HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-11-08 BOS LetterBOARD OF SUPERVISORSAD¡/INISTRATION CENTER25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7631BILL CONNELLYFirst DistrictJANE DOLANSecond Distr¡clMAUREEN KIRKïhkd DistrictCURT iOSIASSEN, Cha¡rFourth DistrictKII\4 K. YAMAGUCHIFifth DistrictRe:March 11,2008Denise ReichenbergSector SuperintendentCalifornia Departrnent of Parks and RecreationNorthem Buttes DistriclValley Sector525 EsplanadeChico, California 95926California Department of Parks and Recreation, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park, Habitat Restôrafion and Outdoor Recreation FacilitiesDevelopment Project, Butte Counfy, California (SCH No. 2007082160)Dear Ms. Reichenberg:The Butte County Board ofSupervisors is writing to you to state its strong objectionto the proposed Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park project and to notifu the State that sufTicient notice was not received by theButte County Board of Supervisors, the representative for all environmental and project notices for theCounty. In fact, no notice was received by the Board of Supervisors; the project and the Draft EIR werebrought to the Board's and staffs' attention inadvertently through the noticing by staff from the SacramentoRiver Conservation Area Forum. The failure to consult with and provide adequate notice to the County forcomments is a violation of Public Resources Code Sections 21104,21153 and CEQA Guideline Section1s086.Butte County finds the proposed project to be completely indppropriate for the proposed location andincompatible with sunounding agricultural properties. The County is extremely concemed with severalaspects ofthe proposed project and contends that the process, procedures, and erroneous factual data used fora baseline with respect to the Draft EIR submitted by the California3tate Parks Department does not meet therequirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The County's concerns include, but arenot limited to, a complete disregard for local land use policies, development in a flood plain, inundation ofsewage disposal systems in flood events, compatibility with agricultural operations, additional requests forassistancehesponse from Sheriffand Fire personnel and control oflong term camping. The County providesthe following comments and concerns with respect to the Draft EIR for the above referenced project, despitethe limitd time staff had for review:Page I of 13Arrgcu/v1€NT I
DEPARTMENT oF DEVELoPMENT SERVICES CoMMENTS:The analysis of the regulatory setting in numerous sections of the Draft EIR fails to mention or considerapplicable goals, policies and programs ofthe adopted Butte County General Plan. Specifically, the Draft EIRfails to consider the following:A. Noise - Discussion on noise, one ofthe effects found not to be significant and eliminated fromfurther analysis in thgDraft EIR, includes reference to a Butte County General Plan Standard butfails to disclose or aiìa'lyze the effect against adopted policies. Butte County Noise Element Policy5 states "[c]ontrol recreation activities that have the potential to cause objectionable noise." TheSheriff s Department has commented (see below) that similar recreational facilities have resultedin noise complaints and demand for law enforcement services.B. Safety - The following fìndings, policies and implementations from the Safety Element of theButte County General Plan must be considered in assessing and mitigating potential impacts,including:. 2. I Policy - Encourage adequate fire protection services in all areas ofpopulation growth andhigh recreation use.. 2.1 Implementation - Identift present and future limits of adequate fire protection services.Guide development to those a¡eas through zoning and development review processes.. Finding 4 * Fire protection facilities are marginal in some areas of the County.C. Agricultural Resources - Section 4.i, Agriculture, of the Draft EIR, in its analysis of theregulatory setting acknowledges just one policy of the many goals, policies, and programscontained in the Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan. An understanding ofButte County's regulatory setting, as expressed through the General Plan and Butte County Code,are key to determining the significance of the impacts ofthe proposed project on conversion ofagricultural lands. The Butte County Agricultural Commissioner has submitted comments on theimpacts ofthe proposed project on agriculture and the loss ofprime agricultural lands (see below).The Commissioner's comments, together with an understanding of the regulatory setting, make itclear that the proposed project will result in the significant and unavoidable impact ofconversionof prime agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses.Relevant goals, policies and programs from the Agricultural Element of the Butte County GeneralPlan include the following:. Proglam 2.3 - "Where development approval, other than residential, is proposed on lot(s)adjacent to an agricultural operation or Orchard and Field Crops land use category, theZnningOrdinance shall require a natural or man-made buffer between the development andagricultural land use. The buffer shall be totally on the lot(s) where development is proposed.A buffer could be a topographic feature, a substantial tree stand, a water course or similarlydefined feature. Agricultural uses may be permitted in the buffer area. This program does notapply to additions and remodeling to legally existing development." Butte County hascodified the requirement for agricultural buffer setbacks (Butte County Code $24-286) andgenerally requires a structu¡al setback distance of300 feet tom all property lines. The setbackmust be provided on the project property, not on adjacent properties.. Program 2.8 - "New residences and/or conversion ofagricultural land to non-agricultural landshall only occur when full mitigation of impacts to the extent under law are providedPage2 of 134r-.^o-*rn€Nï I
including, but not limited to, roads, drainage, schools, fire protection, law enforcement,recrcation, se\¡r'age, and lighting."Program 2.9 -"Continue to support the Chico Greenline policies." These policies provide "[i]tshall be the policy of Butte County to conserve and protect for Agricultural Use the lands ofthe Chico Area that are situated on the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline." (ButteCounty General Plan Land Use Element LUE-83).Goal 3 - "Support the management of agricultural lands in an efficient, economical manner,with minimal conflict from non-agricultural uses."o Policy 3.1 - "Apply the Coùnty's Right to Farm Ordinance to all non-agricultural landuse approvals, including building permits, within or adjacent to designated agriculturalareas." The Ordinance declares it is the policy of the County "to conserve, protect,enhance, and- encourage agricultural operations on agricultural land within theunincorporated area ofthe County" and limits the ability to consider agricultural usesas nuisances.D. ConversionofAgriculturalLandsaDraft EIR 4.2.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS (page 4.2-4)4.2-a Change of Land Usefrom Agricultural Lønd to Restored Native Ripøriøn Høbitat arulDeveloped Recreationøl Facilities. The proposed project would restore agricultural acreageto natil)e riparian habitat and develop outdoor recreationfacilities, ffictively removing theland from agricultural production. However, the proposed project would neither beìrreversible nor cause serious degradation or elimination ofthe physical or natural conditionsthat provide the site's values þr farming. The proposed project would not stop or hinder theagricultural practíces thal occur on neighboring properties. This impact îs considered lessthan signiJicant.Comment:The above analysis suggests that the permanent infrastructure ofseveral miles ofpaved roads,paved walkways, drainage facilities, water and sewage facilities, bathrooms, offices,maintenance buildings, paved parking lots, an amphitheatre, etc. as described in detail inAppendix D Recreational Facilities, including RV Campground, Vehicle Campground, Walk-in Tent Campground, State Park Headquarters are somehowj¡qpçqqqç4qFollowing this rationale, if a developer were to pave over 70 acres of Prime Farmland, thiswould not constitute a loss of farmland because the paving "could" be torn up. The State issuggesting that the extensive facilities proposed on this site will be torn up. Ifthat is the case,the project description must include a full reclamation plan, including funding mechanism toachieve the goal-of eventually retuming this land to its current Prime Agricultural state.Laôking such a plan, the County contends that the land would be irreversibly lost to as a primeagricultural land resource.Page 4,2-6 of the Draft EIR states:" Similarly, the term "urban and built up land" is also used in the California DOC's FMMP.The proposed habitat restordtion and outdoor recreationfacilíries do notfit this definitíon ofaaPage 3 of 13Arra¿gyneor I
aulban and builÞup land. Therefore, the planned uses do not qualify as " conversion" todevelopmenl. "Comment:This statement makes an erroneous leap in logic, reasoning that if the physical changesresulting from this project that ineversibly remove laads from agricultural production are notstrictly "urban" in nature, no conversion has taken place. This same logic would lead the Stateto conciude that it would be possible to engage in normal farming operations on the land thusconverted by this project to RV Campground, Vehicle Campground, Walk-in TentCampground, and State Park Headquarlers. The Draft EIR inconectly concludes that thedevelopment of extensive infrastructure to allow the proposed project would not have anadverse physical impact in conversion of agricultural lands as the project does not compriseurban and built-up land."Draft EIR Page 4.2-4As the EIR accvaÍely cites from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agencyshould determine that a proj ect would cause potentially significant environmental impacts. Ascited from the "Agriculture Resources" section of the Appendix G, a lead agency shoulddetermine that significant environmental impacts to agricultural resources will result from aproject when the project would:Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Important Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FarmlandMapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use;Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; orInvolve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location ornature, couid result in conversion of Important Farmland, to non-agricultural use.Comment:This project would convert at least 163 acres designated Prime Farmland from high producingagriculture to a non-agricultural, recreational use.The proposed non-agricultural, recreational use is in conflict with existing Butte CountyAgricultural 4O-acre minimum zoning designation. Under that local jurisdiction zoningdesignation, the proposed non-agricultural, recreational uses are not allowed.This project would result in irreversible changes to the environment on this site that wouldathact numerous sensitive human receptor tourists a¡d recreational users to the general area,which is exclusively used for intensive agricultural production. Norn¡al and customaryagricultural practices employ chemical products that are highly toxic to human sensitivereceptors. The imposition of these sensitive human receptors into a zone of intensiveagricultural production will result in regulatory restrictions on the normal and customaryagricultural practices that can be used in commercial agricultural production. This is likely toresult in agricultural operations in the la¡ds adjacent to the project becoming economicallyunviable for agricultural production. It is reasonable to conclude that this will likely result inthe cessation of agricultural operations. It is reasonable to conclude that, once farming23Page 4 of l3ArrRcuøtn€,Jr I
operations are no longer economically viable, pressures on land to convert to urban andindustrial/commercial uses increases, resulting in the eventual loss of Prime Farmland.Page 4,2-7 of the Draft EIR states:"Indírect Conversion of Agriculturøl Land- As described above, the proposed habitatrestoration and recreational facilÌties are non-urban uses that would be proteclive of andcompatible v)ith adjacent agricultural land. Additionally, the project would not include theextension of ulility lines or new utility connections, which would potentially open newdevelopment pressures.However, during the scoping process for this project, neighboring private agriculturalIandowners expressed concerns regarding indirect efficts of the project on their land. Theproject has considered and incorporated measures to avoíd indirect impdcts to neíghboringagricultural lands as follows. "Comment:This section ofthe EIR inaccurately characterizes the proposed development as "non-urban" innature and impacts. The physical changes resulting from this project are similar in nature andresulting impacts to "urban" uses. This project would impose the urbanJike structuresnecessary for an RV Campgrgund, Vehicle Campground, Walk-in Tent Campground, andState Park Headquarters on an area which currently has none of these impacts. The Elþ_hasinaccurately concluded that this extensive development ofurbanJike infrastructure to allowthis new use would not have significant and ineversible impacts on the site and surroundingagricultural uses.As discussed above, this project would result in irreversible changes to the environment on thissite that would attract numerous sensitive human receptor tourists and recreational users to thegeneral are4 which is exclusively used for intensive agricultural production. Normal andcustomary agricultural practices employ chemical products that are highly toxic to humansensitive receptors. The imposition ofthese sensitive human recepto¡s into a zone ofintensiveagricultural production will result in regulatory restrictions on the normal and customaryagricultural practices that can be used in commercial agricultural production. This is likely toresult in agricultural operations in the lands adjacent to the project becoming economicallyunviable for agricultural production. It is reasonable to conclude that this will likely result inthe cessation of agricultural operations. It is reasonable to conclude that, once farmingoperations are no longer economically viable, pressures on land to convert to urban andindustrial/commercial uses increases, resulting in the eventual loss of Prime Farmland.The EIR inaccurately states that: "The project has considered and incorporated measures toavoid indirect impacts to neighboring agricultural lands as follows." No mitigation measuresofany kind are provided the Section 4.2 ofthe EIR. The EIR does not identifu any mitigationmeasures to address the loss of prime agricultural land and to mitigate impacts to surroundingagricultural land, which the County has detailed above.E. Impact to Lands under Williamson Act ContractaPage 5 of 13Annerr-e^r I
aDraft EIR Page 4.2-10:Land Use Compatibility with Agriculture ancl llilliamson Act Contracts. The proposedhqbitat restordtion and outdoor recreational uses at the project site would be compatible withsurroundíng agriculture land weg based on existingfederal and slate laws and programs þrfarmlønd protection. As described in Impact 4.2-a, the Federal FPPA indicates that non-agricultural uses are urban uses, which detract from agricultural land values in the ratingsystem, while "non-urban uses," which create or protect agricultural land values, includenon-paved parks and recredtional areas. Based on the characteristics ofthe proposedhabitatrestoralion and outdoor recreation facilities, the project would qualify as non-urban uses,which the FPPA considers to be protective of and compatible with agricultural values. TheWillìamson Act also contains numerous provisions that recognize the compatibility betweenagricultural and recreatiott/open space uses. The definitions included in the statute are thefirst indication of such compatíbility. It deJìnes an " agricultural preserve" as an area devotedto agricultural we, recreatíonal use, open space use, or any combinatíon thereof (CaliforniaGovernment Code Sectíon 51201(d)). Also, " reøeational use" is defined as the use ofthe landin its agricultural or natural state by the public, with or wíthout charge, for a range oflisteduses, including, but not limited to walking, hiking, picnicking, camping, swimming, boating,fishing, and other outdoor sports (Caldornia Government Code Section 5 I 201(n)). Finally,"compatíble use" is deJìned as any use determined to be compatible with the agricultural,recreational, or open spdce use of the land within the preserve (California Government CodeSection 51201(e)). The habitat restoration and reøe¿rtionql facilities proposed are consideredcompatible 14)ith agrícultule and therefore should have no significant adverse efects onneighboringfarmland production. Furthermore, per the goals and guidelines under Park PIanOverall Goql AO-4, State Parks has incorporated designfeatures (e.g., grassland bufers) intothe habitat restoralion and recreationfacility plqns to minimize land use incompatibilities andhas/will coordinate with public andprivate landowners in the project vicinity to minimize landuse conflicts. Park Plan guidelines also address fire protection and law enþrcement at thePark (see Chapter 3, "Description of the Proposed Project") to minimize incompatibilítieswith active agricultural operations on adjacent properties.The definitìons described above are reinforced ín Section 5 2105 of the Williamson Ac| whichstates that land devoted to recreotional use...may be included withín an agricultural preserve(Calífornia Government Code Secrion 51205). In outlining the purpose ofthe IYilliamson Act,the statute states that the discouragement of premature and unnecessary conversion ofagricultural land to urban uses ís a matter of public interest (Caldorniq Government CodeSection 5l 220(c)); there is no reference to other'non-urban uses, such as low-intensity ruraloutdoor recreation, such as those that result from the proposed project. The clearest eyidencefor compatibility between agriculture and the habitat restoration and recreatíonal facilitiesproposed at the projecf sirc are found iethe principles of compatibility presented in Section51238.1 of the statute. It stdtes that uses approved on contracted lands, such as thoseproposed for the projecf sirc, will not significantly compromise the long-term agriculturalcapability of the subject contracted parcel in agricultural preserves (Caliþrnia GovernmentCode Section 51238.1(a)(l). The proposed project, and goals and guidelines of the ParkPlan, strive to maintain physical conditions of the land that create resource values, includingfuture agricultural and open space capabílities. Therefore, the habitat restoration andrecreational facilítíes proposed are considered compatible with surrounding agriculture landPage 6 of 134tto"*^tut I
use this impact is considered less than signiJìcLnt.Comment:The EIR has inaccurately assessed the nature ofthe proposed development as being "non-urban" in nature. As previously discussed, this project clearly does not "create or protectagricultural land values". To the contrary, this project results in the complete elimination ofagriculture on the site and negative impacts on the ability ofsurrounding agricultural producersto engage in farming. As previously discussed, it is reasonable to conclude that, once farmingoperations are no longer economically viable, pressures on land to convert to urban andindustrial/commercial uses increases, resulting in the eventual loss of Prime Farmland.The EIR inaccurately describes the Williamson Act, its regulatory structure, itsimplementation, and the impacts that this project will have on land subject to Williamson Actcontract. The Williamson Act program is a locally administered progam, subject to Stateregulations. The Williamson Act contract on the subject land is between the County of Butteand the current landowner. The operative regulations regarding Williamson Act contracts inButte County is the January 23,2007 Resolution 07-021 ofthe Board of Supervisors of theCounty ofButte, Exhibit A (copy here attached). The proposed project has not complied withthe regulatory setting detailed in those rules and procedures that provide for Butte County'sdiscretionary consideration of the conversion of Williamson Act-contract land to an altemateuse. Neither the State of Califomia nor the landowner has consulted with the Butte CountyWilliamson Act Advisory Committee regarding this projeci. nor does the project or Draft EIRreference or address the local regulations of Butte County which govem the implementation ofthe Williamson Act in Butte County. Butte County's local regulations (Butte Co,untyResolution 07- 021 , Exhibit) are fully consistent with State Williamson Act enabling statutes.While Section Califomia Govemment Code Section 52105 ofthe Williamson Act does allowthe local jurisdiction to determine ifa recreational use may be included within an agriculturalpreserve, no such action has been requested by the landowner.PuBLrc WoRKs CoMMENTS:In conformance with Federal Emergency Management Agency criteria, Butte County has adopted specificrequirements for development within a designated flood plain (Arlicle IV of Chapter 26 of the Butte CountyCode). These Code requirements were enacted to protect the public health and safety as well as any newstructures. The requirements include flood proofing or elevating the lowest floor ofstructures above the baseflood elevation (BFE) and protection of water and sewage disposal systems.A. The Draft EIR (Appendix D) indicates that structures will be elevated approximately 1 foot abovegrade to provide for improved flood protection, while the Hydrologic aaalysis (Appendix B)indicates the flood depth between 2' and 10' . There is no indication that the proposed structures(showers; bathrooms; Headquarters; entry plaza; and RV electrical, water and sewer hookups) andtheir contents will be protected from flooding.B. There is insufficient information to determine if the sewerage disposal systems will beappropriately placed outside the 10-year flood plain or properly engineered to prevent infiltrationoffloodwaters into the systems or prevent contamination ofthe floodwaters from the systems. Asample concern being the design of a shower system that will not allow infiltration orcontamination when it is under 1 ' to 9' of floodwaters.Page 7 of 13Ar-ra¿t{n^€^.,T I
c.D.E.The Flood Neutral Hydraulic Analysis contained in Appendix B, makes the followingassumptions: The project is located on the Sacramento River between River Mile (RM) 193.5(near Big Chico Creek) and RM 195 (near West Sacramento Avenue; Hydraulic Analysis Section3.4 indicates the simulated flows used are 170,000 cfs for the Sacramento River and 15,000 cfsfrom Stony Creek (enters the Sacramento River near RM 190 downstream ofthe project); the tworiver gages in this a¡ea are Hamilton City near RM 199.5 and Ord Ferry near RM 184. Theseassumptions do not appear to accurately model the project.. The analysis notes that the project will remove berms from the west side of the Sycamore MudCreek facility but fails to address the over 20,000 cfs in flows coming in beiow the HamiltonCity gage and impacting the project from Pine Creek, Rock Creek, Sycamore Mud Creek,Lindo Channel and Big Chico Creek.. The analysis assumes flood waters will flow through the project and does not address thebackwater effects when the Sacramento River is high and the flows from Pine C¡eek, RockCreek, Sycamore Mud Creek, Lindo Channel and Big Chico Creek need to develop head inorder to flow into the River. The flood plain shown in their analysis does not confotm to theFEMA flood plain or actual flooding in the area since it magically stops at the east (left) bankofSycamore Mud Creek instead offlooding a large area north of Big Chico Creek and east ofSycamore Mud Creek. This area is subject to frequent flooding.' The analysis indicates an almost constant water depth in the before and after conditions, butfails to note that most of the campground area, including all the roads, is being elevated aminimum of 1' to protect from flooding. Since they do not show water surface elevations intheir reporl, either the water depth is consistent and the water surface is I ' higher or the watersurface is consistent and they are showing 1' too much depth.The project plan contained in Appendix D indicates both sites will have trails for bicycle andpedestrian use but these sites are separated by two privately owned properlies currently inagricultural uses. There is no trail con¡ecting the sites forcing the public out onto a very narro\ /River Road, which has no paved shoulders or bike lanes. At a minimum the Project shouldconstruct a path or trail separate from the County maintained River Road to provide for publicsafety.The County road that provides access to the proposed project area, River Road, is a very narrow,winding County roadway that may not be able to accommodate the large recreational vehicles thatwould be attracted to the proposed project.AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:The Project proposes to convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use. Existing farming practices onthe site will cease, orchards will be removed, substantial non-agricultural infrastructure will be put in place,and the site will bedeveloped to facilitate the permanent occupation of the land by the general public forrecreational use. Specific concerns are as fiollows:A. There are commercial agricultural operations, under pesticide permit, on three boundaries oftheproject site. Impacts and mitigation measures concerning these operations are not adequatelyaddressed in the Draft EIR.B. In Section 4.2 - Agricultural Resources (4.2.1 and 4.2.2),Ihe Draft EIR relies on a number ofprocedural and regulatory technicalities found in Fede¡al and State farmland protection policies toPage 8 of 13A.-n <-H(n€.þT I
justiff conversion and development of this prime agricultural land. There are no clearly statedconclusions, but there are many equivocations and implied, vaguely conclusive, statements. Adetailed examination ofthe language in this section is necessary and could not be done in the shorttimeframe given the Agricultural Commissioner's Office for review.The Draft EIR acknowledges the site to be prime agricultural la¡d but defaults to a variety ofquestionable land use definitions and terminology in an attempt to persuade reviewers that theproject is not actually converting productive prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use.Overall, the Draft EIR demonstrates a lack of acknowledgement regarding the impacts that theproposed change in land use will impose on the sunounding agricultural properties and thepossible health and safety risks the users ofthe proposed facility will be exposed to. The projectproposes to convert 163 acres of prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use. The land inquestion is squarely positioned in the County General Plan and designated and zoned ascommercial agriculture. The Draft EIR fails to propose any mitigation measures in theAgricultural Resources Section. In short, the impacts to agricultural resources are understated andnot adequately addressed.The conclusions in the Impact Analysis (Section 4.2.4) appear to be flawed. The conclusions areheavily biased to the benefit ofthe proposed project and a detailed examination ofthese statementsis necessary.The proposed project ignores Butte County's Right to Farm Ordinance (Butte County Code $3 5-2(b)) as described above.According to Zaurel Heights Improvement Assn. V. Regents of University of California (1988),"AnEIRisintended to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes caused by anenvironment altering project; additionally it is also intended to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenrythat the agency has in fact analyzed the implications ofits actions.. .." Based upon the above observations,the Agricultural Commissioner finds the Draft EIR to be grossly inadequate and finds that it fails to meetthe fundamental legislative intent embodied by CEQA.PUBLIC HEALTH CoMMENTS:A. Sewage: Sewage disposal for the outdoor recreation facility is proposed to be provided by vaultprivies and a new septic system with leach field. Both the vault privies and septic system arelocated within a flood zone.The flood frequency anticipated in the recreation area is once every 2 To 4;lears, with a depth ofwater during flood events anticipated being between2 and 8 feet, and with a flow velocity of I to1.5 feelsecond. Therefore, it is anticipated that the vault privies and septic system will betlueatened with inundation by floodwater at regular intervals of rdhghly every 2 to 4 years.Sewage should be disposed of in a manner that prevents its discharge from entering waters oftheState of Califomia. The proposal lacks detail regarding the design of the RV hookups, the RVdump station, and the proposed septic system. In addition, the proposal includes no analysis oftheadequacy of the existing farm septic system that is proposed to be used by the office. These designdetails are especially imporlant due to the environmental sensitivity of the project site.C.D.E.F.Page 9 of 13Arrnc6nnepr ¡
Vault privies have significant potential to threaten public health and water quality during floodevents. Locating vault privies and discharging wastewater systems in areas prone to regularflooding is not appropriate. Although design considerations such as bulkheading and elevating thefacilities so as to remain above the floodplain can partially mitigate concerns about groundwaterinundation, the height and velocity offloodwater projected for this project make such mitigationsimpractical.Likewise, best management practices dictate that discharging wastewater systems should not belocated within areas prone to flooding. Although Butte County Code $26-26 requires all sewagedisposal systems within a lO-year flood plain to be designed by an engineer, even engineeredsystems can be damaged by floodwaters and result in discharge of untreated or under-treatedwastewater directly to surface and groundwaters.B.Potable Water: The proposal states the intent to utilize two existing agricultural wells as thepotable water source for the recreation area. The State Division of Drinking Water, EnvironmentalManagement, wili regulate the water source for this project, which will serve the public. Theconstruction standards for potable water wells to serve the public are such that it is likely that theexisting agricultural wells will not be satisfactory for this purpose.c.Hazardous Materials: The proposed project includes storage ofhazardous materials at the newPark headquarlers on the Nicolaus property in a location subject to routine flooding. This mayresult in release of hazardous materials to surface water in a flood event, an impact which mayexceed the threshold of significance discussed in Appendix G of State CEQA Guidelines.The project will require submittal of a Haza¡dous Materials Release Response Pla¡ to ButteCounty Environmental Health if it involves storage or handling of hazardous materials inquantities:(1) Equal to, or greater than, a total weight of 500 pounds or a total volume of 55 gallons.(2) Equal to, or greater than, 200 cubic feet at standard temperature and pressure, if thesubstance is compressed gas.SHERIFF'S CoMMENTS:The Sheriff has concems regarding the Draft EIR and the proposed project. On page 3-23, "LawEnforcement," the Draft EIR indicates "Law enforcement services are provided concurrently by State Parksand local law enforcement agencies, namely the Butte County Sheriff s Offrce for the portion of the BSRSP inButte County. Park security is the primary responsibility of the Park Ranger serving the Park." The Sheriffhas extreme concems for public safety at the proposed project due to the growing budget challenges at theState-level and the fact that the State has been unable to provide adequate law enforcement resources at otherState projects that lie within Butte County.A. Based upon the County's experience with other recreational areas, such as the Department ofWater Resources' Lake Oroville Project and PG&E's DeSabla-Centerville Project, it is predictedthat this project will result in increased law enforcement calls for service due to the number ofvisitors that will be using the campground, day use areas, nature trails, and river access points.Based upon historic call types at other similar projects, the calls will most likely include thefts andvandalisms, assaults, river rescues, traffic related issues, and drug and alcohol offenses. Given thePage i0 of 13AtrRc',+rtng^rt I
current level ofstaffing in the Sheriff s Department, response to these additional calls will reducethe Depaftment's ability to handle its cunent call volume.Additionally, the Sherifls Department has concems that the proposed recreational and campinguse will conflict with the nearby agricultural use, resulting in increased law enforcement calls forservice to handle trespassing, vandalism, and loud noise complaints. Based upon the Countyexperience with other recreational areas, such as the Oroville Wildlife Area, there is potential forlocal gang members to frequent the area and use the area for meetings and parties.Other criminal justice related impacts on the County are not discussed or addressed. The drain onCounty resources does not end once a call is responded to and an arrest made. The arrestees arethen held in the County jail (at County cost), prosecuted by the County District Attomey (atCounty cost), defended by the County Public Defender (at County cost), and sentencing reportsand foìlow-up for the State Court are provided by the County Probation Department (at Countycost). These additional criminaljustice costs are also incurred by the County ifa ìaw enforcementagency other than the County Sheriff makes an anest, including State law enforcement.FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:A. The Draft EIR, onpage 3-23, states that the closest fire station is Station 43. The County closedStation 43 in2000; the site is now occupied by Chico Station 6. The closest fire station and thefirst due engine, through an automatic aid agreement between Butte County and the City ofChico,would be Chico Station 6 located at 2544 State Route 32. For multiple engine responses, CountyStations 41 (13871 Hwy 99, Chico)), 42 (10 Frontier Circle, Chico), and 44 (2334 Fair Street,Chico) would respond respectively. Response times from the various stations are as follows:Chico Station 6 (approximately 6 minutes 15 seconds), County Station 41 (approximately 9minutes 11 seconds), County Station 42 (approximately i2 minutes 6 seconds), and CountyStation 44 (approximately l4minutes4l seconds). Butte County is statutorily responsible for fire,life and safety incidents at the site due to its location in the Local Responsibility Area. Historicdata for the past three (3) years indicates there have been approximately 45 calls over the three-year period in the Scotty's Boat Landing and Hwy 32lRiver Road area. The County anticipatesthat number to rise if the project is approved as proposed.B. The Draft EIR, on page 3-23, discusses implementation of Park Plan Goals and Guidelines.Missing in the discussion is mention of vegetation management that will lessen the danger andimpact of fires if they occur. The plan states that it will retum the project area to a historicallynatural state, including annual grasses, oaks and some brush species that are all more fire pronethan the orchards cun'ently in the project area.C. The roads within the park appear to be wide enough for emergency equipment, though the FireDepartment is concemed about the turning radius and the single point for ingress and egress. TheDepartment suggests that an exif road be added as part of the proposed project.D. The increased vehicle traffic and foot traffic within the park area will increase the demands forEMS, rescue, Haz-mat, and fire suppression. Due to the travel time for local fire and rescueresources to respond, State Park employees should be trained on how to use an AutomatedElectronic Defibrillator (AED) and have one on site.E. Due to the location and the close proximity of the Sacramento River an emergency road access tothe river should be considered for water rescues.B.c.Page 11 of 13Ar-rAcH/rTÉñr I
OtgnR Con.ln¿r¡lrs:In addition to County staffs' concems, the County has received communications from the general public thatshould be add¡essed. Two of the communications are attached and, in summary, include:A. Concems that the State has stated that it can only review the environmental impacts caused bylþproject to its property a¡d that the State will not take into consideration the impact upon thecounty, neighboring properlies, residences and farming operations. The Counly is very concernedÌ,f such statements have been made since they would be in violation of the CaliforníaEnv ir o nme ntal Sual ity Acl.B, Concems that the hydrology reports are not accurate. Once agaìn, the County has concerns that ifThe facts are incotect the analysis is flawed.C, Restoration of areas back to riparian habitat may cause roadway erosion that does not currentlyexist.D. There will be an increase in traffic on a roadway that is already less than two lanes with noshoulder and is commonly used by cyclists thereby increasing the probability of vehicle vs.pedestrian accidents that the Butte County Sheriffs Office and Fire Department will have tocontend with. In order to mitigate this impact, the Project would have to widen the roadway andadd striping with dedicated pedestrian crossings and speed control signage.E. There is no safe river access anyr;vhere near the proposed campground.F. The proposed campground and walking trails are situated with two privately owned parcels inbetween them. There may be an increase in trespass calls to the Sheriffs Deparlment.G. The State has confirmed that the proposed park area floods on an annual basis. It does not seemconcemed with the impact of storm water contamination or what will happen to all of theirstructures and waste when the flood waters calries them downstream onto private propefty orCounty roads. The cleanup costs will be left for the property owners and the County.H. Concems regarding the impact on existing agricultural uses that mirror the concerns stated earlierby the Agricultural Commissioner.I. The State ofCalifornia is proposing a development that defies the principal ofthe Greenline and isin conflict with the Butte County General Plan.J. The State is proposing a project that would not be allowed ifproposed by a private landowner; aproposal for a revenue-generating campground. Ifa private individual wanted to put an RV parkon a parcel zoned AG 40 on the west side ofthe Greenline, they would not be able to.K. The fact that this project is even being considered, given the current proposal to shut down anexisting facility only l5 minutes away (Woodson Bridge State Park) and the totally inappropriatelocation of this new facility is puzzling. Why would the State invest the resources and funds tobuild a new facility, when it is proposing closing others throughout the State?In conclusion, based upon the specific goal of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) "forCalifornia's public agencies to identify the significant environmental effects of their actions and either a)avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible or b) mitigate those significant environmentaleffects, where feasible," the County finds the Draft EIR to be completely inadequate because it containsinaccurate information and ignores major environmental impacts. The Califomia State Parks' website statesPage 12 of I 3ArrAeHmÊ^rT I
"the Califomia Environmental Quality Act is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identi$ thesignificant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible." TheCalifomia State Parks' fails to meet the requirements of CEQA in its Draft Environmental Impact Report onthe proposed project. Please provide any response to this letter and all future notices to: Butte CountyBoard of Supervisors, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965.Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Brian Haddix, Chief Administrative Offrcer, will becontacting you to further discuss the County's concems, due to the fact that the County did not receive noticeof the public hearing held in February 2008 on this issue. If you would like to contact Mr. Haddix directly, hecan be reached at (530) 538-7224.Sincerely,Curt JosiassenChair, Butte County Board of Superwisorscc:Brian Haddix, Butte County Chief Administrative OfficerBruce Alpert, County CounselTim Snellings, Butte County Department of Development ServicesHenri Brachais, Cal Fire/Butte County Fire DepaftmentPhyllis Murdock, Butte County Public Health DepaftmentMike Crump, Butte County Public Works DepartmentRichard Price, Agricultural CommissionerPerry Reniff Butte County SheriffGovemor Arnold SchwarzeneggerMike Ch¡isman, Secretary, State Resources AgencyRuth Colema¡, Director, Califomia State ParksStephanie K. Meeks, Executive Director, The Nature ConservancyCynthia Bryant, Director, The Governor's Office of Planning and ResearchEnclosed:. E-mail from Justin and Jamee Mendonca to Supervisor Dolan and Mr. Crump (2129108)' Letter from Clint Maderos to Supervisor Dolan (2124/08)I Letter from the Butte County Farm Bureau (9125/07). Butte County Resolution 07-021 , Williamson Act Exhibit APage 13 of 1 3ArtncHrrne¡.rf I