity of the area road network. Special events are expected to result in a temporary increase in traffic along area roadways during scheduled events. However, this traffic would be intermittent and is expected to occur during off-peak hours (i.e., weekends, evenings, etc.).

The project was routed to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for review and comment. Although Caltrans noted that a turn lane from SR 89 onto Big Canyon Drive may be required at some point in the future as the area further develops, no turn lane is required at this time to accommodate the project. As such, the increase in traffic volumes associated with the project would not cause a substantial increase in vehicle trips or intersection congestion and impacts are considered less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response 4.16(a). The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program or level of service standard. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest public airport to the project site is the Dunsmuir-Mott Airport, located approximately 1.7 miles to the south. According to the Siskiyou County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is located in an area subject to overflights of 1,000 feet and less. However, there are no project components that exist or are proposed, including tall structures, source of glare, or other hazards to flight, that would affect air traffic patterns. d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Nevertheless, due to the potential volume of traffic accessing the site from SR 89 during large events, Caltrans has requested that temporary special event sign(s) and/or other traffic control measures be utilized whenever special events are held at the site that generate more than 50 vehicles. The purpose of the sign(s) and/or other traffic control measures would be to alert drivers on SR 89 to the potential for slower moving vehicles as they approach Big Canyon Drive. This will require that the facility operator obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans prior to placement of the sign(s) and/or utilization of other traffic control measures. As such, to ensure potential transportation impacts remain less than significant, mitigation measure MM 16.1 is included below. e) No Impact. Access to the project site would be Big Canyon Drive, a county-maintained road a short distance from SR 89, a state highway. Additional trips generated by the proposed project would not impair emergency access to the site or create off-site impediments to emergency access vehicles. f) No Impact. The project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-41 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Mitigation Measures:

MM 16.1 Prior to events that generate over 50 vehicles, the facility operator shall obtain an encroachment permit from the California Department of Transportation – District 2 to provide special event signs and/or other traffic control measures based on the characteristics of the event.

Timing/Implementation: Ongoing whenever special events are held at the project site that generate more than fifty (50) vehicles Enforcement/Monitoring: California Department of Transportation – District 2

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-42 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural

landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local

register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying

the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Setting:

On January 1, 2015, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21074, which defines a “tribal cultural resource”, became effective. PRC Section 21074 states the following:

(a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following: (1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: (A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. (B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. (2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

(b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-43 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

(c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).

Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is extensively disturbed from historic and existing uses and structures. No features exist on the property, including objects, sites, or landscapes, that could be considered as having cultural value to California Native American tribes, or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. Nevertheless, should any tribal cultural resources be discovered during land disturbance activities, mitigation measures MM 5.1, MM 5.2, and MM 5.3 would provide adequate mitigation to reduce potential impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response 4.17(a). Prior to environmental review, the project was circulated to all tribes on the County’s contact list to invite consultation and avoid potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Invitations were mailed to the Karuk Tribe, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. None of the tribes contacted indicated that tribal cultural resources would be affected by the project.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-44 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and

resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes

and regulations related to solid waste?

Setting:

WATER

Domestic water is currently provided by an individual well located on the project site. As a result, the project has received water clearance from the Siskiyou County Environmental Health Division.

WASTEWATER

Wastewater disposal is presently addressed through the use of chemical toilets (i.e., porta- potties). However, the Siskiyou County Environmental Health Division has evaluated the project site for development of a septic system, and based on this evaluation, has approved an on-site sewage disposal area for the project site.

STORM DRAINAGE

Given the low density of development in the project vicinity and the permeability of area soils, existing storm drainage facilities are non-existent. The approximately nine-acre project site is

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-45 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST large enough to accommodate additional stormwater runoff associated with future development of impervious surfaces associated with the proposed barn and mixed-use building.

SOLID WASTE

The Black Butte transfer station is located at 3710 Springhill Road in Mt. Shasta. Solid waste from this transfer station is subsequently transported and disposed of at the Dry Creek Landfill in White City, Oregon. Under existing state permits, the Dry Creek Landfill may accept 972 tons of solid waste per day until the year 2056 and had an estimated remaining capacity of 28,421,000 cubic yards in 2006 (CH2M HILL, 2006).

Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater disposal is regulated under the federal Clean Water Act and the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) implements these acts by administering the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), issuing water discharge permits, and establishing best management practices. The County Environmental Health Division has reviewed the project and has determined that a conventional on-site sewage disposal system can accommodate existing and proposed uses on the project site without adversely impacting groundwater or exceeding applicable RWQCB standards. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site would be served by an individual well and on- site septic system. The project has received water and sewer clearance from the Siskiyou County Environmental Health Division. Mitigation measures contained elsewhere herein, such as MM 5.1 though MM 5.3, adequately mitigate potential impacts associated with future development of the septic system. c) Less Than Significant Impact. See Responses 4.9(c), 4.9(d) and 4.9(e). No new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities are required to serve the project. The approximately nine-acre parcel is large enough to accommodate additional stormwater runoff associated with development of the barn and multiuse building. Soils at the site can accommodate the additional runoff through percolation. No new stormwater facilities are needed to serve the project. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be served by an existing well previously developed on the project site. As such, the project has received water clearance from the Siskiyou County Environmental Health Division. e) No Impact. See Response 4.18(a). There is no wastewater treatment provider that serves or would serve the project. f) Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste from the project site will be transported to the Black Butte Transfer Station and subsequently disposed of at the Dry Creek Landfill in southern Oregon. Under existing permits, the landfill may accept 972 tons of solid waste per day until the year 2056. The project’s daily contribution to the landfill relative to the landfill’s capacity is considered negligible. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with all state and federal statutes regarding solid waste.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 4.0-46 EXHIBIT C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,

threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a

project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. While a few Initial Study sections have identified the potential for significant environmental impacts without mitigation, with the implementation of mitigation measures proposed within the relevant sections of this Initial Study, all potential project impacts would be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no project-related impacts that, in conjunction with other approved or pending projects in the region, have the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts on the physical environment. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts on human beings either directly or indirectly.

Mitigation Measures:

None required.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-47 EXHIBIT C

5.0 REFERENCES

EXHIBIT C 5.0 REFERENCES

5.1 DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN INITIAL STUDY AND/OR INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The following documents were used or to determine the potential for impact from the proposed project. Compliance with federal, state, and local laws is assumed in all projects.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. 2019. Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment – Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through the California Environmental Quality Act Review. www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CAPCOA-1000-2008-010/CAPCOA-1000- 2008-010.PDF

California Air Resources Board. 2016. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Website accessed June 20, 2018.

———. 2018. “Top 4 Measurements and Days Above the Standard.” www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. Website accessed June 20, 2018.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. “Siskiyou County Important Farmland 2016.” ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/sis16.pdf.

———. 2010. California Geological Survey. “2010 Fault Activity Map of California.”. maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/. Website accessed September 20, 2018.

———. 2013. California Geological Survey. “Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.” http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm. Website accessed September 20, 2018.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018a. “California Natural Diversity Database.” www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Website accessed September 12, 2018.

———. 2018b. Life History Accounts and Range Maps. “California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System.” www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range. Website accessed September 12, 2018.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2018. “Envirostor Database.” https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Website accessed September 20, 2018.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. “California Scenic Highway Mapping System”. www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/index.html. Website accessed June 26, 2018.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. “Traffic Census Program”. www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/. Website accessed September 26, 2018.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2018. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Website accessed September 12, 2018.

County of Siskiyou Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) May 2019 Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0-1 EXHIBIT C 5.0 REFERENCES

Coffman Associates, Inc. 2018. Draft Airport Layout Plan and Narrative Report for Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport. April 2018.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2018. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map No. 06093C3025D. https://msc.fema.gov/portal

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2018. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_201805.pdf

Shutt Moen Associates. 2001. Siskiyou County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Siskiyou County. 1974. General Plan for Siskiyou County, Scenic Highways Element. www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/sites/default/files/docs/GP_ScenicHighwaysElement.pdf

———. 1975. Siskiyou County General Plan, Seismic Safety and Safety Element. www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/sites/default/files/docs/GP_SeismicSafety-SafetyElement.pdf.

———. 1980. Siskiyou County General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element. www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/sites/default/files/docs/GP_LandUse-CirculationElement.pdf

Siskiyou County Department of General Services. 2018. “STAGE (Siskiyou Transit and General Express).” www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/content/transportation-division-stage. Website accessed September 20, 2018.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2018. “GeoTracker Database.” geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Website accessed September 20, 2018.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2018. “Web Soil Survey.” websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Website accessed September 20, 2018.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018a. Critical Habitat Portal. criticalhabitat.fws.gov/. Website accessed September 12, 2018.

———. 2018b. National Wetland Inventory. www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Website accessed September 12, 2018.

United States Geological Society (USGS). 2018. Earthquake Hazards Program. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/. Website accessed September 21, 2018.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) County of Siskiyou Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2019 5.0-2 EXHIBIT C

ATTACHMENT A CALIFORNIA NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE RESULTS

EXHIBIT C Appendix A – California Natural Diversity Database Results

Federal ESA CDFW CA Rare Scientific Name Common Name State ESA Status Status Status Plant Rank Animals - Amphibians Rana boylii Foothill yellow-legged frog None Candidate Threatened SSC - Rana cascadae Cascades frog None Candidate Endangered SSC - Animals - Birds Pandion haliaetus Osprey None None WL - Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western yellow-billed cuckoo Threatened Endangered - - Riparia riparia Bank swallow None Threatened - - Coturnicops noveboracensis Yellow rail None None SSC - Animals - Mammals Canis lupus Gray wolf Endangered Endangered - - Vulpes vulpes necator Sierra Nevada red fox Candidate Threatened - - Eumops perotis californicus Western mastiff bat None None SSC - Pekania pennanti Fisher - West Coast DPS None Threatened SSC - Euderma maculatum Spotted bat None None SSC - Animals - Reptiles Emys marmorata Western pond turtle None None SSC - Plants - Bryophytes Meesia uliginosa Broad-nerved hump moss None None - 2B.2 Plants - Vascular Balsamorhiza lanata Woolly balsamroot None None - 1B.2 Chaenactis suffrutescens Shasta chaenactis None None - 1B.3 Eurybia merita Subalpine aster None None - 2B.3 Cuscuta jepsonii Jepson's dodder None None - 1B.2 Trifolium siskiyouense Siskiyou clover None None - 1B.1 Scutellaria galericulata Marsh skullcap None None - 2B.2 Epilobium oreganum Oregon fireweed None None - 1B.2 Botrypus virginianus Rattlesnake fern None None - 2B.2 Ophioglossum pusillum Northern adder's-tongue None None - 2B.2 Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. pallescens Pallid bird's-beak None None - 1B.2 Penstemon filiformis Thread-leaved beardtongue None None - 1B.3 Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina Slender-leaved pondweed None None - 2B.2 Moneses uniflora Woodnymph None None - 2B.2 Geum aleppicum Aleppo avens None None - 2B.2 Rosa gymnocarpa var. serpentina Gasquet rose None None - 1B.3

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) A-1 EXHIBIT C ATTACHMENT B HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS

EXHIBIT C Appendix B – Highway Commercial Zoning District

Article 44. - Highway Commercial District (C-H)

Sec. 10-6.4401. - C-H District.

The regulations set forth in this article shall apply in the Highway Commercial District. There is currently no C-H District established by this chapter. The C-H District is intended for commercial uses to serve the highway traveler. The bulk of highway frontage in the County is not appropriate for commercial uses. Therefore, highway commercial uses shall be located in existing communities or carefully selected points outside communities. For reasons of safety, congestion, traffic control, and minimizing other adverse impacts, the C-H District shall be established on parcels sufficiently large enough to provide safe highway access, maneuvering parking, and related activities.

Sec. 10-6.4402. - Uses permitted.

The following uses shall be permitted in the C-H District:

(a) Automobile service stations, automobile car washes, repair garages (not including body shops), and towing services provided all operations, except servicing with petroleum products, air, and water, be conducted and confined within an enclosed building; (b) Restaurant and refreshment stands; (c) Convenience stores; (d) Recreational vehicle parks, when established on a site of not less than five (5) acres and at a density not to exceed fifteen (15) recreational vehicle spaces per acre; (e) Camp grounds; (f) Motels and hotels; (g) Public service facilities (for example, rest areas, parks, and utility substations); (h) Truck service stations and fuel yards; (i) On- and off-sale liquor establishments; (j) Theaters; (k) Health clubs; (l) A caretaker's residence accessory to permitted uses; provided the permitted use requires the continuous supervision of a caretaker, superintendent or security person and the residence is to be occupied only by such person and his or her family; and (m) Emergency shelters.

Sec. 10-6.4403. - Conditional uses permitted.

In addition to the uses listed above, the uses listed in Article 15, General Provisions, may also be permitted, subject to the issuance of a use permit.

Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) B-1 EXHIBIT C ATTACHMENT C ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT

EXHIBIT C Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment

Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center

Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), California

BAC Job # 2019-019

Prepared For:

Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC

Ruth and Matt Altes P.O. Box 1048 Mt. Shasta, CA 96067

Prepared By:

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.

Dario Gotchet, Consultant

May 10, 2019

EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. | 3551 Bankhead Road, Loomis, CA 95650  Phone: (916) 663-0500  bacnoise.com Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

CEQA Checklist

Less than NOISE AND VIBRATION – Potentially Less Than NA – Not Significant No Significant Significant Applicable with Mitigation Impact Would the Project Result in: Impact Impact Incorporated

a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in X the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne X noise levels?

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 1 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

Introduction

The Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center (project) is located at 138 Big Canyon Drive in Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), California. The project site is commercially zoned, bordered by Big Canyon Drive to the west, a residential triplex on commercially zoned property to the northwest, limited commercial and industrial uses to the north near State Route 89, single-family rural residential uses to the east, and an undeveloped residentially zoned parcel, Big Canyon Drive, and Interstate 5 to the south. The project site location and adjacent land uses are shown on Figure 1. The project site plan is presented as Figure 2.

The project is a proposed use permit (UP-18-02) to bring an existing unpermitted equestrian training/event facility into compliance with Siskiyou County Code as well as to facilitate future on- site improvements to support existing and proposed uses. The nine-acre project site is currently used for horse boarding/training, riding lessons, trail riding, and outdoor events including weddings, parties, and retreats. The use permit would allow current unpermitted land uses to continue, allow for training clinics, establish a limit on the number of special events per year, allow for the development of an on-site septic system and additional structures, and establish other conditions of approval to ensure operations remain compatible with adjacent land uses. A draft initial study/mitigated negative declaration (DIS/MND) was completed for the project by Siskiyou County in October of 2018.

Due to the potential noise generation of the project relative to adjacent residences, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) was retained by the project applicant to prepare this noise and vibration assessment. The purposes of this analysis are to quantify existing ambient noise and vibration levels at the boundary of the project site and adjacent residences, to predict the noise and vibration generation of the various aspects of the project, and to compare project-generated noise and vibration levels against the applicable Siskiyou County criteria and measured ambient noise and vibration environments.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 2 EXHIBIT C Industrial

Commercial (with residences) A

1 B C D 2 1 & E F 3

Rural Residential G

2

4

Residential (undeveloped)

5

Legend Iron Horse Unlimited Project Border (Approximate) Events Center Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), California # Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receivers (Residences) Project Area, Noise Measurement Long-Term (#) and Short-Term (A) Noise Survey Locations Locations, and Adjacent Land Uses Scale (Feet)

0 150 300 Figure 1 EXHIBIT C A

B

C Outdoor Event D 2 Lawn Area E

F

1 Trees G

Overnight Corrals

Legend Iron Horse Unlimited Amplified Music Simulation – Measurement Locations Events Center Amplified Music Simulation – Reference Measurement Location (50 feet) Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), California

Amplified Music Simulation – Speakers/Sound System Setup Location Facility Areas and Amplified Music Parking Areas Simulation Measurement Locations Scale (Feet) Recreational Vehicle/Trailer Parking Spaces

Roadway 0 75 150 Figure 2 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

Noise and Vibration Fundamentals

Noise Noise is simply described as unwanted sound. Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. Discussing sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel (dB) scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals of pressure), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are compared to the reference pressure and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The dB scale allows a million- fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB.

To better relate overall sound levels and loudness to human perception, frequency-dependent weighting networks were developed. There is a strong correlation between the way humans perceive sound and A-weighted sound levels. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment for community exposures. All sound levels expressed as dB in this section are A-weighted sound levels, unless noted otherwise. Definitions of acoustical terminology are provided in Appendix A. Appendix B shows common noise levels associated with various sources.

Community noise is commonly described in terms of the “ambient” noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptors, day-night average level (Ldn) and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and shows very good correlation with community response to noise for the average person. The median noise level descriptor, denoted L50, represents the noise level which is exceeded 50% of the hour. In other words, half of the hour ambient conditions are higher than the L50 and the other half are lower than the L50.

The Ldn is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 dB weighting applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. Where short-term noise sources are an issue, noise impacts may be assessed in terms of maximum noise levels, hourly averages, or other statistical descriptors.

The perceived loudness of sounds and corresponding reactions to noise are dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level, duration of intrusive sound, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence, and frequency content. As mentioned above; however, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by weighing the frequency response of a sound level meter by means of the standardized A-weighing network. Appendix B shows examples of noise levels for several common noise sources and environments.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 5 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

It is generally recognized that an increase of at least 3 dB of similar sources is usually required before most people will perceive a change in noise levels in the community, and an increase of 6 dB is required before the change will be clearly noticeable. A common practice is to assume that a minimally perceptible increase of 3 dB represents a significant increase in ambient noise levels. This approach is very conservative, however, when applied to noise conditions substantially below levels deemed acceptable in general plan noise elements or in noise ordinances.

Vibration

Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, while vibration is usually associated with transmission through the ground or structures. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s response to vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source.

Vibration can be described in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of velocity in inches per second or root-mean-square (RMS) in VdB. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration in terms of peak particle velocity as well as RMS velocities.

As vibrations travel outward from the source, they excite the particles of rock and soil through which they pass and cause them to oscillate. Differences in subsurface geologic conditions and distance from the source of vibration will result in different vibration levels characterized by different frequencies and intensities. In all cases, vibration amplitudes will decrease with increasing distance. The maximum rate, or velocity of particle movement, is the commonly accepted descriptor of the vibration “strength”.

Human response to vibration is difficult to quantify. Vibration can be felt or heard well below the levels that produce any damage to structures. The duration of the event has an effect on human response, as does frequency. Generally, as the duration and vibration frequency increase, the potential for adverse human response increases.

According to the Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans, June 2004), operation of construction equipment and construction techniques generate ground vibration. Traffic traveling on roadways can also be a source of such vibration. At high enough amplitudes, ground vibration has the potential to damage structures and/or cause cosmetic damage. Ground vibration can also be a source of annoyance to individuals who live or work close to vibration-generating activities. However, traffic, rarely generates vibration amplitudes high enough to cause structural or cosmetic damage.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 6 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

Regulatory Setting: Criteria for Acceptable Noise and Vibration Exposure

Federal

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

The Siskiyou General Plan does not currently have adopted standards for groundborne vibration. As a result, vibration impact assessment criteria established by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Authority (FTA) criteria was applied to the project. The FTA vibration impact criteria is based on maximum overall levels for a single event, such as vehicle passbys on roadways and heavy equipment operations. This vibration impact criteria, identified in Table 6-3 of the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), has been reproduced below in Table 1.

Table 1 Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria

Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels (VdB re 1 µinch/sec, RMS) Frequent Occasional Infrequent Land Use Category Events1 Events2 Events3

Category 1 – Buildings where vibration would 654 654 654 interfere with interior operations Category 2 – Residences and buildings where 72 75 80 people normally sleep

Category 3 – Institutional land uses with primarily 75 78 83 daytime use

Notes: 1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 3 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. 4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. For equipment that is more sensitive, a Detailed Vibration Analysis must be performed. Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (Sep. 2018), Table 6-3

State of California

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

The State of California has established regulatory criteria that are applicable to this assessment. Specifically, Appendix G of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines are used to assess the potential significance of impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, or the applicable standards of other agencies. According to Appendix

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 7 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

G of the CEQA guidelines, the project would result in a significant noise or vibration impact if the following occur:

A. Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?

B. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

It should be noted that audibility is not a test of significance according to CEQA. If this were the case, any project which added any audible amount of noise to the environment would be considered unacceptable according to CEQA. Because every physical process creates noise, the use of audibility alone as significance criteria would be unworkable. CEQA requires a substantial increase in ambient noise levels before noise impacts are identified, not simply an audible change.

Local

Siskiyou County General Plan Noise Element

Table 13 of the Siskiyou County General Plan Noise Element contains ranges of acceptable noise levels for a variety of land use types. That table, which is reproduced as Table 2 in this report, identifies acceptable noise environments of 60 dB Ldn for residential land uses. In addition, the Noise Element also suggests that interior community noise levels, with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources, shall not exceed a 45 dB Ldn in any habitable room.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 8 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

Table 2 Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise

Land Use Category Noise Ranges (Ldn)

1 2 3 4 Auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters, music halls

Passively-used open space (quiet or contemplation areas of 50 50-55 55-70 70 public parks)

Residential. All Dwellings including single-family, multi- family, group quarters, mobile homes, etc. Transient lodging, hotels, motels. School classrooms, libraries, churches. 60 60-65 65-75 75 Hospitals, convalescent homes, etc. Actively utilized playgrounds, neighborhood parks, golf courses.

Office buildings, personal business and professional services. Light commercial. Retail, movie theaters, restaurants. 65 65-70 70-75 75 Heavy commercial. Wholesale, industrial, manufacturing, utilities, etc.

Notes: Noise Range 1 Acceptable land use. No special noise insulation or noise abatement requirements unless the proposed development is itself considered a source of incompatible noise for a nearby land use (i.e., and industry locating next to residential uses). Noise Range 2 New construction or development allowed only after necessary noise abatement features are included in design. Noise studies may be required if the proposed development is itself considered a source of incompatible noise for a nearby land use. Noise Range 3 New construction or development should generally be avoided unless a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is completed and needed noise abatement features included in design. Noise Range 4 New construction or development generally not allowed. Source: Siskiyou County General Plan Noise Element, Table 13

Thresholds of Significance for Project-Related Noise Level Increases

Siskiyou County does not have a specific policy for assessing noise impacts associated with increases in ambient noise levels from project-generated on-site activities or off-site traffic on the local roadway network. It is generally recognized that an increase of at least 3 dB for similar noise sources is required before most people will perceive a change in noise levels, and an increase of 6 dB is required before the change will be clearly noticeable (Egan, Architectural Acoustics, page 21, 2007, McGraw Hill). However, where two noise sources differ, a smaller change in noise levels is necessary for the change to be perceptible.

The Federal Interagency Commission on Noise (FICON) has developed a graduated scale for use in the assessment of project-related noise level increases. Table 3 was developed by FICON as a means of developing thresholds for impact identification for project-related noise level increases. The FICON standards have been used extensively in recent years by the authors of

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 9 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) this section in the preparation of the noise sections of Environmental Impact Reports that have been certified in many California Cities and Counties.

The use of the FICON standards are considered conservative relative to thresholds used by other agencies in the State of California. For example, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requires a project-related traffic noise level increase of 12 dB for a finding of significance, and the California Energy Commission (CEC) considers project-related noise level increases between 5-10 dB significant, depending on local factors. Therefore, the use of the FICON standards, which set the threshold for finding of significant noise impacts as low as 1.5 dB, provides a very conservative approach to impact assessment for this project.

Table 3 Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure

Ambient Noise Level Without Project Increase Required for Significant Impact <60 dB +5.0 dB or more 60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more >65 dB +1.5 dB or more Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON)

Based on the FICON research, as shown in Table 3, a 5 dB increase in noise levels due to a project is required for a finding of significant noise impact where ambient noise levels without the project are less than 60 dB. Where pre-project ambient conditions are between 60 and 65 dB, a 3 dB increase is applied as the standard of significance. Finally, in areas already exposed to higher noise levels, specifically pre-project noise levels in excess of 65 dB, a 1.5 dB increase is considered by FICON as the threshold of significance.

As noted previously, audibility is not a test of significance according to CEQA. If this were the case, any project which added any audible amount of noise to the environment would be considered unacceptable according to CEQA. Because every physical process creates noise, whether by the addition of a single vehicle on a roadway, or a tractor in an agricultural field, the use of audibility alone as significance criteria would be unworkable. CEQA requires a substantial increase in ambient noise levels before noise impacts are identified, not simply an audible change. Environmental Setting – Existing Ambient Noise and Vibration Environment

Noise Environment

The ambient noise environment in the immediate project vicinity is defined primarily by traffic noise from Interstate 5 and State Route 89. To generally quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, BAC conducted a long-term (24-hour) ambient noise survey at two locations on the project site on April 17-18, 2019. The long-term noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 1, identified as Sites 1 and 2. Photographs of the noise survey locations are provided in Appendix C. The noise measurement sites were located on the eastern end of the project

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 10 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) property boundary, and were selected to be representative of the existing ambient noise environment at the nearest residences to the east of the project site.

Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Models 820 and 831 precision integrating sound level meters were used for the long-term ambient noise level survey. The meters were calibrated before use with an LDL Model CA200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all specifications of the American National Standards Institute requirements for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4). The results of the long-term ambient noise survey are shown numerically and graphically in Appendices D and E (respectively), and are summarized below in Table 4.

Table 4 Summary of Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results1 Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), California April 17-18, 2019

Average Measured Hourly Noise Levels (dB)3

Daytime4 Nighttime5 2 Description Ldn, dB Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Site 1: Eastern end of the project site along boundary, adjacent to 58 51 (48-55) 67 (60-74) 52 (49-54) 65 (59-74) Receivers 2 and 3. Site 2: Southeastern end of the project site along boundary, 61 53 (47-56) 64 (54-76) 55 (53-57) 67 (62-73) adjacent to Receiver 4. Notes: 1 Detailed summaries of the noise monitoring results are provided in Appendices D and E. 2 Long-term ambient noise monitoring locations are identified on Figure 1. 3 Noise levels are presented in the following format: Average (Low-High) 4 Daytime hours: 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 5 Nighttime hours: 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2019)

Vibration Environment

During a site visit on April 17, 2019, BAC staff noted that vibration levels were below the threshold of perception at the project site and in the immediate project vicinity. Therefore, the existing vibration environment in the immediate project vicinity is considered to be negligible. Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Methodology

The project is a proposed use permit to bring an existing equestrian training/event facility into compliance as well as for to facilitate future on-site improvements to support existing and proposed uses. The project site is currently used for horse boarding/training, riding lessons, trail riding, and outdoor events including weddings, parties and retreats.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 11 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

The project DIS/MND states that on-site training and lessons generally occur Monday through Saturday between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., while special events are principally held on Saturdays during the summer months between 12:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Depending upon the type of event, there are usually one to five employees working on-site, with riding lessons, training, and overnight guests averaging approximately 20 guests per day during the busiest time of the year. Further, with the exception of one annual event at the facility that allows up to 600 people, special events typically include fewer than 250 guests.

The use permit would: 1) allow these existing uses to continue; 2) allow for training clinics 3-5 times per year with up to 75 people and 25 horses; 3) establish a limit on the number of special events to 20 per year; 4) establish other conditions of approval to ensure operations remain compatible with adjacent land uses; and 5) allow for the development of an on-site septic system and two additional structures.

Major noise-producing components associated with the project have been identified as facility parking lot activities (e.g., vehicles arriving and departing, doors opening and closing, etc.), event crowd noise, event amplified music, air-conditioning equipment associated with recreational vehicles, project construction activities, and off-site traffic increases.

Evaluation of Off-Site Traffic Noise Level Increases in the Project Vicinity

The project site is accessed via Big Canyon Drive on the northern end of the project site. According to the project DIS/MND, most vehicles would on be on Big Canyon Drive for a short distance (approximately 100 feet), as Big Canyon Drive and the project site are most easily accessible from State Route 89. As a result, the greatest impact from project-generated off-site traffic is expected to be on State Route 89.

To assess noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on State Route 89, BAC utilized the provided event capacity information (to estimate event trip generation) with the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), and existing (2017) Caltrans traffic volumes. The FHWA model was used in conjunction with the CALVENO reference noise emission curves, and accounts for vehicle volume and speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the project site, and is generally considered to be accurate within 1.5 dB if the input variables are properly accounted for. The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To calculate Ldn, average daily traffic (ADT) volume data is manipulated based on the assumed day/night distribution of traffic. The FHWA model inputs and predicted traffic noise levels are provided in Appendix F of this report.

According to the project DIS/MND, special events at the property typically include up to 250 guests, with the exception of one annual event of up to 600 persons. As indicated in Appendix F-1, the predicted traffic noise exposure from a 600 person event at the project site (worst-case) computes to 49 dB Ldn at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of State Route 89. The data presented in Appendix F-2 indicate that existing State Route 89 traffic noise exposure computes to 67 dB Ldn at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 12 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

Evaluation of Noise Generated from On-Site Activities at Nearest Residences

Event Parking Lot Movement Noise Generation

According to the project DIS/MND, the project site contains five large gravel parking areas to accommodate guests, staff, and event caterers. The parking area locations are shown on Figure 2. The largest parking area is centrally located on the project site near the arena, while the remaining four are located near the northern end of the site. For the purposes of this analysis, the five parking areas were combined into a total of two areas, identified as Parking Areas 1 and 2 on Figure 2. Because it is possible that a 600 person event could occur on the property, the following analysis of event parking lot noise levels assumes an event with 600 guests (worst- case). Based on this information, it was assumed that parking areas could accommodate up to 400 vehicles. A total of 400 vehicles was evenly distributed between Parking Areas 1 and 2.

As a means of determining potential noise exposure due to event parking lot activities, BAC utilized specific parking lot noise level measurements conducted by BAC. Specifically, a series of individual noise measurements were conducted of multiple vehicle types arriving and departing a parking area, including engines starting and stopping, car doors opening and closing, and persons conversing as they entered and exited the vehicles. The results of those measurements revealed that individual parking lot movements generated mean noise levels of 70 dB SEL at a reference distance of 50 feet. The maximum noise level associated with parking lot activity typically did not exceed 65 dB Lmax at the same reference distance.

For a conservative assessment of parking area noise generation, it was assumed that the parking area could completely fill or empty during a peak hour of event operations. However, it is likely that parking area activity would be more spread out. Parking area noise exposure was determined using the following equation:

Peak Hour Leq = 70+10*log (N) – 35.6

Where 70 is the SEL for a single automobile parking operation at a reference distance of 50 feet, N is the number of parking area operations in a peak hour, and 35.6 is 10 times the logarithm of the number of seconds in an hour.

As mentioned previously, it is our understanding that all special events at the project site would occur between the hours of 12:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Using the equation provided above, the cited vehicle capacity assumptions and event hours of operation, and measured BAC parking lot noise measurement data, data were projected from the effective noise center of the proposed parking areas to the nearest receivers (residences) based on a sound level decay rate of -6 dB per doubling of distance from the source. The results of that analysis are presented in Table 5.

According to BAC staff field observations, and subsequently verified in an a review of Google Earth aerial imagery and elevation information of the project vicinity, the adjacent receivers to the east and south (Receivers 2-5) are recessed in elevation relative to the project site. Specifically, a review of the Google Earth topography and elevation information revealed that the elevations at nearest receivers to the south and east range from approximately 20 feet (Receiver 2) to 60 feet (Receiver 5) below the project parking areas. Further, based on the locations of the effective

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 13 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) noise center of the parking areas (centrally-located and northern end), intervening topography would break line of sight of the parking areas at Receivers 2-5. To account for the shielding provided by intervening topography at recessed receivers, the predicted parking area noise levels at Receivers 2-5 have been conservatively adjusted by -5 dB. No adjustments were made to predicted parking area noise levels at Receiver 1.

Table 5 Predicted Exterior Worst-Case Event Parking Area Noise Levels at Nearest Receivers Iron Horse Unlimited Event Center – Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), CA

Predicted Event Parking Area Noise Levels (dBA)3,4 Distance from Nearest Parking 1 2 5 Description Area Focal Point (feet) Leq Lmax Ldn Parking Area 1 to Receiver 2 370 35 43 32 Parking Area 1 to Receiver 3 340 36 43 33 Parking Area 1 to Receiver 4 515 32 40 30 Parking Area 1 to Receiver 5 720 29 37 29 Parking Area 2 to Receiver 1 210 45 53 41 Siskiyou County General Plan Noise Level Standard – Residential Uses 60 Notes: 1 Receiver locations are shown on Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the locations of the parking areas. For the purposes of this analysis, the five parking areas were combined into two (Parking Areas 1 and 2). 2 Distances measured from the effective noise center of the parking areas to the nearest receivers. 3 Predicted parking area noise levels based on a reference noise level of 70 dB SEL and 65 dB Lmax per parking lot movement at a distance of 50 feet, and a sound attenuation rate of -6 dB per doubling of distance. 4 Predicted parking area noise levels at Receivers 2-5 take into consideration intervening topography that would break line of sight of the effective noise center of the parking lot areas, and have been conservatively adjusted by -5 dB to account for this screening. 5 Calculated Ldn conservatively assumes that parking areas could either fill or empty during a peak hour of event operations for the entire duration of an event (12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2019)

Event Crowd Noise Generation

According to the project DIS/MND, training and lessons at the arena occur Monday through Saturday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., while special events are principally held on Saturdays during the summer months between 12:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. The use permit would allow for training clinics at the arena with up to 75 people. In addition, with the exception of one annual event at the facility that allows up to 600 people, special events typically include up to 250 guests. The locations of the riding arena and outdoor events area are shown on Figure 2.

In order to quantify crowd noise generated from the riding arena and outdoor event area at the nearest receivers, BAC utilized reference file data for persons speaking in normal and raised voices (normal voice = 57 dB per person at 3 feet; raised voice = 64 dB per person at 3 feet) and persons clapping (golf clap = 55 dB per person at 10 feet; normal clap = 65 dB per person at 10 feet; enthusiastic clap = 75 dB per person at 10 feet). Using the provided reference file data, conservatively assuming approximately 50% of the crowd is conversing simultaneously, that clapping would occur up to 10% of the hour, and assuming standard spherical spreading loss (-6 dB per doubling of distance), data were projected from the effective noise centers of the riding

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 14 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) arena (crowd area) and outdoor event area to the nearest receivers. The results of those projections are summarized in Table 6.

The following analysis of event crowd noise at the arena conservatively assumes a riding competition event could have 250 persons spectating. Further, the analysis of event crowd noise at the outdoor event area assumes an event containing 600 persons. Lastly, it was conservatively assumed that arena and outdoor event area crowds would be conversing as indicated in the above-mentioned discussion for the duration of an entire event (i.e., 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the riding arena; 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. at the outdoor event area) from within the outdoor event area. The results presented in Table 6 are considered to be worst-case event crowd noise at the nearest receivers.

The predicted riding arena and outdoor event area crowd noise levels at Receivers 2-5 take into consideration intervening topography that would break line of sight of the effective noise center of those areas, and have been conservatively adjusted by -5 dB to account for this screening. No adjustments were made to predicted event crowd noise levels Receiver 1.

Table 6 Predicted Exterior Worst-Case Event Crowd Noise Levels at Nearest Receivers Iron Horse Unlimited Event Center – Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), CA

Predicted Event Crowd Noise Levels (dBA)3 Distance from Area Focal 1 2 4 Location Receiver Point (feet) Leq Lmax Ldn 1 330 53 68 49 2 200 53 67 49 Outdoor Event Area 3 200 53 67 49 4 540 44 59 40 5 800 41 55 37 1 450 47 61 44 2 440 42 56 39 Riding Arena Area 3 400 43 57 40 4 520 41 55 38 5 690 38 52 35 Siskiyou County General Plan Noise Level Standard – Residential Uses 60 Notes: 1 Receiver locations are shown on Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the locations of the riding arena and outdoor event area. 2 Distances measured from the effective noise centers of the riding arena and outdoor event area to the nearest receivers. 3 Predicted event crowd noise levels at Receivers 2-5 take into consideration intervening topography that would break line of sight of the focal center of the crowds at the event areas, and have been conservatively adjusted by -5 dB to account for this screening. 4 Calculated event crowd Ldn at the outdoor event area conservatively assumes 600 people conversing as discussed in the outdoor event area for the entire duration of an event (12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Calculated event crowd Ldn at the riding arena area conservatively assumes 250 people conversing as discussed in the riding arena area for the entire duration of a potential competition (8:;00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.). Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2019)

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 15 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

Amplified Event Music and Speech Noise Generation

According to the project DIS/MND, the project proposes to have amplified music and speech during events on the property. According to the project applicant, all amplified music and speech would occur at the sound system setup located within the designated outdoor event area. Figure 2 shows the locations of the sound system setup and speaker orientation. Photographs of the sound system setup in the outdoor event area and are provided in Appendix C.

To quantify the noise levels generated from amplified music and speech, BAC conducted short- term noise level measurements on Wednesday, April 17, 2019 during an event simulation featuring amplified music. Larson Davis Laboratories Models 820 and 831 precision integrating sound level meters were used for the noise level measurements during the simulation. The meters were calibrated before use and placed on a tripod 5 feet above ground at seven locations, identified as Sites A-G on Figures 1 and 2. The measurements taken at Sites A-G were selected to determine the amplified music and speech sound propagation qualities in the directions of the nearest receivers to the southeast and east (Receivers 2-5).

The sound system was set to produce sound levels typical of what would be produced by amplified music playing at an event. The simulation utilized a reference music level of 75 dB at a distance of 50 feet from the speakers. While music was being played at the venue sound system setup location, short-term noise level measurements were conducted at the referenced distance of 50 feet (reference site) and simultaneously at Sites A-G. This reference was selected because BAC believes that it is a level at which amplified music and speech would likely occur at this outdoor event area given the capacity and event types at the venue. Appendix C shows photographs of the sound system setup at the outdoor event music positioning area and noise level measurement locations.

The simulation consisted of playing digital recordings of typical music which might be used during an event using a pair of Yamaha MSR 400 Watt speakers with built-in amplifiers, and an MP3 player as the music source. A summary of the noise level measurement results are provided in Table 7.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 16 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

Table 7 Summary of Measurement Results from Amplified Music Event Simulation Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), California

Measured Noise Level, dBA

1 Site Description Leq Lmax Reference Located in front of speakers at a distance of 50 feet 75 79 A Northeast of event area approximately 285 feet behind speakers 53 61 B East of event area approximately 170 feet behind speakers 54 59 C East of event area approximately 140 feet behind speakers 54 59 D East of event area approximately 100 feet behind speakers 55 61 E East event area approximately 95 feet behind speakers 56 59 F East of event area approximately 110 feet to the side of speakers 56 62 Southeast of event area approximately 230 feet to the side of G 56 60 speakers Notes: 1 Amplified music noise simulation measurement locations (Sites A-G) are shown on Figures 1 and 2. Photographs of the measurement locations are provided in Appendix C. Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2019)

BAC utilized the measurement data presented in Table 7 to predict amplified music event noise levels at the nearest receivers. Specifically, the measured noise levels from the event simulation were projected from the sound system setup area to the nearest receivers based on a sound level decay rate of -6 dB per doubling of distance from the source. The results of those projections are shown in Table 8.

The predicted amplified event music noise levels at Receivers 2-5 take into consideration intervening topography that would break line of sight of the sound system setup, and have been conservatively adjusted by -5 dB to account for this screening.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 17 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

Table 8 Predicted Exterior Amplified Event Music & Speech Noise Levels at Nearest Receivers Iron Horse Unlimited Event Center – Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), CA

Predicted Amplified Event Music Noise Levels (dBA)3,4 Distance from Event Sound 1 2 5 Description System Setup Area (feet) Leq Lmax Ldn Sound System Area to Receiver 16 375 52 56 48 Sound System Area to Receiver 2 160 46 52 42 Sound System Area to Receiver 3 160 46 49 42 Sound System Area to Receiver 4 510 44 48 40 Sound System Area to Receiver 5 800 40 44 37 Siskiyou County General Plan Noise Level Standard – Residential Uses 60 Notes: 1 Receiver locations are shown on Figure 1. Sound system setup location is shown on Figure 2. 2 Distances measured from the sound system setup to the nearest receivers. 3 Predicted amplified music at nearest receivers utilize the following projected reference nose levels: Receiver 1 (75 dB Leq/79 dB Lmax at 50 feet – Reference Meter); Receiver 2 (55 dB Leq/61 dB Lmax at 100 feet – Site D); Receiver 3 (56 dB Leq/59 dB Lmax at 95 feet – Site E); Receivers 4 & 5 (56 dB Leq/60 dB Lmax at 230 feet – Site G). 4 Predicted event amplified music noise levels at Receivers 2-5 take into consideration intervening topography that would break line of sight of the sound system setup, and have been conservatively adjusted by -5 dB to account for this screening. 5 Calculated Ldn conservatively assumes continuous playback of amplified music/speech for the entire duration of an event (12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). 6 Due to the directionality of speakers and off-axis exposure of Receptor 1, a conservative offset of -5 dB was applied to amplified speech and music levels at Receptor 1. Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2019)

Recreational Vehicle Air-Conditioning Unit Noise Generation

According to the project DIS/MND, the property contains eight parking stalls near the southern end of the site to accommodate recreational vehicles and/or trailers. Figure 2 shows the locations of the recreational vehicle parking stalls. The primary nose source associated with recreational vehicles and/or trailers occupying those parking stalls has been identified as the air-conditioning units.

To quantify the noise levels generated from recreation vehicle air-conditioning units, BAC utilized reference noise level measurement data obtained from the Advanced RV Research Facility. Specifically, the engineering team at Advanced RV Research Facility conducted noise level testing of four common high output (15,000 BTU) recreational vehicle air-conditioner units. The test results indicate that the measured noise levels of the four units ranged from 63 to 72 dBA at a distance of 4 feet in front of the unit (0° off-axis). Based on the results from this research, a reference noise level of 72 dBA at distance of 4 feet was conservatively used in the prediction of project recreational vehicle air-conditioning equipment noise levels.

It is our understanding that the recreational vehicles could occupy the parking spaces for event and camping purposes, and could therefore be on-site for a 24-hour period. However, given the elevation of the project site and vicinity (approximately 3,500 feet) and associated climate (warm days with cool evenings), it is unlikely that recreational vehicle air-conditioning units would be in operation during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Nonetheless, in order to provide a

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 18 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) conservative estimate of recreational vehicle air-conditioning unit noise level exposure at the nearest receivers, the units were assumed to be in continuous operation while occupying the parking spaces (24 hour operations).

Based on the provided air-conditioning unit reference noise level data and operational assumptions above, and assuming standard spherical spreading loss (-6 dB per doubling of distance), data were projected from the nearest recreational vehicle parking space to the nearest receivers. The results of those projections are summarized in Table 9.

The results presented in Table 9 take into consideration the elevated positions of the recreational vehicle air-conditioning units (located on the roofs of vehicles), and do not include and adjustment for intervening topography at any of the receivers.

Table 9 Predicted Exterior RV Air-Conditioning Unit Noise Levels – From Nearest Parking Space Iron Horse Unlimited Event Center – Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), CA

Predicted RV Air-conditioning Unit Noise Levels (dBA)3 Distance from Closest 1 2 4 Description RV Parking Space (feet) Leq Ldn Nearest RV Parking Space to Receiver 1 500 30 36 Nearest RV Parking Space to Receiver 2 250 36 42 Nearest RV Parking Space to Receiver 3 200 38 44 Nearest RV Parking Space to Receiver 4 350 33 39 Nearest RV Parking Space to Receiver 5 530 30 36 Siskiyou County General Plan Noise Level Standard – Residential Uses 60 Notes: 1 Receiver locations are shown on Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the locations of the recreational vehicle parking spaces. 2 Distances measured from the center of the nearest parking space to the nearest receivers. 3 Predicted recreational vehicle air-conditioning unit noise levels at nearest receivers utilize a reference nose level of 72 dBA at a distance of 4 feet. 4 Calculated Ldn conservatively assumes continuous 24 hour operations of air-conditioning units. Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2019)

In addition to the prediction of recreational vehicle air-conditioning unit noise levels from the nearest parking space to the closest receivers, the cumulative noise exposure from all project recreational vehicles operating their air-conditioning systems concurrently was estimated. According to the project DIS/MND, the property contains eight recreational vehicle parking stalls. In order to approximate the cumulative noise exposure from the operation of eight air-conditioning units in simultaneous operation (worst-case), distances were scaled from the center of the recreational vehicle parking area to the nearest receivers. The predicted cumulative air- conditioning unit noise levels are summarized in Table 10.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 19 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

Table 10 Predicted Exterior RV Air-Conditioning Unit Noise Levels – Cumulative Noise Exposure Iron Horse Unlimited Event Center – Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), CA

Predicted RV Air-Conditioning Unit Noise Levels, L (dBA)3 Distance from Center of RV dn 1 2 4 Description Parking Area (feet) Leq Ldn RV Parking Area to Receiver 1 550 38 44 RV Parking Area to Receiver 2 375 42 48 RV Parking Area to Receiver 3 320 43 49 RV Parking Area to Receiver 4 360 42 48 RV Parking Area to Receiver 5 560 38 44 Siskiyou County General Plan Noise Level Standard – Residential Uses 60 Notes: 1 Receiver locations are shown on Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the locations of the recreational vehicle parking area. 2 Distances measured from the center of the recreational vehicle parking area to the nearest receivers. 3 Predicted recreational vehicle air-conditioning unit noise levels at nearest receivers utilize a reference nose level of 81 dBA at a distance of 4 feet (eight units in simultaneous operation, based on a reference noise level of one unit of 72 dBA at 4 feet). 4 Calculated Ldn conservatively assumes continuous 24 hour operations of air-conditioning units. Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2019)

Project Construction Noise Generation

According to the project DIS/MND, the project is proposing the construction of a septic system, barn, and multi-use building. During the construction of those structures, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. Activities involved in typical construction would generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 11, ranging from 55 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 20 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

Table 11 Typical Construction Equipment Noise

Equipment Description Maximum Noise Level at 50 feet, dBA Auger drill rig 85 Backhoe 80 Bar bender 80 Boring jack power unit 80 Chain saw 85 Compactor (ground) 80 Compressor (air) 80 Concrete batch plant 83 Concrete mixer truck 85 Concrete pump truck 82 Concrete saw 90 Crane (mobile or stationary) 85 Dozer 85 Dump truck 84 Excavator 85 Flatbed truck 84 Front end loader 80 Generator (25 kilovolt-amperes [kVA] or less) 70 Generator (more than 25 kVA) 82 Grader 85 Hydra break ram 90 Jackhammer 85 Mounted impact hammer (hoe ram) 90 Paver 85 Pickup truck 55 Pneumatic tools 85 Pumps 77 Rock drill 85 Scraper 85 Soil mix drill rig 80 Tractor 84 Vacuum street sweeper 80 Vibratory concrete mixer 80 Source: Federal Highway Administration 2006.

The nearest receivers are located approximately 150 feet from areas on the project site where construction would occur. At this distance, maximum noise levels would be expected to be approximately 45 to 80 dB Lmax.

Evaluation of Project Construction Vibration Levels at Existing Residences

During construction of the project septic system and structures, heavy equipment would generate localized vibration in the immediate vicinity of the construction. As mentioned previously, the nearest residence is located approximately 150 feet from construction activities which would occur on the project site.

The range of vibration source levels for construction equipment commonly used in similar projects are shown in Table 12. The vibration levels depicted in Table 12 are representative of measurements at a distance of 25 feet from the equipment source.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 21 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

Table 12 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

1 Equipment Approximate RMS LV at 25 feet Large bulldozer 87 Caisson drilling 87 Loaded trucks 86 Jackhammer 79 Small bulldozer 58 Notes: 1 RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018)

Because vibration levels generated by the type of construction equipment which will be required for this project dissipate very rapidly with distance, and because the nearest sensitive receptors are at least 150 feet from any proposed onsite construction activities, vibration levels at those nearest receptors are predicted to be below 70 VdB over the course of project construction activities.

Evaluation of On-Site and Off-Site Project Vibration Levels at Nearest Residences

The project proposes uses on the project site that consist of horse boarding/training, riding lessons, trail riding, and outdoor events including weddings, parties, and retreats. It is the experience of BAC that operations associated with those uses do not typically have equipment that generates appreciable vibration. In addition, it is our understanding that the project does not propose equipment that will produce appreciable vibration.

During a site visit on April 17, 2019, vibration levels were below the threshold of perception at the project site and in the immediate project vicinity. Therefore, the existing vibration environment in the immediate project vicinity is considered to be negligible. Based on this observation, it is the professional opinion of BAC that vibration levels at the project site are well below the threshold of perception, and will remain below the threshold of perception with ongoing activities at the project site.

Evaluation of Impacts Relative to CEQA Criteria

Criteria A: Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?

Off-Site Traffic Noise Level Increases in the Project Vicinity

The project site is accessed via Big Canyon Drive on the northern end of the project site. However, those vehicles would on be on Big Canyon Drive for a short distance (approximately 100 feet) before entering the project property. Big Canyon Drive and the project site are most easily accessible from State Route 89. As a

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 22 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) result, the greatest impact from project-generated off-site traffic is expected to be on State Route 89. As indicated in F-1, the predicted off-site traffic noise exposure from a 600 person event at the project site (worst-case) computes to 49 dB Ldn at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of State Route 89. The data presented in Appendix F-2 indicate that existing State Route 89 traffic noise exposure computes to 67 dB Ldn at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline.

Based on the FICON criteria shown in Table 3, a 1.5 dB increase is the threshold of significance where pre-project ambient noise levels are in excess of 65 dB Ldn. Because project off-site traffic noise exposure was predicted to be 49 dB Ldn (below an existing noise level of 67 dB Ldn), the project-related increases in traffic noise levels on SR-89 is predicted to be approximately 0.1 dB Ldn. This increase would not exceed the FICON standards of significance as identified in Table 3. As a result, noise impacts related to increases in off-site traffic noise levels resulting from the project are predicted to be less-than-significant.

Parking Lot Activity Noise

The Table 5 data indicate that noise levels generated by worst-case parking lot activity operations (600 person event) are predicted to range from 29 to 41 dB Ldn at the nearest receivers, which would satisfy the Siskiyou County General Plan 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for residential uses by a wide margin. In addition, standard residential construction (stucco siding, STC-27 windows, door weather-stripping, exterior wall insulation, composition plywood roof), results in an exterior to interior noise reduction of at least 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open. As a result, worst-case parking lot noise levels are expected to satisfy the Siskiyou County General Plan 45 dB Ldn interior noise level standard within the nearest residences by a wide margin even with windows in the open configuration.

According to the ambient noise level measurement results (representative of ambient noise levels at nearby residential receivers), measured hourly average and maximum noise levels ranged from 47 to 56 dB Leq and 54 to 76 dB Lmax during daytime hours (Table 4). The FICON criteria indicate that a 5 dB increase is the threshold of significance where pre-project ambient noise levels are less than 60 dB, and a 1.5 dB increase is the threshold where ambient noise levels are greater than 65 dB (Table 3). As indicated in Table 5, hourly average and maximum noise levels generated by worst-case parking activity operations (600 person event) are predicted to range from 29 to 45 dB Leq and 37 to 53 dB Lmax at the nearest receivers, which would be below measured existing ambient conditions during daytime hours, and would not exceed the applicable FICON standards of significance. As a result, noise impacts related to parking lot noise generation are predicted to be less-than-significant.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 23 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

Event Crowd Noise

The Table 6 data indicate that the highest event crowd noise exposure at the nearest receivers is predicted to result from a 600 person special event in the outdoor events area (as opposed to a training/competition event at the riding arena area). As indicated in Table 6, outdoor event area crowd noise levels are predicted to range from 37 to 49 dB Ldn at the nearest receivers. The predicted noise levels of 37 to 49 dB Ldn would comply with the Siskiyou County General Plan 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for residential uses by a wide margin. Based on the above-mentioned noise level reduction achieved with standard residential construction (minimum of 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open), worst-case event crowd noise levels are also expected to satisfy the Siskiyou County General Plan 45 dB Ldn interior noise level standard within the nearest residences by a wide margin even with windows in the open configuration.

According to the ambient noise level measurement results, measured hourly average and maximum noise levels ranged from 47 to 56 dB Leq and 54 to 76 dB Lmax during daytime hours (Table 4). The FICON criteria indicate that a 5 dB increase is the threshold of significance where pre-project ambient noise levels are less than 60 dB, and a 1.5 dB increase is the threshold where ambient noise levels are greater than 65 dB (Table 3). As indicated in Table 6, hourly average and maximum noise levels generated by worst-case event crowd noise (600 person event in the outdoor event area) are predicted to range from 41 to 53 dB Leq and 55 to 68 dB Lmax at the nearest receivers. Those predicted noise levels would be at or below measured existing ambient conditions during daytime hours, and would not exceed the applicable FICON standards of significance. As a result, noise impacts related to event crowd noise are predicted to be less-than-significant.

Amplified Event Music and Speech Noise

According to Table 8, noise levels generated by amplified music and speech from the outdoor event area are predicted to range from 37 to 48 dB Ldn at the nearest receivers. The predicted noise levels of 37 to 48 dB Ldn would comply with the Siskiyou County General Plan 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for residential uses by a wide margin. Based on the above-mentioned noise level reduction achieved with standard residential construction (minimum of 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open), amplified event music and speech noise levels are also expected to satisfy the Siskiyou County General Plan 45 dB Ldn interior noise level standard within the nearest residences by a wide margin even with windows in the open configuration.

According to the ambient noise level measurement results, measured hourly average and maximum noise levels ranged from 47 to 56 dB Leq and 54 to 76 dB Lmax during daytime hours (Table 4). The FICON criteria indicate that a 5 dB increase is the threshold of significance where pre-project ambient noise levels are less than 60 dB, and a 1.5 dB increase is the threshold where ambient noise levels Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 24 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) are greater than 65 dB (Table 3). As indicated in Table 8, hourly average and maximum noise levels generated by amplified event music and speech noise are predicted to range from 40 to 52 dB Leq and 44 to 56 dB Lmax at the nearest receivers. Those predicted noise levels would be at or below measured existing ambient conditions during daytime hours, and would not exceed the applicable FICON standards of significance.

The above analysis of amplified event music and speech in the outdoor area assumes a sound system reference noise level of 75 dB Leq and 79 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet in front of the speakers, with the speaker orientation indicated in Figure 2. Provided that the sound system maintains the above mentioned reference noise levels and speaker orientation, significant impacts resulting from amplified event music and speech are not expected at the nearest receivers. However, deviations from above mentioned the sound system reference noise levels or speaker orientation could cause amplified event music and speech to differ at the nearest receivers. Should these deviations occur, it is possible that amplified event music and speech could exceed the FICON increase significance criteria cited in this report. As a result, this impact is considered to be potentially significant.

Mitigation for Criteria A: Amplified Music & Speech Noise Control Measures

In order to reduce the potential for an exceedance of the applicable Siskiyou County residential noise level standard and FICON increase significance criteria at the nearest receivers, the following measures should be implemented:

MM-1: Ensure that amplified event music and speech not exceed noise levels of 75 dB Leq and 80 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the front of the sound system speakers.

MM-2: Ensure that event sound system speakers not deviate from the location and orientation outlined in this report and indicated in Figure 2 (southwest)

MM-3: Ensure that all amplified event music and speech be restricted to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).

After implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, this impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

Recreational Vehicle Air-Conditioning Unit Noise

As indicated in Table 9, noise levels from the closest recreational vehicle air- conditioning unit at the nearest receivers are predicted to range from to 36 to 44 dB Ldn. In addition, the data presented in Table 10 indicate that the cumulative noise exposure (worst-case) from all recreational vehicle air-conditioners is

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 25 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) predicted to range from 44 to 49 dB Ldn at the nearest receivers. The predicted noise levels identified above would comply with the Siskiyou County General Plan 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for residential uses by a wide margin. Based on the above-mentioned noise level reduction achieved with standard residential construction (minimum of 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open), recreational vehicle air-conditioning unit noise levels are also expected to satisfy the Siskiyou County General Plan 45 dB Ldn interior noise level standard within the nearest residences by a wide margin even with windows in the open configuration.

According to the ambient noise level measurement results, measured hourly average noise levels ranged from 47 to 56 dB Leq during daytime hours (Table 4). The FICON criteria indicate that a 5 dB increase is the threshold of significance where pre-project ambient noise levels are less than 60 dB (Table 3). As indicated in Table 10, the cumulative noise exposure levels from eight recreational vehicle air-conditioning units (worst-case) are predicted to range from 38 to 43 dB Leq at the nearest receivers, which would be below measured existing daytime ambient conditions, and would not exceed the applicable FICON standard of significance. As a result, noise impacts related to RV air-conditioning system usage noise are predicted to be less-than-significant.

Project Construction Noise

Based on the reference noise levels of typical construction equipment provided in Table 11, the nearest receivers to areas on the project site where construction would occur are located approximately 150 feet away. At this distance, maximum noise levels due to construction would be expected to be approximately 45 to 80 dB Lmax.

According to the ambient noise level measurement results, measured maximum noise levels ranged from 54-76 dB Lmax during daytime hours (Table 4). The FICON criteria indicate that a 1.5 dB increase is the threshold where ambient noise levels are greater than 65 dB (Table 3). The predicted construction noise level of up to 80 dB Lmax would exceed the highest measured ambient maximum (Lmax) noise level by 4 dB. Thus, depending on the distances from the construction areas to nearby receivers, construction activities associated with the project could result substantial (short-term and temporary) increases over ambient maximum noise levels as defined by the FICON criteria. As a result, this impact is considered to be potentially significant.

Mitigation for Criteria A: Construction Noise Control Measures

MM-4: To the maximum extent practical, the following measures should be incorporated into the project construction operations:

 Pursuant to mitigation measure MM 12.1 of the project DIS/MND, the County requires that all construction activities during project site

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 26 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

development are prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays, and shall occur from Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.  All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal- combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers- recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.  All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity.  Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal-combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.  Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise- sensitive receptors.  Nearby residences shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short- term increases in ambient noise levels.

After implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

Criteria B: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

At the nearest existing residences to the proposed project area, construction- generated vibration levels are expected to be less than the 70 VdB RMS. Because construction-generated vibration levels at nearby existing receptors are expected satisfy the strictest Federal Transportation Authority (FTA) groundborne vibration impact criteria (regardless of number of vibration events from a source), project construction would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration levels. Further, it is our understanding that the project is not proposing equipment that would generate significant vibration levels.

Because vibration levels due to and upon the proposed project are expected to satisfy the applicable FTA groundborne impact vibration criteria, this impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

Criteria C: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 27 EXHIBIT C Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)

The project site is located approximately 1.7 miles north of a public use airport (Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport). There are no other public or private airports within two miles of the project site.

According to the Siskiyou County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), approximately 1 acre of the project property (southeastern end of the site) is located within “Compatibility Zone C2” of the Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport area of influence. Although the C zones are potentially affected by aviation noise, the ALUCP states that land uses within Zone C2 are not generally affected by aviation noise exceeding 55 dB CNEL (a 24-hour averaged noise descriptor comparative to Ldn). According to the ambient noise level measurement results, measured average day-night noise levels ranged from 58 to 61 dB Ldn, including aircraft operations. Aircraft noise exposure within the interior areas of proposed project structures would be considerably lower due to the noise reduction provided by standard construction (at least 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open).

According to the project DIS/MND, the project property is zoned Highway Commercial (C-H). The Siskiyou County General Plan exterior and interior noise level standards applicable to commercial uses are 65 and 45 dB Ldn, respectively. Based on the information provided above, noise generated from normal aircraft operations at the Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport are not expected to exceed the applicable Siskiyou County commercial exterior or interior noise level criteria at the project site. As a result, this impact is considered to be less-than-significant. Conclusions and Recommendations

This analysis concludes that with implementation of feasible noise mitigation measures, all potentially significant noise impacts at the nearest existing residences can be mitigated to a less- than-significant level. Finally, this analysis concludes that project-generated vibration will not result in adverse impacts at the nearest existing residences.

These conclusions are based on the data and assumptions cited herein and on the project site plan shown on Figure 2. Any substantive revisions to the project site plan or proposed operations could cause actual noise levels to vary relative to those predicted herein. BAC is not responsible for such revisions.

This concludes BAC’s environmental noise and vibration assessment of the Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center in Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), California. Please contact BAC at (916) 663- 0500 or [email protected] with any questions regarding this assessment.

Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center – Mt. Shasta, (Siskiyou County), California Page 28 EXHIBIT C Appendix A Acoustical Terminology

Acoustics The science of sound.

Ambient The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources Noise audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre-project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

Attenuation The reduction of an acoustic signal.

A-Weighting A frequency-response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response.

Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound, A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one-tenth of a Bell.

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging.

Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz.

Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

Leq Equivalent or energy-averaged sound level.

Lmax The highest root-mean-square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

Masking The amount (or the process) by which the threshold of audibility is for one sound is raised by the presence of another (masking) sound.

Noise Unwanted sound.

Peak Noise The level corresponding to the highest (not RMS) sound pressure measured over a given period of time. This term is often confused with the Maximum level, which is the highest RMS level.

RT6060 The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed.

Sabin The unit of sound absorption. One square foot of material absorbing 100% of incident sound has an absorption of 1 sabin.

SEL A rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train passby, that compresses the total sound energy of the event into a 1-s time period.

Threshold The lowest sound that can be perceived by the human auditory system, generally of Hearing considered to be 0 dB for persons with perfect hearing.

Threshold Approximately 120 dB above the threshold of hearing. of Pain

EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C A B

Sound System Location

Outdoor Event Area Speaker Speaker

Reference Measurement Location (50 feet from speakers)

C D

Legend Iron Horse Unlimited A: Long-term noise measurement Site 1 facing east (41°17’06.51” N, 122°17’49.21” W) Events Center B: Long-term noise measurement Site 2 facing north (41°17’03.07” N, 122°17’49.64” W) C: Outdoor event area with amplified music noise simulation reference measurement location (50 feet from speakers) and sound Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), California system setup location facing northeast (41°17’06.43” N, 122°17’51.11” W) Photographs of Noise Survey Locations D: Outdoor event area with amplified music noise simulation reference measurement location (50 feet from speakers) and sound system setup location facing north (41°17’06.43” N, 122°17’51.11” W) Appendix C-1

EXHIBIT C A B

C D

Legend Iron Horse Unlimited A: Outdoor event area with amplified music noise simulation reference measurement location facing west (41°17’06.43” N, 122°17’51.11” W) Events Center B: Amplified music noise simulation measurement Site A facing south (41°17’09.40” N, 122°17’49.94” W) C: Amplified music noise simulation measurement Site B facing southwest (41°17’08.10” N, 122°17’49.36” W) Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), California D: Amplified music noise simulation measurement Site C facing southwest (41°17’07.67” N, 122°17’49.25” W) Photographs of Noise Survey Locations

Appendix C-2

EXHIBIT C A B

C D

Legend Iron Horse Unlimited A: Amplified music noise simulation measurement Site D facing east (41°17’07.08” N, 122°17’49.22” W) Events Center B: Amplified music noise simulation measurement Site E/Site 1 facing east (41°17’06.51” N, 122°17’49.21” W) C: Amplified music noise simulation measurement Site F facing north (41°17’05.83” N, 122°17’49.29” W) Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), California D: Amplified music noise simulation measurement Site G facing north (41°17’04.39” N, 122°17’49.67” W) Photographs of Noise Survey Locations

Appendix C-3

EXHIBIT C Appendix D-1 Ambient Noise Monitoring Results Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center - Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), CA - Site 1 Wednesday-Thursday, April 17-18, 2019

Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90 Statistical Summary 2:00 PM 54 65 54 49 Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) 3:00 PM 55 74 52 49 High Low Average High Low Average 4:00 PM 50 60 49 46 Leq (Average) 55 48 51 54 49 52 5:00 PM 51 65 50 47 Lmax (Maximum) 74 60 67 74 59 65 6:00 PM 50 62 49 47 L50 (Median) 54 45 49 53 48 50 7:00 PM 51 69 50 46 L90 (Background) 49 42 46 50 40 44 8:00 PM 51 61 50 47 9:00 PM 54 74 53 48 Computed Ldn, dB 58 10:00 PM 53 64 52 47 % Daytime Energy 59% 11:00 PM 51 63 49 43 % Nighttime Energy 41% 12:00 AM 51 62 50 43 1:00 AM 51 68 49 41 41°17'6.51"N GPS Coordinates 2:00 AM 51 62 49 42 122°17'49.20"W 3:00 AM 49 59 48 40 4:00 AM 53 74 51 45 5:00 AM 53 67 52 46 6:00 AM 54 66 53 50 7:00 AM 54 71 53 49 8:00 AM 49 60 48 44 9:00 AM 48 71 46 43 10:00 AM 48 63 46 43 11:00 AM 48 65 45 42 12:00 PM 49 69 47 44 1:00 PM 50 70 48 45

EXHIBIT C Appendix D-2 Ambient Noise Monitoring Results Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center - Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), CA - Site 2 Wednesday-Thursday, April 17-18, 2019

Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90 Statistical Summary 2:00 PM 54 65 53 51 Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) 3:00 PM 55 67 54 52 High Low Average High Low Average 4:00 PM 53 61 52 50 Leq (Average) 56 47 53 57 53 55 5:00 PM 53 62 53 50 Lmax (Maximum) 76 54 64 73 62 67 6:00 PM 53 69 53 50 L50 (Median) 55 46 52 56 51 53 7:00 PM 54 69 53 49 L90 (Background) 52 43 48 52 42 46 8:00 PM 54 64 53 49 9:00 PM 56 76 54 49 Computed Ldn, dB 61 10:00 PM 56 67 55 49 % Daytime Energy 52% 11:00 PM 53 67 51 46 % Nighttime Energy 48% 12:00 AM 54 65 52 45 1:00 AM 55 73 52 44 41°17'3.08"N GPS Coordinates 2:00 AM 55 65 53 45 122°17'49.65"W 3:00 AM 53 62 51 42 4:00 AM 56 72 54 48 5:00 AM 56 66 54 49 6:00 AM 57 69 56 52 7:00 AM 56 69 55 52 8:00 AM 51 59 50 47 9:00 AM 48 54 47 45 10:00 AM 48 62 47 44 11:00 AM 47 55 46 43 12:00 PM 51 63 50 45 1:00 PM 53 65 52 48

EXHIBIT C Appendix E-1 Ambient Noise Monitoring Results Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center - Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), CA - Site 1 Wednesday-Thursday, April 17-18, 2019

90

80

70

60

50 Pressure Level, dBA

40 Sound

30

20 2:00 PM 6:00 PM 10:00 PM 2:00 AM 6:00 AM 10:00 AM 1:00 PM Time of Day

Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90)

Computed Ldn = 58 dB

EXHIBIT C Appendix E-2 Ambient Noise Monitoring Results Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center - Mt. Shasta (Siskiyou County), CA - Site 2 Wednesday-Thursday, April 17-18, 2019

90

80

70

60

50 Pressure Level, dBA

40 Sound

30

20 2:00 PM 6:00 PM 10:00 PM 2:00 AM 6:00 AM 10:00 AM 1:00 PM Time of Day

Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90)

Computed Ldn = 61 dB

EXHIBIT C Appendix F-1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) Noise Prediction Worksheet

Project Information: Job Number: 2019-019 Project Name: Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center Roadway Name: State Route 89

Traffic Data: Description: Event Average Daily OFF-SITE Traffic Volume: 515 Percent Daytime Traffic: 99 Percent Nighttime Traffic: 1 Percent Medium Trucks (2 axle): 1 Percent Heavy Trucks (3+ axle): 1 Assumed Vehicle Speed (mph): 55 Intervening Ground Type (hard/soft): Soft

Traffic Noise Levels: ------Ldn, dB------Medium Heavy No. Description Distance Offset (dB) Autos Trucks Trucks Total 1 State Route 89 - Nearest Residence 100 0 48 35 39 49

Traffic Noise Contours (No Calibration Offset):

Ldn Contour, dB Distance from Centerline, (ft) 75 2 70 4 65 8 60 17

Notes: 1. Event-generated average daily off-site traffic volume for State Route 89 was calculated using worst- case event generation infomation obtained from the project DIS/MND (600 persons), a multiplier of 0.41 guest trips per hour (an accepted multiplier for special events used in traffic planning), and includes trips from event caterers, staff, etc. (estimated to be approximately 25 trips).

EXHIBIT C Appendix F-2 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) Noise Prediction Worksheet

Project Information: Job Number: 2019-019 Project Name: Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center Roadway Name: State Route 89

Traffic Data: Description: Existing (2017) Average Daily OFF-SITE Traffic Volume: 3,350 Percent Daytime Traffic: 60 Percent Nighttime Traffic: 40 Percent Medium Trucks (2 axle): 4 Percent Heavy Trucks (3+ axle): 17 Assumed Vehicle Speed (mph): 55 Intervening Ground Type (hard/soft): Soft

Traffic Noise Levels: ------Ldn, dB------Medium Heavy No. Description Distance Offset (dB) Autos Trucks Trucks Total 1 State Route 89 - Nearest Residence 100 0 61 55 66 67

Traffic Noise Contours (No Calibration Offset):

Ldn Contour, dB Distance from Centerline, (ft) 75 31 70 66 65 142 60 306

Notes: 1. Existing average daily off-site traffic volume for State Route 89 obtained from Caltrans (2017 data) traffic counts (State Route 89 - from Broadway/Southern Avenue to Interstate 5 - 3,350 ADT). 2. Truck percentages for State Route 89 obtained from Caltrans (2016 data)

EXHIBIT C STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY Edmund G. Brown Jr.. Governor

DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND RRE PROTECTION

P.O. Box 128 180S Fairiane Road YREKA, CA 96097-0128 (530)842-3516 W^ite: www.fire.ca.gov

March 27. 2018

Siskiyou County Department of Public Health and Community Development 806 South Main Street Yreka, CA 96097-3321

Attention: Christy Cummings Da\wson, Planning Director

Subject: Altes Use Permit(UP-18-02)

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has the following Public Resources Code 4290 requirements for the above referenced project (reference Calif. Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Article 5, Subchapter 2. SRA Fire Safe Regulations):

DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND SURFACE REQUIREMENTS 1273.01, 1273.02, 1273.03, 1273.04, 1273.05, 1273.06, 1273.07, 1273.08, 1273.10, 1273.11 NOTE: Since this project will be for commercial use, the access road to the property must meet the road width retirement of 20 feet The local fire authority may require more than one access to the property due to the amount of people projected to be on the property during special events.

ADDRESSES FOR BUILDING 1274.08, 1274.09, 1274.10

FUEL MODIFICATION AND STANDARDS 1276.01, 1276.02

SEE THE ATTACHED "4290 CHECKLIST" FOR SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS.

If you have any questions, please call Monty Messenger at(530) 842-3516.

lonty Messenger Battalion^Chief

For: Phillip Anzo Siskiyou Unit Chief

"The Department ofForestry and Fire Protection serves and safeguards the people andprotects the property and resources ofCalifornia. ' EXHIBIT D From: Hubbard, Kristin@Wildlife To: Christy Cummings Dawson Subject: RE: Altes Use Permit UP1802 Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 2:16:47 PM

Hi Christy,

The Department has no comment on this project.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the application materials, Kristin

From: Christy Cummings Dawson Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:09 PM To: '[email protected]' ; Nancy Hayden ; Rick Dean ; Pam Piemme ; Phil Bray ; [email protected]; Kimberly Sumner ; Eric Olson ; '[email protected]' ; Craig Kay ; Jeff Clausen ; Linda Isbell ; [email protected]; Whipple, Monte@CALFIRE ; Messenger, Monty@CALFIRE ; Henderson, Amy@Wildlife ; Hubbard, Kristin@Wildlife ; Gonzalez, Marcelino@DOT ; '[email protected]' Subject: Altes Use Permit UP1802

TO: Siskiyou County Reviewing Agencies and State Responsible Agencies FROM: Christy Cummings Dawson, Planning Director DATE: March 27, 2018 SUBJECT: Project Application Review – Altes Use Permit (UP1802)

The following is a brief summary of the proposal. Additional information may be found in the attached application materials. The subject property consists of APN 037-260-510 and is located at 138 Big Canyon Drive, near its intersection with Azalea Road, Mt. Shasta; Township 40 North, Range 4 West, Section 27. The application proposes a conditional use permit to provide horse training, riding, and accommodations along with the hosting of outdoor special events.

The attached application materials have been filed with the Planning Division of the Siskiyou County Community Development Department for processing. Please review the application materials for completeness and include any necessary conditions for approval

EXHIBIT D as it pertains to your area of responsibility.

All responses to the application must be received by April 11, 2018, at the following address: County of Siskiyou Community Development Department - Planning 806 South Main Street Yreka, CA 96097 Attn: Christy Cummings Dawson, Planning Director

If your department or agency has conditions, a copy of specific documentation should be attached to your response. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at the address above or by telephone at (530) 842-8206 or e-mail at [email protected],us.

Attachments

Cc:

Siskiyou County Tax Collector's Office Siskiyou County Public Works Siskiyou County Building Siskiyou County Environmental Health Siskiyou County Assessor’s Office Supervisor Valenzuela North Coast RWQCB Army Corps of Engineers SCAPCD Cal Fire Central Valley RWQCB Caltrans District 2 CDFW

Christy Cummings Dawson Deputy Director, Planning County of Siskiyou 806 S. Main St. Yreka, CA 96097 530-842-8206

EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D From: Eric Olson To: Vurl Trytten Cc: Kimberly Sumner; James Smith Subject: RE: Altes Use Permit UP1802 Date: Thursday, December 06, 2018 3:13:05 PM

Vurl, Under Air Quality Monitoring on page 4.0-6 in the Altes ISMND, it is correct to state that ozone and PM2.5 are monitored continuously in Siskiyou County, at the Yreka air monitoring site. The Yreka one-in-six day PM2.5 monitor was shut down June 30, 2018. Also, on pages 4.0-7 & 4.0-8 including table 4.3-2, it is shown and mentioned that PM10 data is lacking. This due to the fact that the Air Pollution Control District officially shut down the Yreka PM10 monitor December 31, 2015. Please let me know if you need additional information. Best regards,

Eric Olson Air Pollution Specialist II Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District 525 South Foothill Drive Yreka, CA 96097 530-841-4031

From: Vurl Trytten Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 1:45 PM To: Nancy Hayden; Jerry Lemos; Christy Cummings Dawson; Phil Bray; Scott Waite; Kimberly Sumner; Eric Olson; Craig Kay; Jeff Clausen; Linda Isbell; Scott Waite; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; [email protected]; 'Annie Marsh' Cc: Christy Cummings Dawson Subject: Altes Use Permit UP1802

The Notice of Availability of a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Notice of Public Hearing document for the Altes UP1802 project is attached (one document).

If you have any questions, please contact me or Christy Cumming Dawson, the project planner.

Vurl Trytten, Executive Secretary Siskiyou County Community Development [email protected] 530-842-8201

EXHIBIT D State of California – Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Region 1- Northern 601 Locust Street, Redding, CA 96001 www.wildlife.ca.gov

December 10, 2018

Christy Cummings Dawson Deputy Director Siskiyou County Community Development – Planning Division 806 South Main Street Yreka, CA 96097

Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02), Siskiyou County, State Clearinghouse Number 2018112061

Dear Ms. Dawson:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above-referenced project (Project). The Department’s review of this Project is pursuant to our role as the State’s trustee for fish and wildlife resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. The Project is a proposed use permit to bring an existing facility into compliance with County Code as well as facilitate future development of the Project site. The Department reviewed the Project during early consultation and had no comment at that time. Based on information provided in the MND, the Department continues to have no comment in regards to biological resources. If the Project description changes in any way or additional biological resource information becomes available, the Department should be notified and provided an opportunity to offer comments regarding the updated information.

We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. If you have any questions, please contact me at (530) 225-2138, or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Kristin Hubbard Environmental Scientist ec: Christy Cummings Dawson Siskiyou County Community Development – Planning Division [email protected]

State Clearinghouse [email protected]

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870 EXHIBIT D Dale La Forest & Associates Design, Planning & Environmental Consulting 101 E. Alma Street, Suite 100-A Mt. Shasta, CA 96067 Phone: (530) 918-8625 E-Mail: [email protected]

Siskiyou County Planning Department & Commissioners Christy Cummings Dawson – Deputy Director (530) 841-2100 Siskiyou County Community Development - Planning Division 806 South Main Street Yreka, CA 96097

Report on the Noise Impacts of Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) - Proposed Special Event Facility

Dear Planning Commissioners, December 18, 2018

I have prepared this Report in response to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for this Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) - Proposed Special Event Facility. (“Project”) This report shows that the Project's noise impacts will be significantly adverse under the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq., (“CEQA”) and will exceed permissible CEQA standards set by the County and other relevant agencies. During its operations, the Project will subject neighboring residences to excessive noise levels from wedding events and from air conditioners likely used by recreational vehicle campers during the summer. Because operational noise impacts will likely exceed applicable significant thresholds under the CEQA guidelines and those of other agencies and court decisions, this IS/MND must be revised.

More specifically, IS/MND for this Project does not adequately disclose the significant noise impacts this Project may have upon its nearest residential neighbors. For example, during wedding events, neighbors are likely to hear pounding music, shouted announcements, celebratory screams, hoots, cheers, and clapping that will significant in volume and distressing at times in nature.

The applicant did not provide any noise study to help the public and surrounding neighbors evaluate how loud this Project may be. There is no description of the volume levels for the amplified music, other forms of music without electronic amplification, or the noise made by sometimes rowdy event crowds.

The MND does not describe how close all the likely affected nearby "sensitive receptors" (neighboring people in their homes and yards) will be to the Project's major noise sources. Without that information, the public cannot readily evaluate this Project's noise impacts, and the MND does not satisfy CEQA's mandate to be information disclosing.

Noise may be generated during the heat of summer by roof-top air conditioners typically used on recreational vehicles (RVs). The Project's Site Plan shows nine spaces for RVs near the Project's eastern property line where the nearest home is about 200 feet away. The MND entirely fails to

EXHIBIT D disclose that operation of up to nine A/C units at that distance may generate noise levels that area significantly louder than the existing ambient noise level at that house.1

The MND proposes a mitigation to reduce the impact of construction noise on neighbors, but that mitigation will be inadequate. It only limits those hours of the day when construction may occur. It provides no limitations on how loud such construction activities are. The MND fails to disclose how loud the construction equipment will be, thus preventing the public from evaluating this noise impact.

The MND also provides no limit on how much louder than existing noise levels this Project's construction can be when measured at neighbors' properties. Under CEQA, this MND must evaluate if the construction would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 2 A project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from project operations if the project causes the ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected uses to increase by 5 dBA or greater. The MND never discusses this required element of any CEQA noise study. Instead, it only references the County's outdated noise standards that are based upon an average daily maximum noise level (i.e. the MND sets as a threshold of significance: residential uses adjacent to the project site, an exterior noise level of 60 Ldn (Day- Night Level) is identified as acceptable.") The public has no means of independently reviewing this issue either because the applicant has not provided any ambient noise level measurements at neighboring homes, or data on this Project's noise sources.

AMPLIFIED MUSIC NOISE IMPACTS WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LOUDER THAN AMBIENT LEVELS AT NEIGHBORING HOMES

Wedding parties can be noisy and disturbing to rural neighbors. But this Project's MND never analyzes that noise impact. For purposes of this comment letter then, we can turn to a different but similar wedding event use permit granted in Santa Clara County that resulted in litigation by disturbed neighbors. Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara and Wozniak (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714 (Available online here.3, 4 )

In that situation that includes some details relevant in the Mt. Shasta community, the landowner also hosted a number of weddings and other events on the property without obtaining the necessary use permit from the County. Music and speech were amplified over a sound system during those events using speakers. The applicant for the use permit represented that approximately 100 people typically attended events at that property. But a Web site advertising the event space noted there was seating for 200 people. Complaints received by the county sheriff’s office about events in 2006 indicated the events had more than 200 attendees. A zoning violation report cited accounts of wedding receptions with 300 attendees being held at the Property. The county sheriff’s office received numerous calls from local residents complaining about the noise associated with unpermitted events at the Property. A number of residents also wrote to County officials to complain that they could hear announcements and loud music late into the night. Many of the complaining residents lived as far away as about 3,000 feet south of the Property across a canyon.

1 See Home Location map (Figure 1 on page 4) for this house location, labeled #1, just east of the Project's "Event Area." 2 See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. 3 http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/H039707.PDF 4 https://www.ceqadevelopments.com/2015/05/12/sixth-district-applies-ceqas-fair-argument-standard-holds-that-despite- projects-compliance-with-local-noise-ordinance-eir-rather-than-mitigated-negative-declarati/

12/18/18 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit - Page 2

EXHIBIT D Excerpted from that court decision:

Neighbors commented on the Project at planning commission hearings and by declaration and letter. Many complained about the noise they experienced during the unpermitted weddings in 2006. One Marty Road resident described hearing “pounding music, shouted announcements, celebratory screams, hoots, cheers, and clapping” during those events. Another neighbor stated that noise from the 2006 events was “quite audible in our closed house, with the hollers of the crowd soaring above and the throbbing bass notes reaching below any noise (such as the TV) we tried to employ to cover it.” Other neighbors declared that during the 2006 events, “lower frequencies from the amplified music, public address system and crowd penetrated the walls and windows of our home with such intensity that we could feel the resulting vibrations while sitting in our family room . . . or lying in bed.”

In that case, the noise consultant hired by the County of Santa Clara opined that live bands and DJs typically play at 85-88 dBA Leq (average) at 20 feet from the stage and speakers, and recommended additional noise analyses of mock or real events typical of a wedding, including measuring noise levels during such events at potentially affected residences.

Using the Formula 1 described below, if this Mt. Shasta wedding event Altes Project's music is played at that noise level of 88 dBA Leq at 20 feet, then at the nearest home, that music would reduce in 5 volume to about an average of 72 dBA Leq at 120 feet. With ambient noise levels likely less than 50 dBA Leq during evening hours at this home, such an average noise level increase of 22 dB would be significantly more than the 5 dBA threshold of significance.

At two homes about 450 feet away, that music level would be about 61 dBA Leq which is more than 11 6 dB louder than a likely 50 dBA Leq evening noise level, and would be therefore also significant. Even at a distance of 800 feet from this Event Area, the sound of amplified music could be 56 dBA Leq and therefore more than 5 dBA greater than the likely evening noise levels that can be less than 50 dBA Leq. Within 800 feet of this Event Area are five homes and three (triplex) apartment dwellings that could be significantly impacted. (See Figure A below)

// // // // //

5 In this case, at a location 120' (d2) from the Project's Event Area at the nearest home, where dB1 = 88 dBA Lmax at 20' (d1) from the noise source, dB2 = dB1– 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) = 88 – 10 x 2.0 x log10(120'/20') = 72 dBA Leq.

6 Homes #2 and #3 on the map below are about 450 feet from the Project's Event Area. 12/18/18 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit - Page 3

EXHIBIT D FIGURE A – LOCATION OF NEIGHBORING HOMES

Home’s # 1 – 5 and Apartments # 6 – 8 could be significantly impacted by Project noise levels

CROWD SHOUTING NOISE IMPACTS WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LOUDER THAN AMBIENT LEVELS AT NEIGHBORING HOMES

There are other kinds of wedding event noise that can seriously disturb neighbors. Just the sound of excited or drunken human voices in a large crowd the size this Project proposes can create significant noise impacts in the neighborhood. For example again, taking from the actual court decision about noise studies referred in that Keep Our Mountains Quiet legal case, some data is relevant here for the Altes Project:

"[The county's acoustical engineer] opined that the sound of the crowd cheering could be as loud as 52 dBA at a residence located 3,500 feet away on Marty Road. .... Assuming a crowd cheers loudly eight times during an event, for five seconds each time, the hourly average noise level at the Marty Road residence would be 32 dBA"

12/18/18 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit - Page 4

EXHIBIT D The noise level of such a wedding crowd can be calculated at closer distances as is relevant in this Altes Project. The distance from the noise source to a receptor is a primary consideration in determining the actual noise level experienced at the receptor. Most reference noise levels are specified at a distance of 50 feet from the source. The calculation of noise from a point source, such as construction equipment, at other distances uses the following “Equation 1” for noise attenuation over distance:

Where: L1 = known sound level at d1 L2 = desired sound level at d2 d1 = distance of known sound level from the noise source d2 = distance of the sensitive receptor from the noise source

This equation is the mathematical expression for a noise level being reduced by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. 7

A crowd cheering that loud (in the court decision above) but at the Altes Project's Event Area would generate a maximum noise level of about 81 dBA Lmax at a distance of 120 feet where the nearest home is located. With the second assumption used in that court case, the average noise level at a home 120 feet away would be about 61 dBA Leq.

Calculation: In this case, at a location 120' (d2) from the Project's Event Area, where dB1 = 52 dBA Lmax at 3,500' (d1) from the noise source, dB2 = dB1– 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) = 52 – 10 x 2.0 x log10(120'/3500') = 81 dBA Lmax.

The average ambient noise level at some of the nearby homes in the evenings is likely less than 50 dBA Leq. A wedding event crowd noise level that averages 61 dBA Leq at the nearest home would exceed the ambient noise level there by more than 10 dB. Any average noise level increase during wedding events greater than 5 dB is considered to be a significant noise impact. Or when maximum noise incidences occur of 81 dBA Lmax at neighboring homes, that too would be very disturbing to most neighbors because it could be more than 30 dBA louder than ambient conditions at evening hours.

Even inside their homes with windows open,8 such peak noise levels during crowd shouting could exceed 70 dBA Lmax, far above the typical interior level of homes that range from 25 - 45 dBA Leq. A

7 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) Website (8/24/17) Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm; see also California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) (Sep. 2013) Technical Noise Supplement, pp. 2:27-28 (stating for point sources, “sound level attenuates or drops off at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of the distance[;]”. Also see CalTrans Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, Oct. 1998; p. 25, Equation N-2141.1, or http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf 8 Residential rooms with open windows typically attenuate exterior noise levels by about 10 as most of the acoustic energy of exterior noise is blocked by the more solid wall and roof surfaces. See Siskiyou County's General Plan Noise Element. 81 dB - 10 dB = 71 dB. 12/18/18 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit - Page 5

EXHIBIT D temporary noise level increase like that which might exceed interior noise levels by 26 dB or more is a significant noise impact. (71 dB- 45 dB = 26 dB increase; or 71 dB- 25 dB = 46 dB increase).

CONCLUSION

As discussed above, the Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration’s noise discussion fails to provide basic information required for the County or public to adequately assess the true noise impacts of this Project. As a result, likely construction and operational noise impacts were overlooked. This Report presents fair arguments that the Project as mitigated will still create significant noise impacts. That evidence above demonstrates the current Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate for this Project’s CEQA review. Moreover, feasible mitigation measures are available and need to be considered pursuant to a CEQA-compliant MND or EIR.

If further opportunities become available to review this Project or its environmental impacts, please notify me at that time.

Sincerely,

Dale La Forest Professional Planner, Designer, INCE Associate (Institute of Noise Control Engineering) Dale La Forest & Associates

12/18/18 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit - Page 6

EXHIBIT D Anne Marsh

Anne Marsh 4628 Pine Cone Drive Etna, CA 96027 530.598.2131

December 24, 2018

Christy Cummings Dawson, Deputy Planning Director Community Development Department Planning Division 608 S. Main Street Yreka, CA 96097

RE: Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02)

VIA EMAIL

Dear Christy:

According to the NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, the Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) application proposes a conditional use permit to provide horse training, riding, and accommodations along with the hosting of outdoor special events. I am opposed to the approval of this project because of the following issues: LAND USE AND PLANNING The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Impact (DIS/MND) opines that Section b) “Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect” would have “No Impact.” I disagree. The Siskiyou County Zoning Ordinance does NOT support the approval of the Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) Project. The project which is more fully described in the DIS/MND Project Description as: “The project is a proposed use permit to bring an existing nine-acre equestrian and special event facility into compliance with County Code as well as to facilitate future development of the site. The facility is currently used for horse boarding/training, riding lessons, trail riding, and outdoor events, such as weddings, parties, and retreats. The use permit would allow these unpermitted uses to continue, as well as allow for training clinics and development of a septic system and two additional structures: 1) a multi-use building containing offices, restrooms, storage, and a caretaker’s residence and 2) a barn for storing hay, tack, and other horse-related materials,” is sited on Highway Commercial (C-H) Zoning (See Attachment A of the ISA/MND).

With the exception of an accessory caretaker’s dwelling, the so-called “unpermitted uses” are not permitted uses in Highway Commercial (C-H) Zoning. We are thus referred to Sec. 10-6.4403. - Conditional uses permitted which states, “In addition to the uses listed above, the uses listed in Article 15, General Provisions, may also be Christy Cummings Dawson, Deputy Planning Director RE: Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) December 24, 2018 Page 1 EXHIBIT D Anne Marsh

permitted, subject to the issuance of a use permit.” Although Zoning Ordinance Sec. 10-6.1519 - Keeping of certain domesticated livestock and horses in RES-1 Zoning District was approved in 2012, this part of the Code only applies to RES-1 Zoning.

Article 15. - General Provisions, Conditions, and Exceptions, Sec. 10-6.1502. – Uses (which require a conditional use permit) states under (c) which is the only Section which can apply: “Establishments or enterprises involving large assemblages of people or automobiles, as follows: (1) Amusement parks and race tracks, (2) Circuses and carnivals, (3) Public buildings, parks, and other public recreational facilities, (4) Recreational facilities privately operated, (5) Resorts, and (6) Public celebrations. Of those 6 conditionally permitted uses, only items (4) Recreational facilities privately operated, and (6) Public celebrations could be applicable to the Altes Use Permit. However, those two sections do not cover the entirety of the project. Nothing in Highway Commercial (C-H) Zoning or Conditional uses permitted includes horse boarding/training, or riding lessons. Therefore, the use permit cannot be legally approved. Please change the zoning to accommodate the approval of these uses or deny this use permit.

Additionally, Sec. 10-6.1519 - Keeping of certain domesticated livestock and horses in RES-1 Zoning District cannot pertain to the Altes project because the project is not in a RES-1 Zoning District. Again, please change the zoning to accommodate the approval of these uses or deny this use permit.

Although the use permit should not be approved for the above reasons, there are additional reasons why the use permit should not be approved.

NOISE The Noise Assessment in the DIS/MND is totally flawed and inadequate, especially since no noise information from existing noise generating sources was provided. Without existing noise generating sources information and factoring in new noise generating sources, a determination of “No Impact” is meaningless. The DIS/MND imposes only a Mitigation Measure on noise from construction and assumes that noise from other sources will have “No Impact” because such noise is “intermittent.” Since the nearest sensitive receptor is merely 125 feet away, it is very doubtful that the intermittent noise is not negatively impacting the receptor. Intermittent noise is more impacting because it interrupts periods of silence creating the effect of seeming louder than constant noise. Daytime facility noise between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:30 PM six (6) days a week and amplified noise until from 12 Noon until 10:00 PM on Saturdays during summer months (which need to be clarified, i.e., June through August or???) would certainly have a negative impact on sensitive receptors. Please either provide adequate information in a revised DIS/MND so the public can more appropriately comment or require a Noise Study that will provide such information. TRAFFIC As with the Noise Assessment, the Traffic Assessment in the DIS/MND does not provide enough information to make the determination of “No Impact,” nor allow the public to adequately comment. Please either provide adequate information in a revised DIS/MND so the public can more appropriately comment or require a Traffic Study that will provide such information. SCOPE OF PROJECT

Christy Cummings Dawson, Deputy Planning Director RE: Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) December 24, 2018 Page 2 EXHIBIT D Anne Marsh

The DIS/MND project Description states in part, “In general, training and lessons occur Monday through Saturday between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., while special events are principally held on Saturdays during the summer months between 12:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Depending upon the type of event, there are usually one to five employees working onsite, with riding lessons, training, and overnight guests averaging approximately 20 guests per day during the busiest time of the year. Except for one annual event at the facility that attracts up to 600 persons, special events typically include fewer than 250 guests. The use permit would: 1) allow these unpermitted land uses to continue; 2) allow for training clinics 3-5 times per year with up to 75 people and 25 horses; 3) establish a limit on the number of special events to 30 per year; 4) establish other conditions of approval to ensure operations remain compatible with adjacent land uses; and 5) allow for the development of an onsite septic system and two additional structures: 1) a multiuse building containing offices, men’s and women’s restrooms, storage, and a caretaker’s residence; and 2) a barn for storing hay, tack, and other horse-related materials.” Greater clarity about the number of people occupying the project must be provided. The public must be informed and not required to sort through an ambiguous document to determine the occupancy and use of a project. For instance, there is no information on how many people and horses would be allowed for training and riding lessons. There is no information provided regarding the number or occupancy for retreats. Please revise the DIS/MND to provide that information to allow for informed public comment. CONCLUSION The use permit for the project should not be approved because the Siskiyou County Zoning Code does not allow such use on the current zoning or special zoning. If a zone change to allow such use were made and approved, then the challenges with Noise, Traffic and Scope of Project must be adequately addressed. For these reasons alone, a Fair Argument has been made that the project will have a significant impact on the environment. Please deny the Use Perm and keep me informed of any further action on this project site. Thank you for accepting my comments. Sincerely. Anne Marsh

Christy Cummings Dawson, Deputy Planning Director RE: Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) December 24, 2018 Page 3 EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D May 28, 2019

RE: Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center Project

138 Big Canyon Drive

Mount Shasta, CA 96067

ATT: Vurl Trytten

To Whom It May Concern,

It is my pleasure to write to you today in support of Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC and their outdoor events venue located 138 Big Canyon Drive., Mt. Shasta, CA. Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC provides an outdoor venue for special events such as weddings, family reunions, festivals, corporate retreats, private parties and community events in the Mt. Shasta, CA area. The outdoor events venue at Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC is a great asset to our local community. It provides a country atmosphere with the majestic Mt. Shasta as the backdrop. There is substantial parking and the event area is the perfect place to host a party or event.

Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC is an active community sponsor. They host the annual Arts, Wine and Brewfest in July each year benefiting the Icebreaker’s Hockey Association and the Mt. Shasta Community Ice Rink. They have also hosted other events that service the community at this location.

Weddings, events, reunions, private parties and retreats that take place at Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC do not impact the neighbors. I live on Sean Way in Mt. Shasta, not far from the Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC location. The sounds created by their events do not interfere with the private enjoyment of my property. In fact, Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC is bordered by Highway 89 on one side, and the Interstate 5 Freeway on another side. I find the noise from the freeways to be much more of a nuisance and I would believe the neighbors would all agree.

Mt. Shasta has another outdoor venue, The Mt. Shasta Resort. They too host wedding and other events outside during the summer months. They are located adjacent to a residential neighborhood and have been hosting summer outdoor events for many years now – without a negative impact to the neighbors. This is no different than the Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC. location which creates a similar impact as the Mt. Shasta Resort outdoor events venue.

The event venue at Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC helps support our community. It brings people into our town which supports our restaurants, shops, motels, stores and other businesses. It provides an option for events of all sizes and it is in an area where it provides little to no impact to the neighbors who near the venue.

I’m told that allowed uses of this property included a “truck stop” such as the existing Pilot Truck Stop in Weed, Ca and the proposed new “Loves Truck Stop” that is attempting to go into the Weed area. This type of use would create much more traffic, noise, and have a much greater negative impact on the area and neighbors. I believe this outdoor venue is a much better option for both the neighbors and the Mt. Shasta community as well.

Sincerely,

Karen DeBortoli

2525 Sean Way,

Mt. Shasta, CA 96067

EXHIBIT D From: Karen Aiello DeBortoli To: Vurl Trytten Subject: Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center Project Date: Monday, June 10, 2019 5:31:00 PM Attachments: Ironhorse Letter.docx

Hello Vurl,

I'm sending the attached letter in support of the Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center Project. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank You,

Karen DeBortoli 2525 Sean Way Mount Shasta, CA 96067 530 926 0761

EXHIBIT D May 28, 2019

RE: Iron Horse Unlimited Events Center Project

138 Big Canyon Drive

Mount Shasta, CA 96067

ATT: Vurl Trytten

To Whom It May Concern,

It is my pleasure to write to you today in support of Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC and their outdoor events venue located 138 Big Canyon Drive., Mt. Shasta, CA. Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC provides an outdoor venue for special events such as weddings, family reunions, festivals, corporate retreats, private parties and community events in the Mt. Shasta, CA area. The outdoor events venue at Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC is a great asset to our local community. It provides a country atmosphere with the majestic Mt. Shasta as the backdrop. There is substantial parking and the event area is the perfect place to host a party or event.

Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC is an active community sponsor. They host the annual Arts, Wine and Brewfest in July each year benefiting the Icebreaker’s Hockey Association and the Mt. Shasta Community Ice Rink. They have also hosted other events that service the community at this location.

Weddings, events, reunions, private parties and retreats that take place at Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC do not impact the neighbors. I live on Sean Way in Mt. Shasta, not far from the Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC location. The sounds created by their events do not interfere with the private enjoyment of my property. In fact, Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC is bordered by Highway 89 on one side, and the Interstate 5 Freeway on another side. I find the noise from the freeways to be much more of a nuisance and I would believe the neighbors would all agree.

Mt. Shasta has another outdoor venue, The Mt. Shasta Resort. They too host wedding and other events outside during the summer months. They are located adjacent to a residential neighborhood and have been hosting summer outdoor events for many years now – without a negative impact to the neighbors. This is no different than the Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC. location which creates a similar impact as the Mt. Shasta Resort outdoor events venue.

The event venue at Iron Horse Unlimited, LLC helps support our community. It brings people into our town which supports our restaurants, shops, motels, stores and other businesses. It provides an option for events of all sizes and it is in an area where it provides little to no impact to the neighbors who near the venue.

I’m told that allowed uses of this property included a “truck stop” such as the existing Pilot Truck Stop in Weed, Ca and the proposed new “Loves Truck Stop” that is attempting to go into the Weed area. This type of use would create much more traffic, noise, and have a much greater negative impact on the area and neighbors. I believe this outdoor venue is a much better option for both the neighbors and the Mt. Shasta community as well.

Sincerely,

Karen DeBortoli

2525 Sean Way,

Mt. Shasta, CA 96067

EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D From: Debra Schroeder To: Janine Rowe Subject: FW: Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) Date: Monday, July 08, 2019 9:21:40 AM Attachments: Comment Letter Altes 628.docx Comment Letter Altes 12-24-2018.docx

Debra A. Schroeder Planning Technician Siskiyou County Community Development 806 S. Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097 [email protected] Ph: (530) 841-2148

From: Annie Marsh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2019 1:56 PM To: Christy Cummings Dawson; Rachel Jereb; Debra Schroeder; [email protected] Subject: Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02)

Attached please find my letter dated July 7, 2019 on the Revised Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02), and my original letter on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02).

EXHIBIT D Anne Marsh

Anne Marsh 4628 Pine Cone Drive Etna, CA 96027 530.598.2131

July 7, 2019

Christy Cummings Dawson, Deputy Planning Director Community Development Department Planning Division 608 S. Main Street Yreka, CA 96097 RE: Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02)

VIA EMAIL

Dear Christy: I am opposed to the approval of this project. LAND USE AND PLANNING Approval of this Project will NOT bring the uses into compliance with County Code unless there is an explanation of and proof of how these uses comply with the Code. Although the Land Use and Planning issue was addressed in my comment letter dated December 24, 2018, no response was contained in the Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Impact (RDIS/MND) for the Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) which still merely refers the reader to “A complete list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the Highway Commercial District is included in Attachment B.” None of the Altes Project uses are included in the Highway Commercial (C-H) permitted uses. *See list provided later.*

Highway Commercial (C-H) Sec. 10-6.4403. - Conditional uses permitted. In addition to the uses listed above, the uses listed in Article 15, General Provisions, may also be permitted, subject to the issuance of a use permit:

Article 15. - General Provisions, Conditions, and Exceptions, Sec. 10-6.1502. – Uses (which require a conditional use permit) states under (c) which is the only Section which can apply: “Establishments or enterprises involving large assemblages of people or automobiles, as follows: (1) Amusement parks and race tracks, (2) Circuses and carnivals, (3) Public buildings, parks, and other public recreational facilities, (4) Recreational facilities privately operated, (5) Resorts, and (6) Public celebrations. Of those 6 conditionally permitted uses, only items (4) Recreational facilities privately operated, and (6) Public celebrations could be applicable to the Altes Use Permit. However, those two sections do not cover the entirety of the project. Nothing in Highway Commercial (C-H) Zoning or Conditional uses permitted includes horse boarding/training, or riding lessons. If the County intends to consider these uses a “recreational facility,” that should be disclosed and justified. Otherwise, the use permit cannot be legally approved. Please deny this use permit.

Christy Cummings Dawson, Deputy Planning Director RE: Recirculated Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) July 7, 2019 Page 1 EXHIBIT D Anne Marsh

*List from Highway Commercial (C-H): The following uses shall be permitted in the C-H District: (a) Automobile service stations, automobile car washes, repair garages (not including body shops), and towing services provided all operations, except servicing with petroleum products, air, and water, be conducted and confined within an enclosed building; (b) Restaurant and refreshment stands; (c) Convenience stores; (d) Recreational vehicle parks, when established on a site of not less than five (5) acres and at a density not to exceed fifteen (15) recreational vehicle spaces per acre; (e) Camp grounds; (f) Motels and hotels; (g) Public service facilities (for example, rest areas, parks, and utility substations); (h) Truck service stations and fuel yards; (i) On- and off-sale liquor establishments; (j) Theaters; (k) Health clubs; (l) A caretaker's residence accessory to permitted uses; provided the permitted use requires the continuous supervision of a caretaker, superintendent or security person and the residence is to be occupied only by such person and his or her family; and (m) Emergency shelters. Sec. 10-6.4403. - Conditional uses permitted. In addition to the uses listed above, the uses listed in Article 15, General Provisions, may also be permitted, subject to the issuance of a use permit. NOISE Despite Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.’s Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment it is almost certain that the noise generated by this project will negatively impact residents near the site. From my own personal experience, unamplified noise from gatherings on property located approximately 1/2 mile from my residence was annoying. Noise including amplified sound from family gatherings approximately 900 feet away from my residence was unbearable. These events were intermittent, however they both interfered with my ability to enjoy my property and the cooling summer nights. To allow daytime facility noise between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:30 PM six (6) days a week and amplified noise until from 12 Noon until 10:00 PM on Saturdays during summer months (still not clarified – June through September??) would certainly have a negative impact on sensitive receptors. SCOPE OF PROJECT Greater clarity about the number of people occupying the project and a cap on that number should be provided. The RDIS/MND is vague regarding this issue. Christy Cummings Dawson, Deputy Planning Director RE: Recirculated Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) July 7, 2019 Page 2 EXHIBIT D Anne Marsh

CONCLUSION The use permit for the project should not be approved because the Siskiyou County Zoning Code does not allow such use on the current zoning or special zoning. Please deny the Use Permit. The County should be pro-active in assuring that projects are permitted prior to start-up. The Altes Project is just one of the many that has been allowed to start-up and build-out without a permit. It would benefit the Public, the project owner/operator and the County to discontinue this practice. Please advise me of any further action on this project site, and any further opportunity to make comment on this project or any other activity to be permitted on APN 037-260-510. Again, please deny this use permit. Thank you for accepting my comments. Sincerely. Anne Marsh

Christy Cummings Dawson, Deputy Planning Director RE: Recirculated Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) July 7, 2019 Page 3 EXHIBIT D Dale La Forest & Associates Design, Planning & Environmental Consulting 101 E. Alma Street, Suite 100-A Mt. Shasta, CA 96067 Phone: (530) 918-8625 E-Mail: [email protected] July 9, 2919

Siskiyou County Planning Department & Commissioners Christy Cummings Dawson – Deputy Director (530) 841-2100 Siskiyou County Community Development - Planning Division 806 South Main Street Yreka, CA 96097

Report on the Noise Impacts of Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) - Proposed Special Event Facility Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Dear Planning Commissioners,

I have prepared this Report in response to the Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for this Altes Use Permit (UP-18-02) - Proposed Special Event Facility. (“Project”) This report shows that the Project's noise impacts will be significantly adverse under the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq., (“CEQA”) and will exceed permissible CEQA standards set by the County and other relevant agencies. During its operations, the Project will subject neighboring residences to excessive noise levels. Because operational noise impacts will likely exceed applicable significant thresholds under the CEQA guidelines and those of other agencies and court decisions, this IS/MND is inadequate and an EIR must be prepared.

More specifically, IS/MND for this Project does not adequately disclose the significant noise impacts this Project may have upon its nearest residential neighbors. For example, during wedding events, neighbors are likely to hear pounding music, shouted announcements, celebratory screams, hoots, cheers, and clapping that will significant in volume and distressing at times in nature. The proposed noise mitigations will not sufficiently correct those excessive noise levels.

The applicant’s noise study does not realistically and accurately disclose how loud this facility’s noise will be during some events that would be permitted. There is no realistic, believable description of the loudest volume levels for the amplified music, other forms of music without electronic amplification, or the noise made by sometimes rowdy event crowds. Without that information, the public cannot readily evaluate this Project's noise impacts, and the MND does not satisfy CEQA's mandate to be information disclosing.

The IS/MND fails to mathematically combine noise levels from separate Project noise sources into a single, total noise level in order to assess the Project’s actual noise impact on neighbors. The sum will be greater than the individual parts. The combined noise levels will definitely create a significant noise impact.

EXHIBIT D The IS/MND proposes a mitigation to reduce the impact of construction noise on neighbors, but that mitigation will be inadequate. It limits those hours of the day when construction may occur, but it provides no limitations on how loud such construction activities are when measured at neighboring homes. There is no substantial evidence that any of the provisions proposed will lessen the significance of such construction noise sufficiently. Mufflers, electrical substitute equipment, stockpiles and notification measures do not provide any assurance that construction noise level noise increases will be less than significant.

AMPLIFIED MUSIC NOISE IMPACTS WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LOUDER THAN AMBIENT LEVELS AT NEIGHBORING HOMES

Wedding parties can be noisy and disturbing to rural neighbors. But this Project's MND does not analyze that noise impact with accuracy to reflect the current noise levels that youthful party goers expect for dance events and wedding celebrations. For purposes of this comment letter then, we can turn to a different but similar wedding event use permit granted in Santa Clara County that resulted in litigation by disturbed neighbors. Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara and Wozniak (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714 (Available online here.1, 2)

Excerpted from that court decision:

Neighbors commented on the Project at planning commission hearings and by declaration and letter. Many complained about the noise they experienced during the unpermitted weddings in 2006. One Marty Road resident described hearing “pounding music, shouted announcements, celebratory screams, hoots, cheers, and clapping” during those events. Another neighbor stated that noise from the 2006 events was “quite audible in our closed house, with the hollers of the crowd soaring above and the throbbing bass notes reaching below any noise (such as the TV) we tried to employ to cover it.” Other neighbors declared that during the 2006 events, “lower frequencies from the amplified music, public address system and crowd penetrated the walls and windows of our home with such intensity that we could feel the resulting vibrations while sitting in our family room . . . or lying in bed.”

In that case, the noise consultant hired by the County of Santa Clara opined that live bands and DJs typically play at 85-88 dBA Leq (average) at 20 feet from the stage and speakers. He recommended additional noise analyses of mock or real events typical of a wedding, including measuring noise levels during such events at potentially affected residences. By comparison, this current Altes Project is proposed with unenforceable noise mitigations to purportedly limit such amplified noise to 75 dB at 50 feet, but there is no expectation that such a reduced noise level will be met.

Using the Formula 1 described below, if this Mt. Shasta wedding event Altes Project's music is played at that noise level of 88 dBA Leq at 20 feet, then at the nearest home, that music would reduce in 3 volume to about an average of 72 dBA Leq at 120 feet. With ambient noise levels as low as

1 http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/H039707.PDF 2 https://www.ceqadevelopments.com/2015/05/12/sixth-district-applies-ceqas-fair-argument-standard-holds-that-despite- projects-compliance-with-local-noise-ordinance-eir-rather-than-mitigated-negative-declarati/ 3 In this case, at a location 120' (d2) from the Project's Event Area at the nearest home, where dB1 = 88 dBA Lmax at 20' (d1) from the noise source, dB2 = dB1– 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) = 88 – 10 x 2.0 x log10(120'/20') = 72 dBA Leq. That distance of

July 9, 2019 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit RIS/MND - Page 2

EXHIBIT D 48 dBA Leq during hours this Project would operate and as measured, such an average noise level increase of 24 dB would be significantly more than the 5 dBA threshold of significance for increases in ambient noise levels. (72 – 48 = 24 dB increase; or 70 – 48 = 22 dB increase)

FIGURE A – LOCATION OF NEIGHBORING HOMES

Home’s # 1 – 5 and Apartments # 6 – 8 could be significantly impacted by Project noise levels At two homes about 450 feet away, that music level would be about 61 dBA Leq (on average) or more, which is more than 13 dB louder than the 48 dBA Leq measured noise levels, and would be therefore also significant.4 Even at a distance of 800 feet from this Event Area, the sound of amplified music could be 56 dBA Leq or more and therefore more than 5 dBA greater than the sometimes measured noise levels of 48 dBA Leq. Within 800 feet of this Event Area are five homes and three (triplex) apartment dwellings that could be significantly impacted. (See Figure A above)

120 feet is from the first IS/MND. If in fact the IS/MND was in error, and the house is 150 feet away as now reported in the Revised IS/MND, the calculated noise level there would drop to about 70 dBA Leq., resulting in a 22 dB increase.

4 Homes #2 and #3 on the map below are about 450 feet from the Project's Event Area.

July 9, 2019 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit RIS/MND - Page 3

EXHIBIT D CROWD NOISE IMPACTS WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LOUDER THAN AMBIENT LEVELS AT NEIGHBORING HOMES

There are other kinds of wedding event noise that can seriously disturb neighbors. Just the sound of excited or drunken human voices in a large crowd the size this Project proposes can create significant noise impacts in the neighborhood. For example again, taking from the actual court decision about noise studies referred in that Keep Our Mountains Quiet legal case, some data is relevant here for the Altes Project:

"[The county's acoustical engineer] opined that the sound of the crowd cheering could be as loud as 52 dBA at a residence located 3,500 feet away on Marty Road. .... Assuming a crowd cheers loudly eight times during an event, for five seconds each time, the hourly average noise level at the Marty Road residence would be 32 dBA"

The noise level of such a wedding crowd can be calculated at closer distances as is relevant in this Altes Project. The distance from the noise source to a receptor is a primary consideration in determining the actual noise level experienced at the receptor. Most reference noise levels are specified at a distance of 50 feet from the source. The calculation of noise from a point source, such as construction equipment, at other distances uses the following “Equation 1” for noise attenuation over distance:

Where: L1 = known sound level at d1 L2 = desired sound level at d2 d1 = distance of known sound level from the noise source d2 = distance of the sensitive receptor from the noise source

This equation is the mathematical expression for a noise level being reduced by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. 5

A crowd cheering that loud (referenced in the court decision above) but at the Altes Project's Event Area could generate a maximum noise level of about 81 dBA Lmax at a distance of 120 feet where the nearest home is located. If in fact a 5 dB reduction would occur due to topographic elevations as the IS/MND predicts, that noise level would be about 76 dBA Lmax. With the second assumption used in that court case, the average noise level at a home 120 feet away would be about 56 dBA Leq (61 dBA Leq- 5 db = 56 dBA Leq)

5 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) Website (8/24/17) Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm; see also California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) (Sep. 2013) Technical Noise Supplement, pp. 2:27-28 (stating for point sources, “sound level attenuates or drops off at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of the distance[;]”. Also see CalTrans Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, Oct. 1998; p. 25, Equation N-2141.1, or http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf

July 9, 2019 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit RIS/MND - Page 4

EXHIBIT D Calculation: In this case, at a location 120' (d2) from the Project's Event Area, where dB1 = 52 dBA Lmax at 3,500' (d1) from the noise source, dB2 = dB1– 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) = 52 – 10 x 2.0 x log10(120'/3500') = 81 dBA Lmax.

If 150 feet away as now claimed, then the noise level would be 79.3 dB Lmax.

The average ambient noise level during some hours of the day at some of the nearby homes in the evenings is also likely less than 50 dBA Leq, if not 48 dBA Leq as measured. A wedding event crowd noise level that averages 56 dBA Leq at the nearest home would exceed the ambient noise level there by more than 6 to 8 dB. Any average noise level increase during wedding events greater than 5 dB is considered to be a significant noise impact. Or when maximum noise incidences occur of 76 dBA Lmax at neighboring homes, that too would be very disturbing to most neighbors because it could be more than 26 dBA louder than ambient conditions at some permitted operational hours. In fact, such noise levels could be much greater because, as discussed below, amplified music levels at such events are often much louder than what was predicted in the Keep Our Mountains Quiet court decision.

Even inside their homes with their windows open,6 neighbors could be exposed to such peak noise levels during crowd shouting that could exceed 70 dBA Lmax, far above the typical interior level of homes that range from about 25 - 45 dBA Leq. A temporary noise level increase like that which might exceed interior noise levels by 26 dB or more is a significant noise impact. (71 dB - 45 dB = 26 dB increase; or 71 dB - 25 dB = 46 dB increase).

INADEQUATE NOISE MITIGATION FOR AMPLIFIED MUSIC

The IS/MND proposes a noise mitigation MM-12.2 to limit the loudness of event loudspeakers to 75 dB Leq at a distance of 50 feet:

Mitigation Measure MM-1: Ensure that amplified event music and speech not exceed noise levels of 75 dB Leq and 80 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the front of the sound system speakers.

This mitigation measure MM-1 is woefully inadequate. This noise level limitation is unrealistically low for wedding events and will undoubtedly be frequently exceeded. A noise level of about 80 dB Leq at a distance of 50 feet was estimated for typical weddings as reported in a significant CEQA court decision.7 That is at least 5 dB louder than what the IS/MND proposes. That estimated noise level was not even a maximum level, and sometimes music is played much louder. Music noise levels during

6 Residential rooms with open windows typically attenuate exterior noise levels by about 10 as most of the acoustic energy of exterior noise is blocked by the more solid wall and roof surfaces. See Siskiyou County's General Plan Noise Element. 81 dB - 10 dB = 71 dB. Or 79.3 db – 10 dB = 69.3 dB. 7 See: Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara and Wozniak (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714. The noise consultant hired by the County of Santa Clara opined that live bands and DJs typically play at 85-88 dBA Leq (average) at 20 feet from the stage and speakers, and recommended additional noise analyses of mock or real events typical of a wedding, including measuring noise levels during such events at potentially affected residences. That noise level, when adjusted to a distance of 50 feet, is calculated to be between 77 – 80 dBA Leq (average) at 50 feet from the loud speakers.

July 9, 2019 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit RIS/MND - Page 5

EXHIBIT D wedding events with dancing can be over 100 dBA Leq at a 50 foot distance, as documented below in this comment letter.

There will be no means for neighbors to verify this proposed MM-12.2 noise limitation is being enforced by the Project’s employees. The County Planning Department with offices in Yreka is too far away for its planning staff to arrive and monitor the noise level if complaints are filed. The County does not have trained personnel with a noise meter even if they could appear. Wedding events sometimes occur on weekends when County officials are not working. CEQA requires mitigations to be enforceable, but as proposed, this noise mitigation is not enforceable.

Under CEQA, mitigation measures (“MM”) are to include enforceable performance criteria capable of reducing, minimizing, rectifying, compensating, or avoiding the impact altogether8—which ensures the integrity of the public decision-making process by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug.9 To this end, CEQA requires: (1) mitigation measures to be fully enforceable, actually implemented, and not mere expressions of hope;10 (2) lead agencies cannot rely on compliance with existing laws of uncertain efficacy;11 and (3) agencies can defer crafting of mitigation measures to post project-approval only when guided by performance standards and armed with meaningful information reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance.12

Nor does this noise mitigation measure MM 12.2 specify mandatory actions to be taken by the Applicant when noise levels are excessive (e.g., cease construction). Hence, implementation is merely aspirational and subject to Applicant’s voluntary actions. Nor does the County propose taking a “‘belt and suspenders’ approach” by requiring the Applicant to perform noise testing upon the start of and during operations to ensure compliance with this mitigation.13

The above-mentioned issues are symptomatic of a poorly-crafted noise mitigation that will prove difficult if not impossible to enforce.14

8 See City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 407; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15370. 9 Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935; see also Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 280–281. 10 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126.4(a)(2), 15097; see also Lincoln Place Tenants Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508; Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261. 11 See Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 433 (“none of these measures had any probability of implementation, their inclusion in the EIR was illusory.”); Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food and Agriculture (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 (“[c]ompliance with the law is not enough to support a finding of no significant impact under the CEQA.”). 12 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92-93; Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 884. 13 Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 824. 14 Come On Feel The Noise: The Problem With Municipal Noise Regulation (2006) 15 U. Miami Bus. L. Rev. 47, PDF pp. 28-29 (“Actual enforcement of the ordinance can also prove difficult … some have been apt to call noise ordinances a sorry collection of restrictions or state that noise laws have ‘been almost entirely unworkable.’” Emph. added); Int'l J. Police Strat. & Mgmt. (2000) Policing Entertainment Districts, PDF pp. 12, 22 (“Few cities have enforceable noise ordinances (Table IV(26)). Decibel limits are too low, ambient noise levels are too high, and it is difficult to attribute noise to sources. Enforcement requires specialized equipment, training and, sometimes, citizen complaints … To simplify noise regulation, the city of Irvine required the Irvine Amphitheater to install a permanent noise-monitoring station. When the noise level reaches a certain limit, the Amphitheater must turn down the volume.” Emph. added); The Great Mash-Up Debate: A Holistic Approach To Controlling Noise Pollution In Florida's Downtown Districts (2016) 14 Ave Maria L. Rev. 222, PDF pp. 14-18 (“Due to the intricate nature of the investigation report, the enforcement of local ordinances may not

July 9, 2019 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit RIS/MND - Page 6

EXHIBIT D As such, MM-12.2 is inadequate and there is no substantial evidence to support the IS/MND’s conclusion that noise impacts at neighboring residences from amplified music and voices during Project operations will be less-than-significant.

Such noise levels from music at times will be very loud—utilizing sound amplification systems catering to younger audience demanding louder and louder performance, as noted below (emphasis added):

“As sound amplification systems have become more advanced, orchestras and DJ’s have been raising the volume at bar mitzvahs, engagement parties, weddings and other venues, knowing that high volume creates high energy and greater excitement … It’s a central part of the wedding or bar mitzvah, and people who want to dance want to hear the music loud. The young crowd wants to hear and feel the music … It is generally the younger guests who – due to their higher energy levels and greater tolerance for noise – seem to enjoy high volume music … it is therefore in its best commercial interest to meet their preferences rather than those of the grandmas and grandpas with low noise tolerance. In other words, high volume is an effective marketing strategy, as it appeals to the band’s potential customers … Another important factor is our society’s general affinity for noisy, raucous environments. It is not just semahot [happy occasions] that are getting noisier – so are ball games, parades and concerts. This trend is reflected in modern sound systems. The former DJ we spoke to noted that in the past, speakers would max out at 110-125 decibels, whereas today regular systems reach 132 – a level at which even brief exposure can damage the ear. From this standpoint, the bands playing at our semahot are simply a function of a society that craves noise.”15

The IS/MND should have estimated how loud events at this Project’s Outdoor Event Area can be during wedding parties after meals during typical dancing performances. One California city has evaluated such noise levels before. An EIR’s Noise Technical Report prepared in 2017 for the Fig + Pico Conference Center Hotels Project at 1211 W. Pico Boulevard stated that amplified music in a 16 dance setting can reach 104 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. As that project Draft EIR stated:

be an effective remedy. When a resident makes a noise complaint, an enforcement officer will arrive at the scene and begin the report. In order to verify the complaint, the enforcement officer must corroborate the noise. By the time the form is complete and the officer has been able to measure the noise to determine if there has been a violation, the business (restaurant, bar, or nightclub) might have had the opportunity to turn down or shut off the music. Thus, the process itself renders the ordinance ineffective … Prior to the issuance of the notice of violation, a code inspector or law enforcement officer will generally first issue an oral or written warning to immediately cease the violation. In some cities, such as Miami Beach, an inspector may issue one oral courtesy per day … A code enforcement officer may hesitate in enforcing a noise complaint without building a strong case that will likely result in favor of the prosecution.” Emph. added). 15 See David Mizrahi (undated) Are Loud Parties Destroying Our Hearing, PDF pp. 1-2, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52aa1a4ee4b09af7f3c6e720/t/53b57bb6e4b018629e9b0361/1404402614892/David+ Mizrahi%2C+Are+Loud+Parties+Destroying+our+Hearing.pdf. 16 See Fig + Pico Conference Center Hotels Project (Sep. 2017) Draft EIR Appendix I-Noise and Vibration Technical Report, PDF p. 50, https://planning.lacity.org/eir/FigPico/files/Apx%20I_Noise%20Tech%20Report.pdf.

July 9, 2019 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit RIS/MND - Page 7

EXHIBIT D “For music and entertainment purposes, amplified speakers in a dance club setting can expose persons within the dance club to noise levels ranging from 84 dBA to 104 dBA17 depending on many factors including the volume setting of the equipment, the orientation of the speakers, physical separation distance from the speakers to receptors, and whether screens, pillars or other barriers shield or partially shield the speaker noise.”18

That 2017 EIR was based on a study that measured noise levels on the dance floor between 94 – 104 19 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Other noise reports support similar predicted noise levels. One study reported that “a geometric mean of published A-weighted sound-pressure levels at rock concerts is 103.4 dB.”20 Another study measured that: “Some of the bands studied produced A-weighted equivalent sound- pressure levels above and around 105 dB.”21

It is unrealistic to believe that here in Mt. Shasta patrons at this Iron Horse event center would accept noise levels limited to only 75 dB Leq at a 50 foot distance after experiencing sound levels up to 40 dB louder at other venues.

NON-AMPLIFIED MUSIC AND VOICES AFTER 10:00 P.M. MAY PRODUCE SIGNIFICANT NOISE IMPACTS

Another proposed noise mitigation is also inadequate because it does not prevent loud non-amplified music and other noise after 10 p.m. For example, no mitigation or condition of project approval is being proposed to require all wedding events to cease after 10:00 p.m. The mitigation measure MM 12.2 only halts amplified noise:

“Ensure that all amplified event music and speech be restricted to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).”

That mitigation does not prohibit live bands with non-amplified musical instruments from playing music after 10 p.m. Guitars, drums, trumpets or other musical instruments could be played loudly at night without neighbors having any recourse or protective enforcement.

Nor does this mitigation MM-12.2 prohibit a crowd size of up to 600 people from making non- amplified noise by way of celebratory shouting, singing, hooting, cheering, or clapping late into the

17 See Sound Advice (2008) Control of Noise at Work in Music and Entertainment, p. 76-77 (reporting noise levels for pubs, clubs, amplified music played in nightclubs, bars, and restaurants. The report further clarifies that its reported noise levels were measured at a distance of 15 meters from the speakers, which is 49.2 feet and roughly the same distance of 50 feet used in U.S. sound level predictions), http://www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/hsg260.pdf. 18 See Fig + Pico Conference Center Hotels Project (Sep. 2017) Draft EIR, PDF p. 34, https://planning.lacity.org/eir/FigPico/files/4.8%20Noise.pdf. 19 See Sound Advice, supra fn 23, p. 77 (Explaining that the lower 84 dBA noise level is experienced at the entry door to the dance club, while the dance floor is between 94-104 dBA at the dance floor. Accordingly, a range from 94 to 104 dBA Leq is relevant to this Iron Horse event area’s noise levels). 20 See Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (1991) Noise Exposure from Leisure Activities: A Review,’ Vol. 90, pp. 175–181 (A copy of this article will be made available upon request). 21 See Noise Control Engineering Journal (May - June 1996) Recreational Exposure to Noise and its Effects, Vol. 44, p. 127 (A copy of this article will be made available upon request).

July 9, 2019 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit RIS/MND - Page 8

EXHIBIT D night. The IS/MND never considers or analyzes the noise impact from such noise produced after 10 p.m., nor the potential sleep-disturbing impacts resulting from such nighttime noise.

THE IS/MND FAILS TO DISCLOSE ALL APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS

The IS/MND states that the County’s noise standard (for a threshold of significance) is 60 dBA Ldn for neighboring residential land uses. It also references another Siskiyou County General Plan noise standard where it states that interior noise levels, with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources, shall not exceed a 45 dB Ldn in any habitable room. It then references FICON reports and sets a threshold of significance where noise levels due to the Project would increase ambient noise levels by more than 5, 3, or 1.5 dB, depending upon how loud those ambient noise levels currently are.

But the IS/MND does not mention the General Plan standard of 55 dBA Ldn for exterior noise levels at residences. The Siskiyou County General Plan Noise Element, Appendix, page 12, Table A-6, sets a 22 residential exterior noise level standard of 55 dBA Ldn to protect public health and welfare. This standard applies to this Project's neighboring homes because they are within the County and "outdoors in residential areas and farms and other outdoor areas where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in which quiet is a basis for use." (As shown on page 10 of this Report, this Project's construction noise may generate noise levels of 77.1 dBA Ldn at the nearest home and thus exceed this County standard by over 22 dBA.) This Project would create significant construction noise impacts under this standard or even the weaker 60 dBA Ldn noise standard.

By using a 60 dBA Ldn standard instead of the County’s stricter 55 dBA Ldn standard, the IS/MND underestimates the significance of the Project’s noise impacts.

IS/MND FAILS TO EVALUATE TOTAL COMBINED NOISE IMPACT FROM MULTIPLE NOISE SOURCES

The IS/MND never analyzes the combined noise levels from multiple separate noise sources. Instead, it separately evaluates noise from off-site traffic, on-site vehicular movement, crowd noise, amplified voices and music, and mechanical noise from RVs, but it never totals the noise levels from those separate noise sources. CEQA however requires the IS/MND to evaluate the total noise impact from a project’s operation. In this case, when all noise levels are combined, their total will further exceed acceptable standards and will create a significant noise impact at nearby residences.

For example, the IS/MND p. 24 estimates crowd noise will be as loud as 53 dBA Leq at neighboring homes. It then claims that this 53 dB is not more than 5 dB greater than the 48 dBA Leq ambient noise levels measured by the noise consultant. But of course, crowd noise will not occur in a vacuum when other noise does not also occur. There will be times when crowd noise, off-site and on-site vehicle noise, and music noise will simultaneously occur and be audible at neighboring homes. The combined noise levels of all Project noise sources will exceed that 5 dB increase above ambient noise levels. Thus, that would exceed the threshold of significance, and a significant noise impact will occur.

22 See Siskiyou County General Plan Noise Element, Technical Appendix, page 12, Table A-6. https://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/sites/default/files/pln_gp_noiseelement.pdf

July 9, 2019 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit RIS/MND - Page 9

EXHIBIT D Also for example, the IS/MND p. 23 estimates amplified music noise will be as loud as 52 dBA Leq at some neighboring homes (the triplex apartments called “Receiver 1”. It then claims that this 52 dB is not more than 5 dB greater than the 48 dBA Leq ambient noise levels measured by the noise consultant during some daytime operational hours. On its face, that claim seems to be true because 52 – 48 = 4 dB which is not greater than a 5 dB increase above ambient levels then. But when 52 dB of amplified music is added to 53 dB of crowd noise, the combined noise level, calculated logarithmically, would be about 55.5 dB.23 That combined noise level would create a significant noise impact because 55.5 dB – 48 dB = 7.5 dB noise level increase compared to ambient noise levels during those hours. When increased traffic and on-site circulationnoise is added, and when likely louder unmitigated amplified music noise levels are recalculated, the combined noise level increase due to Project operation would be much greater than the identified 5 dB threshold of significance.

IS/MND UNDERESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS INCREASES ABOVE AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS WHICH WILL BE SIGNIFICANT.

A project which generates so much noise that it increases the ambient noise level by more than 5 dB would have a significant noise impact. This is the case here as the data in the IS/MND proves. The preparers of the IS/MND however made a serious error in interpreting their own data. As the result, the IS/MND fails to acknowledge that construction noise at the nearest homes will cause a significant noise impact.

The IS/MND p. 26 estimates that Project construction noise will reach up to 80 dB Lmax at the nearest home. It then states that this level would “exceed the highest measured ambient maximum noise level by 4 dB.” But that is not the appropriate test, comparing construction noise levels to the maximum ambient noise level during the loudest hour of the workday. The Project’s increase must instead be compared to the quietest hour of the workday when construction noise increases would cause the most distress to neighbors. Because the FICON test of significance that the IS/MND relies upon uses the Leq (hourly averaged) noise level metric, then the comparison must be made to each hour – especially the quieter hours of the workday.

Measurements in the IS/MND reveal maximum ambient noise levels near the closest home of 54 dBA 24 Leq-1 hr. for the hour starting at 9:00 a.m. Then construction noise would cause such ambient noise levels to increase by as much as 26 dB. (80 – 54 = 26) An increase of 26 dB above existing ambient noise levels at homes nearby is a significant noise impact, being much greater than the 5 dB threshold of significance for increases in ambient noise levels.

The noise study25 for the IS/MND calculates the existing, ambient noise level at measurement Location 2 (near the closest home) is 61 dBA Ldn. If during construction, this Project generates noise levels at that home of 80 dBA Leq for each hour from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. as the IS/MND admits may 26 occur, then the day-night weighted noise level there would rise to about 77.1 dBA Ldn. No mitigation proposed would insure that lower noise levels would be guaranteed there. That represents an

23 This addition result can be verified using this online decibel addition calculator: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-spl.htm 24 See IS/MND, PDF p. 119, Noise Study, Appendix D-2, measurement location Site 2, for 54 dB Lmax at 9:00 a.m. 25 See Appendix D-2, “computed Ldn, dB” of 61. 26 Calculation: For each of 12 hours from 7 am to 7 pm, assume 80 dBA Leq for construction noise. For the remaining 12 hours of the day, use the measured noise levels from Appendix D-2 for each of those hours.

July 9, 2019 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit RIS/MND - Page 10

EXHIBIT D increase of over 16 dBA above the ambient noise level. (77.1 – 61.0 = 16.1 dB increase.) That increase is much more than the 5 dB threshold of significance, so construction noise would cause a significant noise impact there.

IS/MND STATES THAT NOISE LEVELS WITHIN NEIGHBORING HOMES WITH OPEN WINDOWS WILL BE 5 dB LOWER THAN OUR GENERAL PLAN ASSUMES.

The IS/MND underestimates this Project’s noise impact within interior rooms of nearby homes. It assumes that with open windows, the exterior noise levels at these homes will be reduced by 15 dB. The County’s General Plan Noise Element however predicts only a 10 dB reduction. Therefore, the IS/MND calculates too low a noise level in these rooms by 5 dB.

CONCLUSION

As discussed above, the Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration’s noise discussion fails to provide basic information required for the County or public to adequately assess the true noise impacts of this Project. As a result, likely construction and operational noise impacts were overlooked. This Report presents fair arguments that the Project as mitigated will still create significant noise impacts. That evidence above demonstrates the current Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate for this Project’s CEQA review. Moreover, feasible mitigation measures are available and need to be considered pursuant to a CEQA-compliant MND or EIR—just like similar projects reviewed by the City.

If further opportunities become available to review this Project or its environmental impacts, please notify me at that time. I request all future notices about this Project pertaining to its CEQA approval, any determinations by County officials, or any public hearings or other Count public meetings about this Project, and I refer you to California laws that require the County to send or mail notice to anyone filing a written request for such them, pursuant to the CEQA §§ 21083.9, 21092.2, 21080.4, 21167(f), 21108, as well as Gov. Code § 65092. Please provide notice by regular mail and electronic mail to: Dale La Forest & Associates, 101 E. Alma Street, Suite 100-A, Mt. Shasta, CA 96067 and [email protected].

Sincerely,

Dale La Forest Professional Planner, Designer, INCE Associate (Institute of Noise Control Engineering) Dale La Forest & Associates

July 9, 2019 DL&A Report on Noise Impacts: Altes Project Conditional Use Permit RIS/MND - Page 11

EXHIBIT D