CALAVERAS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date
September 13, 2012
Project Number/Name
Project # 2006-110, Sawmill Lake Project
Supervisorial District Number
District 4, Supervisor Tom Tryon
Assessor's Parcel Number(s)
061-003-001, 054-007-003, 054-007-006, 054-007-0
054-007 -019, 054-006-030, -031, -032, and -037.
Planner
Rebecca Willis , Planning Director
Date: August 24, 2012
Project Description: The Sawmill Lake Project is a proposed 243-acre, mixed-use and
residential master planned community. It is adjacent to Copperopolis Town Square, a
commercial, mixed-use development. The Sawmill Lake Project application requests the
following entitlements:
•
•
•
•
General Plan Amendment
Specific Plan (including Zoning Regulations)
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
Development Agreement
Applicant and Landowner: Castle & Cooke Calaveras, Inc.
100 Town Square Road
Copperopolis, CA 95228
Project location: The project area is a 243-acre site located south of the intersection of State
Route (SR) 4 and Little John Road in the unincorporated community of Copperopolis. The site is
located within portions of Sections 3 and 4, Township 1 North, Range 12 East, MDB&M on the
Copperopolis 7.5 minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle. Elevations on
the site range from 774 feet to 928 feet above sea level.
The existing land uses on the project site include undeveloped natural habitat and ranch lands,
and existing residences , outbuildings and corrals on the parcel northeast of the Sawmill Lake
reservoir. Portions of the Sawmill Lake Project site have been designated as mitigation lands for
the adjacent Copperopolis Town Square (formerly Copper Mill) . The project area consists
primarily of gently sloping hills, grasslands with varying densities of native oak woodland,
Sawmill Creek and Sawmill Lake. Sawmill Creek merges with Black Creek downstream of the
092720 10
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24,2012 - Page 2
project lands and eventually discharges into Lake Tulloch . Surrounding land uses include: Little
John Road, SR 4, and the Copperopolis Town Square to the north; scattered rural residences to
the east; undeveloped land within the entitled Oak Canyon Ranch Project to the south and west;
and predominantly vacant lands zoned rural residential to the east.
Sawmill Lake Project Location Map
PROJECT COMPONENTS
The applicant is requesting the following entitlements for the Sawmill Lake Project:
General Plan Amendment
The proposed General Plan Amendment designates 243 acres from the existing General Plan
Natural Resource Lands/Agriculture Preserve, Community Development Lands/Future Single
Planning Commission Siaft Report
Sawmill Lake Projeel
August 24, 2012 - Page 3
Family Residential, Community Development Lands/Residential Centers and Community
Development Lands/Community Centers land use designations to the Master Project Area
designation. This allows for a broad range of uses as detailed in the Sawmill Lake Specific
Plan. With approval of the requested amendment, the whole of the project site would be redesignated to Master Project Area.
Sawmill Lake Project Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Legend
t=l
COlIlllHHlll), l)i: v ~ !o p ul enl Lalltls.!
Communlt! Centel&(CDl,CCI
(
J
Cl
COlllnlllnlly O~,..~ l opmt:n t landsl
Fu turo SlnO!Q F;\lni:y 1 ~J'~ id C /l I ,.\1 (COt ·Hi FIl)
Community Uavtlopmenl Lands l
fles'denh·,t Ceutc,s (Cilt IIC)
IJdlUlal H e~o Ulw Lands}
/oIJr ICullUfJI f',(se,\,e I. '~fll·,\ r,
-
ROJtI ~
.".. P, o;ecl U o ull d u ~'
L....._C_DL_.F
_S_FR_ '-- j·-_· ]
-"-'l.. _.. _..
NRL·AP
CDL·RC
CDL,CC
Planning Commission Sialf Report
Sawmill Lake Projecl
August 24, 2012 - Page 4
Specific Plan
The proposed Specific Plan organizes the Sawmill Lake project into seven villages : Townview
Village, Bridgeview Village, Meadows Village, Lakeside Village, Knolls Village, Creekside
Village and Woodland Village. These villages are predominately residential in nature, with a
range of housing unit types. The Specific Plan area would consist of a maximum of 800 dwelling
units within 140 gross acres of residential areas (including 3 gross acres of an active recreation
facility), 13 gross acres of mixed-use village center, 7 gross acres of a community park, and 83
gross acres of open space.
Sawmill Lake Project Proposed Specific Plan Land Uses
Legend
c=J
l O'110ell ~il 'l Residential
Medium Densily l~ es i d e n l iJl
o
MUfIlum lI'OIl I),lIsll), Hosldcrlll<l
Vill, ge Celll.r
CJ
COnl frl lulily P"rK
_
Open Space
D
Wett3nt.ls
Proieci Ro?<is
Projec.t BoundiirY
Land Usc Summary
1111 U~ e
l'rn;w l
II.I·j'lll1
( I IN·I
Utf :i .'/
lCfY..f
1\01 t.) (J(;(Cd
OCi.\i.lwl hhJ Ulk l
, (J,Y ();1I'if)'
~!: (("
lol l (Will
\~ I~I ..n 1\ lrlIi'
1v.!,t:f $\ .II (/.(OIl )
1.'1~ I .n,IlI:ll
O,.\i",
1/
.c ~
P.:,:u,:e \:lI (/A ftIIRI
0. >':11
S ~;": f ( OS)
I h;I(, ~:~ lJ.rrn~ '.j-;!
Tott i
II?: Ii> S:' ~'t
,.)
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24, 2012 - Page 5
Proposed Sawmill Lake Specific Plan Zoning Regulations
The Sawmill Lake Specific Plan Zoning Regulations implement the Specific Plan Land Use
Classifications for the property. The proposed zoning for the properties within the Specific Plan
area are adopted by map within the Specific Plan, and would be more specifically defined upon
subdivision. Upon approval of the Specific Plan, the Calaveras County Zoning Map would be
amended to identify the project area as the Sawmill Lake Specific Plan and the zoning as set
forth in the Specific Plan would apply. The Sawmill Lake Specific Plan establishes the following
zoning districts: Mixed-Use (MU-1), Recreation (REC), and Open Space (0).
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
The project applicant has submitted a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the project area
resulting in the creation of 417 lots, the roadway system, the open space system (including
trails, Tuolumne button celery conservation areas, and an artificial water feature), the wetland
conservation areas, and the grading plan.
Development Agreement
A Development Agreement would be considered concurrently with the other entitlements. The
purpose of the Agreement is to legally vest the applicant's ability to implement the project. The
anticipated components of the Development Agreement include: securing implementation of
mitigation measures as identified in the CEQA document; assuring timely delivery of identified
public improvements; securing the obligation to pay RIM Fees and/or Copper Basin traffic fees
and fair share public safety impact fee; and enacting directives for encouraging local hires for
construction work. The text of the Sawmill Lake Specific Plan Development Agreement is set
forth in Appendix E of the Draft EIR, Sawmill Lake Specific Plan Development Agreement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 25, 2012, Jones & Beardsley, representing Castle & Cooke, submitted a letter to the
Board of Supervisors constituting a formal demand that the County process the Sawmill Lake
development application in a diligent and professional manner, and that the County complete
and certify a Final EIR for the Sawmill Lake project by August 17, 2012 (Attachment 1).
On July 16, 2012, Shute, Mihaley & Weinberger submitted a letter on behalf of the Central
Sierra Environmental Resource Center (CSERC) regarding the processing of Castle & Cooke
Projects and the County's General Plan (Attachment 2).
On July 23, 2012, Jones and Beardsley submitted a follow up letter addressing the comments
submitted by Shute, Mihaley & Weinberger (Attachment 3).
Staff has scheduled this public hearing for the Sawmill Lake Project before the Planning
Commission in response to the aforementioned formal demand. It should be noted that the
CEQA process is not yet complete on this project. Staff has not released a Final EIR. In order
to complete the Final EIR, all comments received on the Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR must
be responded to as required by CEQA. If the comments provide or generate "significant new
information", the County is required to recirculate the EIR. In accordance with CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15088.5, "significant new information" includes:
1. A new significant environmental impact.
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact.
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed that would lessen the impacts of a project.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24, 2012 - Page 6
4. The Draft EIR is so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Based on a review of the comments received, there are a number of areas where significant
new information has been provided that meet the above criteria. Various sections of the Draft
EIR will need further study and recirculation before staff will be able to release a Final EIR.
However, before the County proceeds with completion of the Final EIR, there are significant
policy issues that warrant consideration from the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors. Staff is concerned with some of the features and implications of the project from a
policy perspective (General Plan). This report provides an analysis of areas that are
problematic and a recommendation for the Planning Commission's consideration.
BACKGROUND I PROJECT TIMELINE
July 2006
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
August 2007
December 2007
January 2008
April 2008
April 2008
April 2008
April 18, 2008
July 2008
August 2008
August 142008
June 2009
September 2009
January 2010
April 2010
April 23, 2010
November 30,2010
Application for General Plan Amendment was received in July 2006.
Additional information requested by County and subsequently received.
Correspondence between Castle & Cooke and County confirming a
mutual agreement to prepare an "Applicant-submitted" Draft EIR for the
Sawmill Lake Project.
Application for General Plan Amendment deemed complete after receipt
of all requested information.
Draft Biological Resources Assessment submitted.
Calaveras County's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting.
Preliminary Wetland Delineation submitted.
Preliminary Oak Woodland Inventory and Assessment submitted.
An Application for Zoning Amendment and Development Agreement
submitted.
A Draft Specific Plan was submitted.
Revised BioloQical Baseline studies were submitted.
A Notice of Preparation for an EIR for the Sawmill Lake Specific Plan
was issued (April 18, 2008).
An Application for Tentative Subdivision Tract Map was submitted.
A "Zoning Proposal Packet" was submitted.
Board of Supervisors Public Information Meeting regarding the Sawmill
Lake Notice of Preparation Addendum for the Draft EIR.
An "applicant-submitted" Administrative Draft EIR was submitted to the
Planning Department in electronic format.
A Revised "applicant-submitted" Administrative Draft EIR was submitted
to the Planning Department in electronic format.
Planning Staff and County Counsel provided detailed review and
comment of the September 2009 Revised Administrative Draft EIR to
Castle & Cooke.
A second Revised "applicant-submitted" Administrative Draft EIR was
submitted in electronic format.
A Notice of Completion for the April 2010 Draft EIR for the Sawmill
Lake Specific Plan was issued (April 23, 2010). The Draft EIR
document was circulated and made available for public review. Public
and Agency comments were received.
A Revised Draft EIR incorporating public comment was submitted.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24, 2012 - Page 7
Further comment was provided by the Planning Department.
An "Administrative Draft Final EIR" responding to public comments was
prepared by the applicant and submitted in electronic format. Staff
determined that the Draft EIR needed to be recirculated and an
Administrative Draft Final EIR was untimely,
January 25, 2011
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service correspondence received, requesting that
Calaveras County prepare a Regional Habitat Conservation Plan or
comprehensive Regional Conservation Strategy for the Copperopolis
Community Plan area prior to entitling any additional development.
March 2011
Revised Traffic Study prepared by new consultant.
March 9, 2011
A Revised Draft EIR incorporating public comment and Staff comment
was submitted.
March 14, 2011
A Notice of Completion for the Revised Draft EIR for the Sawmill
Lake Specific Plan was issued (March 14, 2011). Additional public
comments were received.
April 2011
A Road Modification Request was submitted to Public Works
April 2011
Updated Traffic Study and Traffic Count Files forward to Caltrans by
applicant's consultant.
May 6,2011
A Letter Response to Public Works Comments on the December 2010
"Administrative Final EIR" was submitted to Public Works and Planning
Staff.
June 13, 2011
A Revised Road Modification Request was submitted, based on
comments received from Public Works.
August 2011
An "Administrative Draft Final EIR" was submitted in response to
additional Staff comments. Issues remain outstandinQ.
February 28, 2012
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors adopted a Minute Order
authorizing the formation of the Copperopolis Community Plan Advisory
Committee (CCPAC). The CCPAC shall provide guidance and
recommendations regarding the preparation of a comprehensive
Community Plan and development strategy for the Copperopolis area.
April 2012 through CCPAC topics to date:
July 2012
CCP Area Boundary (Sawmill Lake is in the CCP Area)
Significant habitat areas (include Sawmill Creek, Black Creek,
Sawmill Lake)
• Special status plant and animal species (Chinese Camp Brodiaea)
• Wildlife corridors (Sawmill Creek, Black Creek)
• Traffic and adequacy of regional circulation (Inadequate LOS)
June 25,2012
Correspondence from Jones & Beardsley, P.C., (Counsel to Castle &
Cooke) to Calaveras County, addressing Castle & Cooke projects in
Calaveras County, includinQ the Sawmill Lake Project.
July 16, 2012
Correspondence received from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
July 23,2101
Follow-up Correspondence from Jones & Beardsley, P.C.
July 31,2012
Correspondence from Calaveras County to Jones & Beardsley, P.C .
. providinQ preliminary response.
December 3,2010
•
•
The Sawmill Lake Project is colorfully illustrated and described in great detail in the following
documents:
•
•
•
Sawmill Lake Draft EIR of April 2010
Sawmill Lake Specific Plan - Appendix D of the Draft EIR of April 2010
Sawmill Lake Development Agreement - Appendix E of the Draft EIR of April 2010
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24, 2012 - Page 8
•
Sawmill Lake Recirculated Draft EIR Sections of March 2011
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Executive Summary
Chapter 3 Project Description
Chapter 15 Transportation and Traffic
Chapter 17 Alternative Analysis
Chapter 18 Cumulative Impacts
Chapter 19 Preparers
Chapter 20 References
Sawmill Lake Specific Plan of March 2011
The Draft EIR of April 2010 and the Recirculated Draft EIR Sections of March 2011 are included
(under separate cover) as Attachment 5 and Attachment 6 to this Staff Report to the Planning
Commission and are available for public review at the Planning Department, 891 Mountain
Ranch Road , San Andreas, CA 95249 and on the Planning Department Web Page at:
http://www.co.calaveras.ca .us/cc/Departments/PlanningDepartment.aspx
Please refer to those documents for detailed maps, figures and information regarding the
various project components .
ANALYSIS
The primary concerns with the Sawmill Lake Project are as follows :
1. General Plan Implications: The majority of the Sawmill Lake Project area is currently
designated Natural Resource Lands/Ag Preserve in the current County General Plan.
The applicant is requesting to change more than 150 acres of Natural Resource
Lands/Ag Preserve to Community Development Lands/Future Single Family Residential.
This would result in additional residential and commercial development not previously
considered by the General Plan. It would designate an area for urban development that
is currently designated for natural resources.
In order to approve a General Plan Amendment, the County is required to make certain
Findings. There are numerous factors discussed in this Staff Report that make it
problematic to make such Findings. A paramount concern is that the project appears to
conflict with all three Goals and Policies in the Open Space Element:
Goal V-1: Preserve and enhance the County's significant wildlife and botanical habitats
Policy V-1A: Review proposed development for potential impacts to significant
wildlife and botanical impacts.
Goal V-2: Protect streams, rivers, and lakes from excessive sedimentation due to
development and grading.
Policy V-2A: Review proposed development projects for potential effects on
nearby adjacent streams, rivers and lakes.
Goal V-3: Protect and preserve riparian habitat along streams and rivers in the County.
Policy V-3A: Review proposed development projects for potential impacts to
riparian areas.
Planning Commi ssion Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24, 2012 - Page 9
The Sawmill Lake Project does not preserve and enhance significant oak woodlands
wildlife and botanical habitats in the County. It proposes to remove them and to mitigate
offsite. The Project impacts Sawmill Creek and riparian habitat in significant ways,
discussed more fully in this report.
2. Loss of Oak Woodlands: Within the Sawmill Lake project area, a total of 173 acres is
oak woodlands, with 14,503 oak trees. Construction of the proposed Sawmill Lake
project would require the clearing and removal of over 8,000 oak trees in 104 acres of
oak woodlands, including 4 Heritage Oak Trees and 3 Grand Oak Trees (Impact BI0-6).
The Planning Department received comment letters on this impact that may constitute
significant new information under CEQA that should be addressed and may require
recirculation of the EIR. See Attachment 4.
Legellil
\
1
(
,
J
c:J
I OO lhi!1w,) ., (l I.'01 t.,- 166 A~(e;)
_
MnllJ I<l1J.... !>11M (,I- 61 MIC'»)
/(
npJ I(ln «
I (Icle)
Opel! W/.ler (i f· 9 /..cICS )
o
It.v'ulIlne lM IOIl (;c l e l ~'
r,O,.!"
/
Rwds
l 2:nd US~ Bound,lf),
r·I Ol~ (l 6oun d .lI y
3. Oak Woodlands Management and Mitigation Planning: The County does not yet
have an Oak Woodlands Management and Mitigation Plan approved by the State. An
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24,2012 - Page 10
approved Plan would identify the specific areas within the County, where high quality
Oak Woodlands should be preserved in perpetuity. An approved Plan would also allow
the County to receive the benefits of the "Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund"
established in the Fish and Game Code. At this time, the funds paid into the State
program by Calaveras County developers cannot be used to purchase conservation
easements in Calaveras County. More importanlly, the areas of high quality Oak
Woodlands to be preserved in the County have not yet been identified. The proponents
of Sawmill Lake Project propose to mitigate for the conversion of oak woodlands by
preserving woodlands on the Copper Valley Ranch site (Mitigation Measure BIO-6c).
The County has already received an application for development of the Copper Valley
Ranch site. What will happen to the Sawmill Lake mitigation lands at that time, and
where will the impacts to woodlands on the Copper Valley Ranch site be mitigated? The
relationship between this project, and any future proposed development on the Copper
Valley Ranch, site have not been adequately addressed. State and federal resource
agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game, are not in concurrence with the proposed mitigation included in the Draft
EIR. Comment letters provided by the USFWS of July 6,2010 and January 21, 2011,
the CDFG of June 10, 2010, and CSERC letters dated June 1, 2010 and April 28, 2011
provide additional comment (Attachment 4).
4, Western Pond Turtle: Implementation of the Sawmill Lake project may result in the
degradation of habitat or the loss of western pond turtles, listed by the State as a
Species of Special Concern. This is a significant impact. Western pond turtles are in
and around Sawmill Lake. Both short-term and long-term project activities affect habitat
in and around Sawmill Lake.
These activities include draining the lake, dam
construction, engineering of the reservoir to function as a detention basin, fluctuating
water levels, the construction and operation of up to three piers and a boathouse, and
adjacent recreational development which includes parking areas.
The Planning Department received comment letters on this impact that may constitute
significant new information under CEQA that should be addressed and may require
recirculation.
5, Wildlife Corridors and Riparian Habitat: Sawmill Creek and the riparian woodland
bordering the Creek provide a local wildlife movement corridor. The project is described
as avoiding adverse effects to this area by 'maintaining a setback along the 1DO-year
floodplain boundary' and by 'maintaining an area of open space extending from the
terminus of Copper Mill Drive to Sawmill Creek.' Staff's comments of January 2010 note
that the 1~O-year floodplain should not serve as the basis for the environmental analysis,
and that avoidance of the 100-year floodplain is not an adequate basis for the
determination of no impact. Adjacent to Sawmill Lake, which has a spillway, the 100year floodplain coincides with the lake shore and provides no setback at all. Adjacent to
creeks and waterways, the 1DO-year floodplain varies in width from non-existent to less
than 50 feet. It is anticipated that the U.S. Army Corps Permit as well as any required
Permits from the USFWS will impose setbacks that differ substantially from these. A
significant revision to project setbacks may necessitate a re-design of the project.
Although the setback and provision of open space would reduce the level of this effect,
passive activities on recreational trails would still occur and night lighting associated with
the project could adversely affect nocturnal and migratory wildlife. This is a significant
impact. The Planning Department received comment letters on this impact that may
constitute significant new information under CEQA that should be addressed and may
require recirculation.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
A ugust 24,201 2· Page 11
Sawmill Lake Project Riparian Resources
Legend
Wetlonds
f
1
S.op
. RCcd
8 TUrnplko
.,'.
\oVetland SWJle
•• '
Other W.ters
l-.I
Pond
Ephemeral StrNOl
_
. ,'
.
Intermittent Str~3m
Projoct Roods
c::J
Proposro Non·Development Are')
L-.J
-'1-
PIOPOsro O<!velopment tut'J
Proje< t Boundary
6. Tuolumne Button Celery: Six populations of Tuolumne button-celery occur on the
Sawmill Lake property (most are in the floodplain of Sawmill Creek, but one population is
in a seep). These populations include between 200 and 300 plants established along
Sawmill Creek, north of Sawmill Lake reservoir, as mitigation for the nearby Copper Mill
development project. Because the proposed project would 'protect' each of the six
Tuolumne button-celery populations 'within a 25-foot buffer zone,' and because the
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24,2012 - Page 12
project design will 'maintain a setback along the 1OO-year floodplain boundary of Sawmill
Lake reservoir and Sawmill Creek: and because the project will implement 'additional
measures to address shortcomings in reestablished populations: the project's potential
direct impact on this rare plant is described as less than significant. However, two
populations of this rare Tuolumne button-celery plant may be directly impacted by the
project. The northernmost population in Sawmill Creek is in a portion of the Land Use
Plan designated as Community Park/Recreation, and the population in Seep 2 is very
close to a portion of the project designated for the Courtyard Village residential area.
This would be a significant impact, because: (1) two populations are located in proposed
recreation and mixed use zones which could allow potentially damaging activities; (2)
any recreation activity including trail use in the open space zone has the potential to
trample and destroy these rare Tuolumne button celery plants; and (3) these Tuolumne
button celery populations are protected species pursuant to CEQA.
7_ Chinese Camp Brodiaea: The County received a comment letter from USFWS
regarding potential adverse effects to the Chinese Camp brodiaea downstream of
Sawmill Lake project. The Chinese Camp brodiaea is a State-listed Endangered and a
Federal-listed Threatened plant known only from two populations in Tuolumne and
Calaveras counties. In Calaveras County, the Chinese Camp brodiaea grows in the
channels of two converging intermittent streams, Sawmill Creek and Black Creek. The
USFWS has provided detailed information on the detrimental effects of increased
residential run-off and year-round creek flows on this listed plant. The USFWS
recommends that the County analyze the effects of the project on this listed species
resulting from the increased run-off water flows and other impacts to Sawmill Creek and
Black Creek downstream of the proposed project. This may constitute significant new
information under CEQA.
8, Cumulative Impacts: In addition to the project-specific impacts, the EIR must also
discuss the project's cumulative impacts. A cumulative impact consists of an impact
which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EI R
together with other projects causing related impacts. CEQA provides that for "some
projects, the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of
ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project
basis." CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(c). However, where feasible alternative
mitigation measures exist, the requirements of this section are not triggered.
The proposed Sawmill Lake Project EIR, as drafted by the developer, proposes five
mitigation measures that require the County to "adopt a Biological Resources
Preservation Ordinance" and/or "Amend the General Plan, to contain standards for
application in the Copperopolis area ... " The Cumulative Biological Resources impact
states that "while the project-level impacts to biological resources for the Sawmill Lake
Project would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation, the project's
incremental effect would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this potentially
significant cumulative effect" (Revised Draft EIR Sections of March 2011, Section 2,
Executive Summary, page 2-48).
The relevant Mitigation Measures are CUM-4a, CUM-4b, CUM-4c, and CUM-4d and
CUM-4e. These mitigation measures can be found in the Revised Draft EIR Sections of
March 2011, pages 2-48 through and including 2-49. These measures are reproduced
below:
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24 , 2012 - Page 13
Mitioation Measure/Alternative
Mitioatlon Measure CUM-4a:
Calaveras County should consider adopting a Biological
Resources Preservation Ordinance, or reviewing and
amending the General Plan, to contain standards for
application in the Copperopolis area and countywide as
detailed in Chapter 18, Required CEOA Analyses,
Mitigation Measure CUM·4a .
Level of
Sionificance
After
Mitioation
LS
SU
SU
Mitioation Measures CUM-41>:
Calaveras County should consider adopting a Biological
Resources Preservation Ordinance to protect riparian
areas, or reviewing and amending the General Plan, to
contain standards for application in the Copperopolis
area and countywide as detailed in Chapter 18, Required
CEOA Analyses Mitigation Measure CUM-41>.
Mitioation Measures CUM·4c:
Calaveras County should consider adopting a Biological
Resources Preservation Ordinance to protect special
status species, or reviewing and amending the General
Plan, to contain standards for application in the
Copperopolis area and countywide as detailed in Chapter
18, Required CEOA Analyses, Mitigation Measure CUM4c.
Mitioation Measures CUM·4d:
Calaveras County should consider adopting a Biologicat
Resources Preservation Ordinance to protect wetlands,
or reviewing and amending the General Plan, to contain
standards for application in the Copperopolis area and
countywide as detailed in Chapter 18, Required CEOA
Analyses, Mitigation Measure CUM·4d .
Mitioation Measures CUM·4e:
Calaveras County should consider adopting a Lighting
Ordinance as detailed in Chapter 18, Required CEOA
Analyses, Mitigation Measure CUM·4e .
Mitigation Measure/Alternative
OR
Implement Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 to reduce
magnitude but not necessarily Significance from project.
The actual significance of impacts under each alternative
would vary depending upon the types and intenSity of
uses conslructed .
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
LS
SU
SU
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24, 2012 - Page 14
These mitigation measures require the County, and not the project developer, to use
County resources to mitigate private development impacts. Staff is concerned that this
is an untimely burden to place upon the County and the taxpayers of Calaveras.
Although the County is in the process of a comprehensive General Plan Update which
includes the Conservation Element, it is speculative and inappropriate to imply that
County will ultimately adopt the policies. The Board of Supervisors have held several
General Plan study sessions and initial Board direction has been towards fewer
governmental regulations, minimizing the cost of the General Plan Update, and
respecting private property rights.
The Copperopolis Community Plan Advisory
Committee has held public meetings and has discussed similar issues. A Biological
Ordinance may not be preferred or even feasible at this time. The County should keep
options open to allow for less restrIctive, less expensive, and less intrusive
regulations upon private property or restrict the costs of mitigation measures to
the developer, and not the taxpayers_ USFWS has already proposed potential
feasible alternative: A Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, or a Regional Conservation
Strategy for Copperopolis, as discussed below.
9. A Regional Conservation Strategy for Copperopolis: The USFWS strongly
recommends that Calaveras County adopt a Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, or at a
minimum, a Regional Conservation Strategy for the Copperopolis Community Plan area.
A Regional Conservation Strategy is a more reasonable approach than a Biological
Ordinance, because it only applies in the Copperopolis area, a location where major
development is proposed. It would not affect Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5. It would not impose
new laws on landowners because it is a "strategy" not an ordinance. This appears to be
a more practical, reasonable, cost-effective approach. However, there are a number of
biological resources in Sawmill that are essential to include in the strategy. The Sawmill
Lake site contains high quality blue oak woodlands, open water, riparian habitat and
wetland habitat. It contains rare plant species, is home to western pond turtles, and
provides a necessary segment of a wildlife corridor. There is a hydrologic connection
between the Sawmill Lake Project and the habitat and species downstream in Black
Creek and in the Oak Canyon Ranch Project area. Portions of the Sawmill Lake site
support significant wildlife and botanical habitat that warrant special consideration in a
Conservation Strategy for Copperopolis. Approval of the project's entitlements before
review of the minimum requirements and essential components of a Regional
Conservation Strategy, would preclude any consideration of the project's resources as
part of that strategy
10. Land Use Planning and Water Supply: A Water Supply Assessment ryvSA) is
required for a residential project over 500 units. CCWD prepared a WSA for this project,
which was approved by the CCWD Board on January 30, 2008 (CCWD Resolution
2008-10). The WSA relies primarily on CCWD's Water Order 97-05. Water Order 97-05
limits CCWD to no more than 6,000 acre feet of water delivery to the Copper Cove
Service area "until further order of the State Water Resources Control Board" (SWRCB).
CCWD's Resolution of approval of the WSA indicates "the District's water supplies are
sufficient for existing and planned future uses within the Copper Cove service area
through 2027 within the meaning of and consistent with the purposes of SB610".
The WSA states CCWD has ample water rights to serve the Sawmill Lakes Project as
well as previously entitled projects.
However, the existing previously approved
entitlements for Oak Canyon Ranch, plus Tuscany at full build out would require CCWD
to deliver at least 7,200 acre-feet. The Sawmill Lake Project would add another 650
acre-feet. Clearly, this exceeds the 6,000 acre-feet threshold in Water Order 97-05.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24, 2012 - Page 15
CCWD must obtain approval by the SWRCB to exceed 6,000 acre-feet of water delivery
in the Copper Cove Service area. Any application filed by CCWD with the SWRCB
includes the right for protests to be filed against CCWD's application by other
government agencies and non-government organizations. During the SWRCB
proceedings, SWRCB may consider:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Water rights
Effects on the Delta
Adverse impacts to public trust resources
Consistency with any area of origin or watershed protection rights
CCWD's CEQA documentation to support its WS request\
Consistency with the contract between NCPA and CCWD regarding the
operation of the New Spicer Meadow Reservoir.
Water Board's conditions of approval for the next Water Rights Order
The Planning Department received comments on this impact that may constitute
significant new information under CEQA that should be addressed and may require
recirculation. From a policy perspective, it is not clear to County staff what happens to
the approved projects if CCWD is not successful in increasing its diversion to exceed
6,000 square feet to provide sufficient water. The County may end up with paper
subdivisions that do not have water. Staff feels there is a need to better coordinate land
use and water.
11. The General Plan Update: California Government Code Section 65302 requires the
Conservation Element of a General Plan to address the conservation, development, and
utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils,
rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural
resources. The conversion of over 150 acres of Natural Resource Lands to Development
Lands at this time would undoubtedly preclude options in the future Conservation
Element. The Conservation Element must consider the effect of development within the
jurisdiction described in the Land Use Element. Lands within Sawmill may be critical in
the future Conservation Element, such as an Oak Woodland Management and Mitigation
Plan or a conservation strategy for Copperopolis.
On December 13, 2011, the Board of Supervisors held a Study Session on the General
Plan Water Element. The water portion of the Conservation Element needs to be
developed in coordination with countywide water agencies and special districts. It needs
to include the discussion and evaluation of water supply and demand information. The
Conservation Element may also cover:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The reclamation of land and waters
Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters
Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the
accomplishment of the conservation plan
Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores
Protection of watersheds
The location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand and gravel resources.
The Board and members of the public articulated the need to better integrate land use
planning and water supply in Calaveras County. The terms of CCWD's Water Order 97-
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24, 2012 - Page 16
05 raise questions for the County in terms of long range planning. It may preclude other
development opportunities if CCWD was not able to increase its allocation.
The Sawmill Lakes Project has the potential to preclude options in the Conservation
Element, Land Use Element, and Water Element in the General Plan Update.
COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
As mentioned at the beginning of this staff report, the CEQA process is not yet complete on this
project. Staff has not released a Final EIR that responds to the written comments received
during the public comment periods. The County received 21 comment letters. Comments were
submitted by federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, public utility and service
providers, citizen and non-governmental organizations. Letters that are most relevant to staff's
concerns from a General Plan policy perspective have been included in Attachment 4. The
remaining letters, not replicated in this staff report, are more directly related to the CEQA
process, which is incomplete. All 21 comment letters will be posted on the Planning
Department's website and available at the Planning Department for public review and are part of
the record for this project.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the above factors and considerations, Staff feels there is a preponderance of
evidence that the Sawmill Lake Project:
1. Is not consistent with the Current General Plan.
policies in the Open Space Element.
It conflict with all three Goals and
2. Precludes options in the General Plan Update in the Conservation Element, Land Use
Element, and Water Element.
Therefore, Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider denial without prejudice for the
Sawmill Lake Project.
FINDINGS
Project Findings will be prepared at the direction of the Planning Commission and will be
brought back for adoption at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct Staff to prepare a Resolution
recommending that the Board of Supervisors deny without prejudice the General Plan
Amendment, Specific Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, and Development Agreement for the
Sawmill Lake Project based upon the Findings contained therein to be brought back to the
Planning Commission for action.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Sawmill Lake Project
August 24, 2012 - Page 17
ATTACHMENTS 1 THROUGH 6
June 25, 2012 Letter from Jones & Beardsley, P.C., representing Castle & Cooke
July 16, 2012 Letter from Shute, Milhaly & Weinberger LLP
July 23,2012 Letter from Jones & Beardsley, P.C.
January 21, 2011 Letter from USFWS
June 30, 2010 Letter from USFWS
June 10, 2010 Letter from CDFG
April 28, 2011 Letter from CSERC
June 1, 2010 Letter from CSERC
Attachment 5: Draft EIR of April 2010
Attachment 6: Recirculated Draft EIR Sections of March 2011
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Project # 2006-110 Sawmill Lake Project
Staff Report of August 24, 2012
Attachments 1 through 6
Project # 2006-110 Sawmill Lake Project
Staff Report of August 24, 2012
Attachment 1
June 25,2012 Letter from Jones & Beardsley, P.C.,
representing Castle & Cooke
JONES & BEARDSLEY, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE RIVER WALK BUILDING
10000 STOCKDALE HIGHWAY, SUITE 395
BAKER$rl~LO, CALIFORNIA 93311
Telephone (661) 664-2900 Facsimile (661) 664-2904
maj@joncsbeardsley.com
June 25, 2012
RECEIVED
JUN 29 2012
CALAVERAS COUNTY
l30ARD OF SUPERVISORS
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
CALAVERAS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
c/o Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
891 Mountain Ranch Road
San Andreas CA 95249
Attn:
Mr. Gary Tofanelli
Ms. Merita Callaway
Mr. Tom Tryon
MI'. Steve Wilensky
MI'. Darren Spellman
Re:
Castle & Cooke California, Inc.; Castle & Cooke Saddle Creek, Inc.;
Castle & Cooke Copper Valley, LLC; Sawmill Lake Specific Plan Project;
Vineyard Estates Project; Copper Valley Ranch Project;
Calaveras County, California; Demand for Compliance with Legal Obligations
Deal' Supervisors:
This firm represents Castle & Cooke California, Inc. ("CCCI"), Castle & Cooke Saddle
Creek, Inc. ("CCSC") and Castle & Cooke Copper Valley, LLC ("CCCV"), who have filed
applications for land use entitlements for their Sawmill Lake, Vineyard Estates and Copper Valley
Ranch projects, respectively. These projects have been in processing with Calaveras County
("County") for inordinately long periods of time. I write this letter at the request of my clients in an
effOli to secure the County's compliance with its legal obligation to timely process the development
applications for these projects.
Sawmill Lake Project
By way of background, the Sawmill Lake project is a 243 acre property proposed as a mixed
use residential master planned community consisting of a maximulll of 800 dwelling units. CCCI
submitted its application for the project, including a proposed specific plan and vesting tentative
subdivision map on July 17,2006. The application was deemed complete on March 2, 2007. After
much discussion and coordination with the County's Planning and Public Works departments, and
after a number of delays brought about as a result of project redesign and additional studies done in
cOl.bo'.20 120620.0 I
CALAVERAS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
June 25, 2012
Page 2
order to address County staff's comments, an ADEIR for the project was completed and submitted to
the County in April 2009. After another year of County staff review, project redesign, further study
and revision of the ADErR to address additional comments by staff, a DEIR for the project was
circulated from April 21, 2010 to June 7, 2010.
After receiving comments on the circulated DElR, County staff decided, over CCCI's
objection, that the Sawmill Lake project's traffic study would have to be redone. This decision
would require that the DEIR be substantially revised and recirculated. As a result, the traffic study
was redone. The DEIR was revised accordingly and recirculated from March 17,2011 to May 12,
2011. The project's EIR consultant prepared responses to all comments received during the
applicable comment periods, and submitted an administrative final ErR to County staff on August
17,2011. To date, despite numerous requests from CCCI by way of telephone conversations,
meetings, and written communications, County staff have not even commented on the administrative
final ErR, much less completed that document, prepared a staff repOli or scheduled a hearing for
action on the FEIR and project. After almost six years of "processing" the project lies dormant.
Vineyard Estates Protect
CCSC has experienced similar frustration in attempting to have its Vineyard Estates project
processed by the County. This project is a small 42 acre project consisting of 17 lots, with a
proposed zone change from RA-10 (Residential Agricultural) to RR (Rural Residential), and an
associated tentative subdivision tract map. CCSC submitted its application for the Vineyard Estates
project on June 30, 2008 and the application was deemed by the County to be complete on August I,
2008. Because an eastern extension of Copper Cove Drive would be required in order to access the
project, CCSC originally proposed a standard westerly extension oftha! roadway at the existing three
way intersection of Copper Cove Drive and Little John Road.
After many discussions with County staff and a comprehensive project design process with
substantial input from County staff, in November 2010, the project's environmental consultant
submitted an administrative draft initial study and proposed mitigated negative declaration for the
project. No significant environmental impacts were identified in the administrative draft initial
study. Nevertheless, after receiving this document, County staff refused to process the project based
on staff s opinion that condemnation of private lands necessary foJ' the roadway extension would be
contrary to the County's past, albeit unwritten, policy regarding the use of the County's power of
eminent domain. County staff also rejected CCSC's proposed alternative involving an offset
intersection with a conventional roundabout which would have obviated the condemnation issue.
CCSC then proposed another solution to alleviate County staff s concerns, which involved a
"peanut shaped" roundabout designed to accommodate the offset nature of the existing Copper Cove
Drive lying east of Little John Road, and the proposed extension of Copper Cove Drive to the west
of Little John Road. With the suppOli and approval of the project's traffic engineer, and after
receiving assurances from the County's Public Works and Planning department heads that their
C01.005.20 120620.0 1
CALAVERAS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
June 25, 2012
Page 3
depm1ments would support this peanut roundabout concept, CCSC spent considerable time, effort
and money redesigning the project, and on August 17,2011 the project's environmental consultant
prepared and submitted to the County a revised administrative draft of an initial study and proposed
mitigated negative declaration for the revised project. Again, no significant impacts were identified.
Upon receipt of the administrative draft initial study and MND, the County's Public Works
department head rejected the peanut roundabout redesign, and processing was again halted.
In an efforllo have its project presented to the Board of Supervisors as the County's elected
officials, CCSC then proposed to County staff yet another project redesign which would involve a
realignment of the existing Copper Cove Drive lying east of Little John Road. CCSC has been
advised that the County's Public Works dep3ltment would support this redesign from a traffic and
circulation perspcctive, but County staff has yet another concern which has again stymied further
processing. According to County staff, since there is a possibility that the Copper Cove Drive
extension could ultimately be used as an access road for CCCI's Copper Valley Ranch project
located 1.4 miles to the south, CCSC would have to fully analyze the impacts of this possible lengthy
road extension as a part of its Vineyard Estates project. Over two months ago, I authored a letter to
Deputy County Counsel Megan Stedtfeld providing legal authority to the contr3lY. To date, we have
received no response from the County, processing of the Vineyard Estates project is still halted, and
almost four years after the filing of CCSC's application, County staff has yet to complete an initial
study or set a hearing for this small 17 lot project.
Copper Valley Ranch Project
CCCV's Copper Valley Ranch project is proposed as a 4,350 acre master planned
community. CCCV submitted its application for land use entitlements for this project 011 July 17,
2006, and the County deemed the application complete on March 7, 2007. To date, County staff has
refused to process the Copper Valley Ranch project until the County has completed its pending
General Plan update. It has been almost six years since CCCV submitted its project application.
County staff has been working on its General Plan update for seven years.
CCCl's, CCSC '.I' and CCCV's Investment in Calm'eras County and Processing Costs
To date, CCCI, CCSC and CCCV have invested close to $23 Million in combined land
acquisition and improvement costs for the Sawmill Lake, Vineyard Estates and Copper Valley Ranch
projects. They have spent approximately $5.6 Million in CEQA compliance and processing costs for
these three projects. l
I Altogether, Castle & Cooke entities have combined capital investments of over $11 0 Million in Calaveras
COllnty.
cot.\)03.20120620.0 1
CALAVERAS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
June 25, 2012
Page 4
Applicable Law
First, County staffs refusal to process Castle & Cooke's project(s) until the County has
completed its General Plan update is unlawful. Under established California case law, the County
does not have the legal authority to prohibit the processing of development applications. (See,
Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. The Superior COllrt o.fOrange County, et al. (1999)
72 CaI.App.4'h 1410 [local agency may not adopt an interim ordinance prohibiting processing o.f
development applications)).
In addition, it is clear and unambiguous under CEQA that a lead agency has an obligation to
complete and celiify a final EIR within one year after the date on which the agency accepts the
application as complete. (California Public Resources Code Section 2JJ5J.5(a)(J)(A); 14 California
Code ofRegulations Section15J 08.) A negative declaration must be completed and adopted within
180 days. (California Public Resources Code Section 21151.5(a)(1)(B); 14 California Code oj
Regulations Section 15107.) The agency's procedures may provide for a reasonable extension of
these time periods if compelling circumstances justify additional time, and the project applicant
consents. (California Public Resources Code Section 21151.5(a)(4); 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15108.) However, such an extension of the time limit for completion and
celiification of an EIR cannot exceed ninety days. (14 California Code of Regulations Section
15108.)
The statutolY time limit for completion and certification of an EIR may be enforced by a writ
of mandate ordering compliance, issued by the County Superior COUli. 0<;unset Drive COI1). v. City
ofRedlands (1999) 73 Cal.App.4 'h 215, 221.) A local agency's failure orrefusal to complete an EIR
may also give rise to a cause of action fQr denial of civil rights, and a resulting claim for monetary
damages. (Id at page 225; Vedanta Society o.fSouthern California v. California Quarlet, Ltd 84
Cai.App.4'h 517,535.)
As is obvious from the historical record recounted above, the County's performance in
processing the above-referenced projects has been dismal at best. The County has clearly failed to
perform its legal duty to process these projects in accordance with applicable law.
Formal Demand
cccr, CCSC and CCCV hereby make the following formal demand:
I.
That the County process the aforementioned development applications in a diligent
and professional manner;
2.
That the County complete and certify a final ErR for the Sawmill Lake project by
August 17,2012;
col.bos.20120620.01
CALAVERAS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
June 25, 2012
Page 5
3.
That the County complete and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Vineyard Estates project within 180 days following the date of the County's receipt of this letter;
!
I
4.
That the County complete and certify a final EIR for the Copper Valley Ranch project
within one year following the date of the County's receipt of this letter.
I
I
Unless we receive immediate assurances that the County will proceed in the foregoing
manner, Castle & Cooke will be left with no altel'l1ative but to pursue its available judicial remedies .
MAJ:cls
cot.bos.20 120620.0 1
Project # 2006-110 Sawmill Lake Project
Staff Report of August 24, 2012
Attachment 2
July 16, 2012 Letter from Shute, Milhaly & Weinberger LLP
SHUTE MIHALV WEINBERGE Fax:415-552-5B16
Jul 16 2012 10;13,. P002/003
SHUTE MIHALY
~WE IN BERGERLLP
3% HAYES STR,E('T, SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102
T: 415 552-7272 F: 41$ 552-5816
Attorney
www.~mwlaw.com
folk@smwla.w.com
ELLISON FOLK
July 16, 2012
Via Facsimile (209-754-67331 &
u.s. Mail
Calaveras COlmty Board of Supervisors
891 MOlmtajn Ranch Road
San Andreas, Califomia 95249-9709
Re:
Processing of Castle & Cooke Development Projects
Dear Members of the Board ofSupervisol's:
I am writing on behalf of the Central Sierra Envitoinnental Resource Center
with respect to the June 25, 20121etter written by Jones & Beardsley on behalf of Cooke
& Castle Califomia, Inc. Our fum has represented CSERC in c01mection with
environmental issues implicated by the rapid pace of development in' Calaveras County.
In its June 25 letter, counsel for Cooke & Castle asserts that the COWl1y is
lmder an obligation to process and complete the environmental review for the Vineyards
Estates, Saw MiU Lake and Copper Valley Ranch projects. However, this letter fails to
grapple with the requirement under state law that land use decisions implicating
deficiencies in a general plan are ultra vires and invalid. "[A) proposed project cannot be
consistent with an invalid general plan." Guardians a/Turlock's Integrity v. Turfad City
Council, 149 Cal.App.3d 584 (1983); See NeighborhoodAction Group/or the Fifth
Dis/rict v. County o/Calaveras, 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1185 (1984) ("If the general plan
fails to provide required criteria relevant to the use sought by the permit, there is no valid
measure by which the permit may be evaluated").
In November 2007 this finn submitted a letter detailing the County's
obligation under state law to maintain an adequate general plan and to refrain from
approving development projects that implicate the Jllany inadequacies in the County's
general plan. Since that time, the County has been in the process of updating what
independent expeJts determined is an inadequate general plan and for the most part it has
not approved major development projects that would be inconsistent with the County's
SHUTE MIHALY iEINBERGE Fax:415-552-5B16
Jul 16 2012 10:14an P003/003
Calaveras County Board cif S~lpervisors
July 16,2012
Page 2
obligations under state planning and zoning law. Although Calavel'as County is in the
process. of updating its general plan, the c.utrent plan cOntinues to be legally inadequate,
and therefore the County may not approve development projects - such as those proposed
by Castle & Cooke - that implicate these deficiencies. A copy of Ol\t 2007 letter is
hlcluded with this correspondence.
.
Moreover, the letter from JOlles & Beardsley demonstrates the mallY isslJes
that remain to be resolved in connection with the proposed developments, including
project access, consistency with the general pla'.n, the need for .rezoning, and potentially
significant environmental impacts, The County is WIder no obligation to approve these
development proposals, and more importantly, it could simply deny the projects because
of their many inconsistencies with CmUlty planning documents and zoning requirements,
their significant environmental impacts, and either deficiencies. If the County were to
deny the projects it would be under no obligation to conduct environmental review at all.
Las Lomas Land Co" LLCv. City olLos Angeles (2009) 177 CaJ.App.4th 837, 849, 850
(rejecting claim that public agency has an obligation to prepare and finalize an EIR on a
project that it does not· intend to approve.) Should the County and the applicant prefer to
avoid denial of the projects at this time, then defening consideration of the three
identified projects is necessary until such time tl,at the COlUlty updates tlle General Plan
and corrects the deficiencies that would be implicated by any approval of these
development proj ects.
Thank you for yom consideration of these issues.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Ellison Folk
cc:
John Buckley
410919.1.
SHUTE, MIHALY
0---- \'ifE I N BERG ER lU'
Public Comment and Response to Comments
SHl,iTE, MIHAI,Y & WlllNBERGER LLP
ATrORNEY5 AT LAW
39,15 tit, ygs STREI;T
C:A;;]!,ORNIA
'94102
1'BLEPHONE:(415) 5524212
FACSIMILE: (415) 552'5816
SAN
~_t,HNl\ K. $A;':'bN~19_U_SE
F,RANC!~gO,
UICHELi:B \vlLoli ANDr(ns6N
Dp\jcj:'i\. '"Oiifd
,\i\JANDA R:-a'ARcTA
W\V\V ;siiivLAW .coM
U'R-SAN Pl ..\,NNE'RS
L/\9AE\ .I., U,il',E:t'l', :_A!c!,
C-!\R,~_fIU"
, •. ,B'!,RG-, tdt;:l'
NoVeluoel' 20, 2007
By ,FacsimIle (209.754.6733) and U.S. Mail
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
89 i Mountain Ranch Road
San Andreas, Califonjia 95249-9709
Re:
General Plan
Dear Members Mthe B6ai'd bf SUpervisors;
Tl1is flrm r~pteseiltS t~e ¢¢nttlil Skn'a Enyirbnnlehtal Resoprce Center aM the
Mathe!, ):,oqe Cbapt;:r of tJltl Slerq Club in c;Ol)!lection with enyil'Ol]menM iSS,\leS tha,t are
cr(')ate,d by 01' eX,(lc()rbateq by the(Ipid pace ofdevelopment iiI Calaveras COJmty. After
reviewhlg the County's Genetal Pfim and stibsidhlly planning documents, we have
conclnded that the General :Plan suffers frbln miIneroils deficiencies, as explained below.
])l!e tq t~~ Geil~raJ Plan;~ (~i(1JJ'e to b.e in COitipnatlGe with the ::;t~te's j¢ga\ ItjaiIdates; the
County is i~gally barred f['olll approvil}g neW development proJecis that lwve a ne~us to
these deficiencies..
..
. ..
I.
THE COUNTY'S GENERAL PLAN IS INADEQUATE AND
INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT.
(::aJifornia G9veplment CQ~t) secHon 65300 requires a cPlmty to adppt a
comprehensive, long-term geneml pian for the use anctphysical development ofland
withiil the county. The genetal plan Serves "as a pattern and guide fol' the ot'ded)' physical
growth ahddeve!opilierit and the preservation and conservation of open space Hmd orthe
c6i)nty ¢t city and a$ ~ b~§is [otthe efflciejlt expenditute of [the CitY'$ or CCllll):tyiS] rt)ticls
relating to the sllbjects oflhe general plan .... " Gov. Code, § 65400. The generai pIlm "is,
in shott, a constitution for all further development" within the county. O'Lddne v.
O'RQurke, 231 Cill.App.2d 774, 182 (Cal. Ct, App. 1965).
Sawmill Lake Specific Plan
Final EIR
3-128
Calaveras County
August 2011
Public Comment and Response to Comments
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
June 1,2010
Page 2
The plan "shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a
diagram or diagl'ams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan
proposals." Gov. Code, § 65302. It must include elements for land use, circulation,
housing, conselvation, open space, noise, and safety. Id. Each of these elements must
comply with specific statutory standards, as enumerated in Section 65302.
This finn's independent review ofthe Calaveras County General Plan, as well as
the Mintier report, confirms that the General Plan fails to provide standards and criteria to
guide development under the plan as required by state law. The following discussion of
inadequacies in the General Plan highlights some of the most glaring examples of the
General Plan's legal deficiencies.
A. .
Many of the Elements of the County's General Plan are plainly
inadequate.
1.
The Land Use Element fails to set population density standards
as required by state law.
The Land Use Element must "include a statement of the standards of population
density ... for the various districts and other territolY covered by the plan." Gov. Code, §
65302(a). Table 11-4 (pp.Il-25-28) contains the term "population density" in its title, but
nowhere in the table can a reader find any indication ofthc actual standards ofpopulatiol1
density for the various land use designations. Building "density" standards are
established for County lands, but there are no standards in terms of residents per
dwelling. After the table, there is a note explaining that population density can be
calculated by mUltiplying the number of dwellings per acre by thc number of persons per
dwelling for the area (p. II-29). But this is unhelpful, because nowhere does the General
Plan establish the number of persons per dwelling. See Twain Harte Homeowners Ass 'n
v. Tuolomne County, 138 Cal.AppJd 664, 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) ("the reasonable
interpretation of the term 'population density' as used in Government Code section 65302
is one which refers to numbers of people in a given area and not to dwelling units per
acre, unless the basis for correlation between the measure of dwelling units per acre and
numbers of people is set forth explicitly in the plan").
Although some Community Plans adequately identify population density, much of
the County does not fall within a Community Plan. Moreover, several Community and
Special Plans lack popUlation density standards, including the Mokelumne Hill
Community Plan, the San Andreas Community Plan, and the Airport Special Plan. The
General Plan also fails to show allowable densities for Specific Plan areas, even though
Implementation Measure II-6A-2 directs the reader to the Land Use Appendix of the
General Plan for the allowable densities for the Calaveras Counhy Club Specific Plan
and the Sprin~ Valley Estates Specific Plan (p. II-IO). Finally, the Valley Springs
Calaveras County
August 2011
3-129
Sawmill Lake Specific Plan
Final EIR
Public Comment and Response to Comments
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
June 1,2010
Page 3
Community Plan and the Murphys/Douglas Flat Community Plan fail to set consistent
density standards within a given land use designation. An inconsistent standard is no
standard at all.
Because of these deficiencies, neither the County decision makers nor thc public
have any guidelines for the maximum population densities in a given area or on a
particular parcel ofland.
2.
The Land Use Element does not set adequate building intensity
standards.
Government Code section 65302(a) requires the Land Use Element to "include a
statement of the standards of... building intensity recommended for the various districts
and othcr territory covered by the plan." "Building intensity" can be described in terms
of, for example, dwellings per acre or floor area ratio (ratio of building floor to the total
site area). See Governor's Office of Planning and Research, GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES
51 (2003).
Table Il-4 in the Land Use Element purports to set forth building intensity
standards for the various land uses permitted under the General Plan. For instance,
Commercial or Industrial lot coverage can be 100% "less setback & landscaping
requirements" (pp. Il-26, II-27). However, because the General Plan does not define
these setback and landscaping standards, it fails to specify the amount ofphysical
development permitted in coml11erciai and industrial areas, as required by law. See
Governor's Office of Planning and Research, GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES 50-51 (2003)
("the concentration of use can be defined by one or more quantitative measures that relate
directly to the amount of physical development that will be allowed"). Because the
General Plan fails to specify the intensity of development permitted in commercial and
industrial areas, it does not include adequate standards to guide development decisions.
Moreover, two Community Plans fail to set building intensity standards. The
Arnold Community Plan allows "lot coverage per approved plot plan" for Commercial
and Commercial-Multiple family areas. This standard inappropriately defers to the
approved plot plan without independently limiting building intensity. The Mokelumne
Hill Community Plan lacks any building intensity standards whatsoever, because it only
defines the minimum parcel size without any indication of the amount of physical
development allowed on each parcel. Thus, the General Plan lacks adequate standards to
guide development decisions in these two Community Plan areas.
3.
Sawmill Lake Specific Plan
Final EIR
The Land Use Element fails to define allowable nses.
3-130
. Calaveras County
August 2011
Public Comment and Response to Comments
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
June 1,2010
Page 4
The Land Use Element of a General Plan must designate "the proposed general
distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business,
industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment
of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal
facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land." Gov. Code, §
65302(a). The General Plan fails to explain the meaning of the land use designations or
to list the allowable land uses for each designation. One might expect such definitions to
be found in Table II-4 (Pl'. II-25-28) ofthe Land Use Element, but they do not appear
there. Nor do such definitions appear in Table II-3 (p. I1-l3), regarding the City of
Angels Sphere oflnfluence.
This deficiency extends to so-called Natural Resource Lands. Although
Implementation Measure II-3A-1 establishes maximum "densities" for Natural Resource
Lands (p. II-6), the General Plan fails to define what kind ofland use is allowed in
Natural Resource Lands. In theOlY, this could permit an industrial factory to locate in an
agricultural 01' timber production area, so long as there is only one per twenty acres.
Because many of the objectionable developments taking place in Calaveras County are
being located in agricultural land, this is a VClY significant deficiency.
Nor can the County rely on its Community Plans to fill in this gap in the General
Plan. The Arnold Community Plan, the Ebbelts Pass Highway Special Plan, the
Mokelumne Hill Community Plan, the Valley Springs Community Plan, and the
MurphyslDouglas Flat Community Plan suffer from this same deficiency and therefore
fail to identify the permissible uses in these areas.
4.
The Circulation Element fails to map existing transportation
routes.
State law requires that the Circulation Element show the "general location and
extent of existing ... major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military
airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities." Gov. Code, § 65302(b).
The County's Circulation Element relies on twenty-year-old maps, which were already
10 years old at the time of the 1996 General Plan's adoption. Maps 1,2, and 4 are so old
that they are now of little use to anyone seeking to understand the circulation system as it
now exists in Calaveras County (pp. III-6, III-7, I1I-9). Because the Circulation Element
fails to show the location of existing transportation routes, it does not comply with
statutory requirements.
5.
The Open Space Element is inadequate.
There are multiple deficiencies in the Open Space Element's attempt to protect
significant wildlife habitats. First, Implementation Measure V-la-I restricts housing
Calaveras County
August 2011
3-131
Sawmill Lake Specific Plan
Final EIR
Public Comment and Response to Comments
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
June 1,2010
Page 5
density in the following habitat areas: Railroad Flat Dee Protected Areas, Bald Eagle
Wintering Area, Golden Eagle Nesting Area, Big Trees State Park, and UOl' Research
Area (p. V-II). Policy V-IA directs the County to review proposed development for
potential impacts to significant wildlife and botanical habitats (p. V-II). But the General
Plan's failure to identifY the location of those areas makes the development restriction
and the review policy ineffective.
Moreover, the General Plan fails to set J'll\es regarding the permissible land uses in
the habitat areas discussed above. Without some restriction as to type of use, a restriction
on density alone is unlikely to achieve the goals of an open space plan. These failures
violate Government,Code sections 65563-67, which require open space plans and specific
action programs to implement them, as well as consistency between the open space plans
and subordinate land use policies.
6.
The Noise Element \ac\{s noise contours for stationary sources.
The Noise Element shall "identify and appraise noise problems in the
community." Gov. Code, § 65302(1). The main tool for achieving this purpose is the
"noise contour," which the Generall'lan must show for all major noise sources, such as
highways, airports, industrial plants; and other stationary sources. See Neighborhood
Action Group v. County of Calaveras, 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1189 (Cal. CL App. 1984)
(noting need for quantitative inventolY of noise levels). The County's Noise Element
discusses sfatiol1my noise sources in general terms, but it fails to provide rigorous
analysis in the fOI'111 of noise contours for present or projected noise volumes, Without
noise contours for stationatY sources, such as the multiple mining operations in the
County, planning staff is incapable of using the noise contours "as a guide for
establishing a pattern ofland uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of
community residents to excessive noise." Gov. Code, § 65302(1); see also Camp v. Ed.
a/Supervisors a/Mendocino County, 123 Cal.AppJd 334 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (finding
county's Noise Element invalid for, inter alia, failure to show the levels of community
noise exposure).
7.
The Safety Element fails to addl'ess I'equil'ed topics.
The Safety Element "shall [] address evacuation routes ... peakload water supply
requirements, I and minimum road widths ... as those items relate to identified fire and
geological hazards." Cal. Gov. Code § 65302(g). The County's Safety Element violates
this requirement because it contains no policy language addressing the topics of
evacuation routes, peak load water supply requirements, or minimum road widths to
1 Peak load water supply: "The supply of water available LO meet both domestic water and fire fighting needs during
the particula)' season and time of day when domestic watel' demand on a water system is al its peak," Govcrnol'l s
Office of Planning and Research, GENERAL PLAN GUIDELlNP}; 94 (2003).
Sawmill Lake Specific Plan
Final EIR
3-132
Calaveras County
August 2011
Public Comment and Response to Comments
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
June 1,2010
Page 6
ensure access for emergency vehicles. These failures leave land developers without
guidance on these topics, and increase the vulnerability of the County's residents to
disasters.
8.
The General Plan relies inappropriately on Specific Plans amI
Zoning Ordinances.
The Saddle Creek! Calaveras Country Club Specific Plan and the Spring Valley
Estates Specific Plan are shown on the Future Land Use Plan map as blank areas with a
note to refer to the relevant Specific Plan (p. 1I-3). This is inadequate. Specific Plans are
subordinate and must be consistent with the General Plan. See Gov. Code, § 65454.
Moreover, in many places the General Plan is dependent on zoning standards, but "the
tail does not wag the dog." Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City a/Walnut Creek, 52
Cal.3d 53 1,541 (1990). If the General Plan is to serve its function as the Constitution for
all land use development in the County, it must identiry the standards for development of
a specific area. See Citizens a/Goleta Valley v. Bd. a/Supervisors, 52 CalJd 553, 570
(I 990) (general plan as the land use Constitution).
B.
The County's Genel'al Plan is internally inconsistent.
To be legally adequate, a general plan must be internally consistent: its elements
must "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies
for the adopting agency." Gov. Code, § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Kern County Ed. 0/
Supervisors, 126 Cal.AppJd 698, 704 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). General plan consistency is
"the linchpin of California's land use and development laws; it is the principle which
infused the concept of pi all ned growth with the force oflaw." DeBottari v. Norco City
Council, 171 Cal.AppJd 1204,1213 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985). See also Concerned Citizens
a/Calaveras County v. Bd. (J/Supervisors a/Calaveras County, 166 Cal.AppJd 90,97
(Cal. Ct. App.1985) ("If a general plan is to fulfill its function as a 'constitution' guiding
'an effective planning process,' a general plan must be reasonably consistent and
integrated on its face.").
1.
The Land Use Element is inadequately correlated with the
Circulation Element.
State law requires that a general plan's Circulation Element be "correlated" ~ that
is, "closely, systematically, and reciprocally related" ~ to the Land Use Element of the
plan. Gov. Code, § 65302 (b); Concerned Citizens a/Calaveras County, 166 Cal.AppJd
at 99-100. In practical terms, the correlation requirement "is designed to insure that the
circulation element will describe, discuss and set forth 'standards' and 'proposals'
respecting any change in demands on the various roadways or transportation facilities of
a county as a result of changes in uses ofland contemplated by the plan." ld. at 100).
Calaveras County
August 2011
3·133
Sawmill Lake Specific Plan
Final EIR
Public Comment and Response to Comments
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
June 1,2010
Page 7
The County's current plan lacks adequate correlation. First, the Land Use Element
purports to coordinate the Community Center land use designation and the Circulation
Element with the following statement: "Road capacity and the capability of roads to
handle development are addressed in Community Centers on a project-specific basis
using the policies and requirements contained in the Circulation Element and County
Road Ordinance" (p. II-IS). The Circulation Element, however, lacks any specific
policies and requirements that apply to Community Centers. Thus the Land Use Element
refers the reader to nonexistent portions ofthc Circulation Element. This violates the
statutory correlation requirement.
More significantly, the General Plan fails to coordinate future projections in the
Circulation Element and the Land Use Element. In thc Circulation Element's preliminary
section describing its relationship to other elements, it claims that the "transportation
plan, policy, and implementation measures [were] established by utilizing the same
projections of future population and economic activity as does the Land Use Element, by
using the same geographic distribution of future population and economic activity as
expressed in the Land Use Element map ... " (p. III-I). But there is no "geographic
distribution of future population and economic activity" expressed anywhere in the Land
Use Element. Nowhere does the Land Use Element explain which neighborhoods in
particular are expected to grow, and by how much. Thus, there is nothing for the
Circulation Element to supposedly be correlated with. The County could not have
"design[ed] the transportation plans and policies to contribute to the achievement of the
planned land-use pattern" (p. Ill-I) when the Land Use Element itself fails to specify
where and how the County is expected to grow. This is a fundamental problem
undermining the entire General Plan, so there is no way this General Plan can provide an
adequate basis for subsidiaty land use decisions, such as specific project approvals.
2.
The Open Space Element is inadequately correlated with the
Land Use Element.
The Open Space Element purports to restrict density in the following habitat areas:
Railroad Flat Dee Protected Areas, Bald Eagle Wintering Area, Golden Eagle Nesting
Area, Big Trees State Park, and UOP Research Area (Implementation Measure V-la-I, p.
V -II). However, this density restriction is not reflected in the Future Land Use Plan map
(p. II-3). This renders the General Plan is internally inconsistent. See Garal v. Cilyof
Riverside, 2 Cal.App.4th 259,286 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (emphasizing need for internal
consistency).
U.
THE COUNTY MAY NOT APPROVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
THAT IMPLICATE THE INADEQUACIES IN THE GENERAL PLAN.
Sawmill Lake Specific Plan
Final EIR
3·134
Calaveras County
August 2011
Public Comment and Response to Comments
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
June 1,2010
Page 8
A General Plan that fails to contain the information required by state law and that
fails to properly correlate its various elements cannot serve its purpose as the constitution
for future development. See Neighborhood Action Group for the Fifth District v. County
of Calaveras, 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184-85 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). For example, without
adequate standards for population density, the County cannot use the General Plan as a
guide for allocating popUlation growth to the various neighborhoods through zoning
ordinances and building permits. When faced with a deficient General Plan, courts find
that land use decisions implicating those deficiencies are ultra vires and invalid. "[AJ
proposed project cannot be consistent with an invalid general plan." Guardians of
Turlock's Integrity v. Turlock City Council, 149 Cal.App.3d 584 (CaJ. Ct. App. 1983).
There is no way to tell from an inadequate General Plan whether a given project should
or should not happen, and the County will be unable to make the requisite findings of
consistency. Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1185 ("If the general plan
fails to provide required criteria relevant to the use sought by the permit, there is no valid
measure by which the permit may be evaluated").
Land use proposals currently under consideration in Calaveras County directly
implicate many of the problems discussed. The problems in the General Plan are
fundamental and wide-ranging and include (1) the failure to address evacuation routes,
peakload water supply requirements, or minimum road widths to ensure access for
emergency vehicles, (2) the lack of correlation between the Land Use and Circulation
Elements, and €3) the outdated Circulation Element maps. Many of the other identified
deficiencies are also almost universally applicable. First, any development pr<~iect
increasing population density outside of the few Community Plans where population
density is adequately addressed will implicate the deficiency discussed above in Section
ILL Second, any project changing the use of the land, outside of the few Community
Plans where allowable uses are properly defined, will have a nexus to the deficiency
discussed above in Section II.3. Note that the multiple projects being approved for
agricultural land implicate this inadequacy.
Finally, the other deficiencies discussed above will be implicated by:
- Any development in or near wildlife habitat areas;
- Any development near a major stationary noise source;
- Any development in the Saddle Creek! Calaveras Countly Club Specific Plan area
or the Spring Valley Estates Specific Plan area;
Any development that would fmiher burden road capacity in Community Centers;
Any development that increases building intensity inland designated as
Commercial, outside ofComl11unity Plan areas;
Any development that increases building intensity in land designated as
Commercial and Commercial-Multiple family within the Arnold Community Plan
area; and
Calaveras Counly
Augusl2011
3-135
Sawmill Lake Specific Plan
Final EIR
Public Comment and Response to Comments
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
June 1,2010
Page 9
Any development that increases building intensity in the Mokelumne Hill
Community Plan area.
Based upon the inadequacies and inconsistencies in the County's Generall'lan, the
County cannot rely upon the authority of the current Plan to approve any major
development projects or other applications that havc a nexus to the identified
deficiencies. CSERC and the Sierra Club, however, are particularly concerned with those
approvals that foreclose future land planning options in the County's current General
Plan update process. Revising a general plan can be a long, costly and difficult process;
time spent processing projects that will foreclose future planning options and that have a
nexus to deficiencies in the current General Plan is a waste of County resources.
Therefore, our clients request that the County halt any further approvals of
development projects that require general plan amendments and/or zoning changes that
foreclose future land planning options and have a nexus to the General Plan's
deficiencies.
Thank you for considering the issues raised in this letter and taking the appropriate
action to respond to these points.
Vety truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Ellison Folk
[P:\CSHRC\j1ll1ll001(fillill !cHer rc Gf».docJ
Sawmill Lake Specilic Plan
Final EIR
3·136
Calaveras County
Augusl2011
Project # 2006-110 Sawmill Lake Project
Staff Report of August 24,2012
Attachment 3
July 23,2012 Letter from Jones & Beardsley, P.C.
JONES & BEARDSLEY, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE RIVER WALK BUILDING
10000 STOCKDALK HIGHWAY, SUIl1l395
jU9WjJedea
5u! UUeld
,{junO J SeJ911elBJ
BAKI!RSFI!LD, CALIFORNIA 93311
Telephone (661) 664-2900 Facsimile (661) 664-2904
maj@jonesbeardsley.com
July 23, 2012
ZI02 Il ~ lnr
a3 J\1 3 :) 3~
VIA HAND DELIVERY
CALAVERAS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
c/o Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
891 Mountain Ranch Road
San Andreas CA 95249
Attn:
Mr. Gary Tofanelli
Ms. Merita Callaway
Mr. Tom Tryon
Mr. Steve Wilensky
Mr. Darren Spellman
Re:
Castle & Cooke California, Inc.; Castle & Cooke Saddle Creek, Inc.;
Castle & Cooke Copper Valley, LLC; Sawmill Lake Specific Plan Project;
Vineyard Estates Project; Copper Valley Ranch Project;
Calaveras County, California; Demand for Compliance with Legal Obligations
Dear Supervisors:
This letter follows our June 25, 2012 letter to you, and the July 16, 2012 letter sent to you by
Shute, Mihaley & Weinberger on behalf of CSERC.
Despite the urging of the Shute, Mihaley & Weinberger firm , we would not consider the
assertions advocated by CSERC's and Sierra Club's legal counsel to constitute an "independent
review" of the adequacy of the County's General Plan. On the contrary, while the plan may be in
need of updating, it has not been and there is no basis upon which to conclude that it would be,
deemed to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction.
CSERC ' s counsel also neglected to advise you that the County's General Plan may be
amended on a project by project basis in a manner which augments aspects of the plan which are
directly involved in the project being reviewed. Recently, the Fifth District Court of Appeal
addressed this concept in its unpublished decision in Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of
Bakersfield (2010 WL 4355790). In that case, an environmental group challenged a commercial
project in the City of Bakersfield, in part, on the basis that that project was inconsistent with the
City's outdated General Plan. Addressing this argument, the court stated, in pertinent part,
cot.bos. 20 120723 .01
CALAVERAS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
July 23 , 2012
Page 2
"The association argues that the city cannot amend its general plan in a piecemeal
fashion so as to obliterate the policies set by the existing general plan or in a way that
makes the current general plan outdated. It points to a number of places in the
administrative record where there is evidence the city has outgrown its general plan
and is in the process of up dating it as proof supporting the association's position. We
understand the association's argument, but find little support for it in this record or
the law."
"There is no question that a general plan must be reviewed and revised as
circumstances warrant. ... The city has acknowledged that the unprecedented growth
in Bakersfield has resulted in the general plan becoming outdated. It is in the
progress [sic.]ofupdating its current general plan. However, the association has cited
no authority holding that, during the update process, the public entity is without
power to make land-use decisions, especially when other requirements of the law are
met. This type of restriction would be an extremely drastic remedy .... " (Citizens/or
Responsible Growth. supra at page 18.)
Thus, even though a public entity's General Plan is undergoing an update, the update does not
invalidate the then-current General Plan, nor does it preclude the public entity from making land use
decisions in the interim.
Finally, in their letter CSERC' s counsel proposes, as an end run around the County's
obligations to complete and certify environmental documents for Castle & Cooke's projects, that the
Board of Supervisors simply deny the projects without completed environmental documents. After
six years of environmental processing, the completion of an Administrative Draft ErR for the
Sawmill Lake project and an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Vineyards project, and after Castle & Cooke has spent almost $30 Million in acquisition and
processing costs, it would be late in the game indeed for the Board to vote to now summarily deny
these projects. Castle & Cooke has all due faith that the integrity you have shown as the County's
elected officials will prevent you from proceeding in such a fashion.
For these reasons and for those previously expressed, we reiterate the demands set forth in
our June 25, 2012 letter.
?I'L2f:'-:--~~
Mark A. Jones
MAJ:cls
cot.bos.20120723.0 1
Project # 2006-110 Sawmill Lake Project
Staff Report of August 24, 2012
Attachment 4
January 21, 2011 Letter from USFWS
June 30, 2010 Letter from USFWS
June 10, 2010 Letter from CDFG
April 28, 2011 Letter from CSERC
June 1, 2010 Letter from CSERC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sncrnmelllo Fish nlld Wildlife Omce
2800 Cottage WRY, Room W-2605
SRcrnmelllo, Cnlifomin 95825-1846
III Reply Refer To:
81420-2011-TA-0228
January 21, 2011
"QOD I -
lSY I
Ms. Debra Lewis
Q DO /.{)~. {I \
Calaveras County Planning Department
. ~oo Cb - D53
County GovenUllent Center
891 Mountain Ranch Road
~ bO'I - o ~ q
San Andreas, California 95249-9709 j-s\fV\ C\~ -6'-\
US (...oJ1 V)
\-I-II) s
Ra..r,ch
eoltt.t:s
n
C~( Vu..((ey
VI'I'\e,/O-r0\
00. t Cbn\./tt1 K.~
5 socB.\.e.U-e..c¥:..
Subject: Endangered Species and Extension of Copper Cove Drive in the Vicinity of the
Town of Copperopolis in Calaveras County, California
Dear Ms. Lewis:
This leiter concerns the proposed extension of Copper Cove Drive in the vicinity of the Town of
Copperopolis in Calaveras County, California. It is the understanding of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) that this roadway Illay be extended from the intersection of Copper
Cove Drive and Little John Road tluough the proposed Vineyard Estates project, proposed
Copper Valley Ral(ch project, and the proposed Tllscany Hills project. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Selvice is concerned about the potential effects from the extension of this roadway on
listed species, including the threatened California red-legged frog (Ral/a dray/ol/ii), tlu'eatened
California tiger salamauder (Alllbys/ollla cali/omiel/se), tlu'eatened valley elderberry longhorn
beetIe (Deslllocel'lls cali/oJ'lliclIs dilllOlpllllS), endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidlll'lls
]Jackardi), tlueatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Brachil/ec/a IYl/citl), endangered Hartweg's
Golden sunburst (Pseudobahia baitii/o/ia), tlu'entened Colusa grass (Neos/apfla coIl/sal/a), and
tlu'eatened Chinese camp brodiaea (Brodiaea pal/ida), Federal wildlife resources, including the
,burrowing owl (Spe/ylo cUl/iclllaria), and fragmentation of wildlife habitat. This letter is issued
under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC § 1531 et
seq .)(Act), and the Service's Mitigation Policy of 1956.
Our comments and recommendations are based on (I) a meeting held on January 19,2011, at the
proposed Vineyard Estates project between you, Clu'is Nagano and Casey Collins of the Service,
Dan Gifford of the California Department ofFish and Game, Dave Haley of Castle and Cooke,
and Jeff Glazner of Helix Environmentall'latUling; (2) Cappel' Valley Parkway Exhibit dated
May 21, 2008, that was prepared by BSB Design; (3) lettel' f('om the SClvice to the County of
Calaveras regarding the proposed Vineyard Estates Project dated October 6, 2010 (Service file
Ms. Debra Lewis
81420-2010-TA-0984-1); (4) letter ii-olU the Selvice to the County of Calaveras regarding the
proposed Vineyard Estates project dated December 7, 2010 (Service file 81420-201 0-TA-09842); (5) Initial Routingfor 2008-053 Zoning Amelldment and Tellfative Subdivision I)'act Map for
Castle and Coo/!e Vineyal'd Eslates undated (Initial Routing Document) that was prepared by the
County of Calaveras; (6) Vineyard Estates Project Description that was undated; and (7) other
infol111ation available to the Selvice.
Section 9 of the Act prohibits the take of any federally listed animal species by any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As defined ill the Act, take is defined as "".to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt; shoot, wound, kill, trap, captUl'e, or collect, or attempt to engage in
any such conduct." "Harm has been fmiher defined to include habitat destruction when it injures
or kills a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding,
foraging, 01' resting. Thus, not only are the Califomia tiger salamander, Califol11ia red-legged
frog, valley elderbeny longhorn beetle, vernal pool tadpole shdmp, and the vernal pool faily
sluimp protected fi'om sllch activities as collecting and hunting, but also fi'om actions that
damage 01' destroy their habitat. The Act prohibits activities that "".remove and reduce to
possession any listed plant fi'om areas under Federal julisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy
any such species on any such area; 01' remove, cut, dig up, 01' damage 01' destroy any such species
on any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in the course of
any violation of a State criminal trespass law." The term "person" is defined as "".an individual,
corporation, palinership, tmst, association, or any other private entity; 01' any officer, employee,
agent, department, or instnunentality of the Federal govennnent, of any State, municipality, or
political subdivision of a State, or any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States."
Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one of two procedures. If a
Federal agency is involved with the pennitting, funding, or carrying out of the project and a listed
species is going to be adversely affected, then initiation of formal consultation between that
agency and the Selvice pUI'suant to section 7 of the Act is required. Such consultation would
result in a biological opinion addressing the anticipated effects ofthe project on the listed species
and may authorize a limited level of incidental take. If a Federal agency is not involved in the
project, and federally listed species may be taken as patt ofthe project, then an incidental take
pennit pursuant to sectionl0(a)(I)(B) of the Act should be obtained. The Selvice mayisslle
such a permit upon c~ll1pletion of a satisfactory conservation plan for the listed species that
would be taken by the project.
It is our understanding, based on the Initial Routing Document, and infonnation presented at the
January 19, 2011, meeting, including the Copper Valley Parkway Exhibit, that Copper Cove
Drive is proposed to be extended from the CUlTent intersection of tltis roadway and Little J olm
Road tln'ough the proposed Vineyard Estates project, proposed Copper Valley project, proposed
Tuscany Hills project, and then connect to the southern terminus of Little JOlul Road. The
proposed roadway, evidently will be named Copper Valley Parkway, and likely will result in .
destl1lction and fragmentation of habitat inhabited by listed species and wildlife, which may
include, but are not limited to, the burrowing owl and the American badger (Taxidea laxus). In
general, the species most prone to extinction in fi'agmented habitats are those that depend on
Ms. Debra Lewis
native vegetation; require combinations of different habitat types; require large territories; and
exist at low densities (Saunders ef al. 1991). Some ofthese species, such as the threatened
Califol'llia red-legged frog and Califomia tiger salamander, benefit from routine livestock
ranching activities (Service 2004, 2010). Small populations with limited breeding partners are
prone to inbreeding which often results in problems associated with the lack of genetic diversity
(Frankham and Ralls 1998). Populations with less genetic variability or more deleterious genetic
material are typically less able to successfully respond to environmental stresses 01' adapt to even
relatively minor changes in enviromnental conditions. These factors influence the survivability
of smaller, genetically isolated popUlations. The on-going loss and reduction in natural habitat
and wildlife Illovement conidors for listed species and wildlife in this pOltion of Calaveras
County is of concern to the Selvice. Thoro are proposed projeots in this region that likely will
not only have direct adverse effects, but also indirect and cumulative adverse effects on listed
species, such as the threatened Chinese Camp brodiaea.
Based on the information available to us, it appears the constmction of Copper Cove Drive is
necessary before the Vineyard Estates, Copper Valley Ranch and Tuscany Rills p'rojects can be
practicably illlplemented. Therefore, because the extension of Copper Cove Dlive is interrelated
and interdependent to these three projects (see 50 CFR § 402.02) and to avoid piecemeal analysis
ofthe projects with the concomitant risk of inadequate evaluation of cumulative environmental
effects, we recommend that a permit pursuant to section lO(a)(l)(B) ofthe Act for a regional
habitat conselvation plan (RCP) be obtained or at a minimum, a conservation strategy be
completed for tllis area of Calaveras County and approved by the Service and the California
Department ofFish and Game prior to its implementation.
Dealing with adverse effects on listed species and wildlife resoUl'Ces on a project-by-project basis
has the potential to result in substantial delays for project proponents. A regional section
lO(a)(l)(B) permit would allow for timely approval of incidental take oflisted species resulting
fi'om urban development 01' other activities in retU11l for the long term consOlvation and
management of these animals and plants within protected habitat areas. The conservation
measures that would be part ,of a regional RCP or consCivation strategy would promote a stable
regulatory framework for listed species and project proponents that would enhance the ability to
make rational business decisions. A regional conservation strategy would be similar to an RCP,
in that it would identify the locations or areas inhabited by listed species, and sensitive wildlife
and plants, but it would not authorize incidental take and instcad would provide the guidance to
the County of Calaveras and project proponents for avoiding or minimizing adverse effects. In
addition, both of these processes would disclose cumulative and indirect effects to listed species
and address piecemeal concerns that may be made by project opponents.
Project proponents, as well as other affected patties, whose propelties contain habitat for listed
species within the bOll1ldaries of an RCP or conselvation strategy could have a wider Ulmy of
options that encompass both conservation requirements and development concerns than is
presently available to them. The RCP or conservation strategy should include candidate species
,and sensitive wildlife and plants in the event these taxa l:>ecome listed in the future and thus make
it less likely that projects could be delayed ifthey later become protected under the Act.
Ms. Debra Lewis
We remain interested in working with the County of Calaveras and the project proponents in the
resolution ofthe issues regarding the possible constmction and extension of Copper Cove Drive
and its potential adverse effects on listed species and wildlife at the proposed Vineyard Estates
project, Copper ValIey Ranch project, Tuscany BilIs project, and the associated area. Please
contact Casey Collins, Endangered Species Biologist, or CIU'is Nagano, Chief of our Endangered
Species Division, via electronic mail (Casey_Collins@fivs.gov; CIu'is Nagano@f\vs.gov), at the
letterhead address, or by telephone 916/414-6600 if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
('
~
<::"'.-'----z:(l./iYV
CayC.' ude
.:::::: Assistall <ield Super' r
cc:
Dan Gifford, Califol'l1ia Depaltment ofFish and Game,.Rancho Cordova, California
Dave Haley, Castle and Cooke, Copperopolis, Califol'l1ia
'1
'
Ms. Debra Lewis
Literature Cited
Frankham, R. and K. Ralls. 1998. Inbreeding leads to extinction. Nature 241 :441-442.
Saunders, D.A., RJ. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem
fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5: 18-32.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (SelVice). 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
determination of threatened status for the California tiger salamander; and specialm1e
exemption for existing routine ranching activities; finalmle. Federal Register 69:
47212-47248.
_ _ 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised proposed designation of
critical habitat for the California red-legged fi'og (R(II/a aurora dray/oil b); Final Rule.
Federnl Register 75:12816-12959.
.'.s.
'·I~" A WII,"',"'.:
Iiltn\"IC'J:
United States Department of the Interior
~
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Socrnmento Fish Rnd Wil,llife Office
2800 eottngc WRY, Room W-2605
Soc,omcllto, CRlifomio 95825-1846
In Reply Refer To:
81420-2008-TA-0813
June 30, 2010
t 'I :c ,flVeD
Ms. Darcy Goulart
Calaveras County Planning Department
891 Mountain Ranch Road
San Andreas, California 95249
.llJ I
•
(
(J (l ~ (WI
.,
.!./.! IV"I!
l:i ( ' ( '''Illy
l/ l.I, 1I 1\I" 111\' I), ":: ,I, '! I, " " "I AUlIli1 '\'
( 1111 111(/111[/ t I l'/! " 11,1111/ I I (>DIJ '
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sawmill Lake Specific Plan in
Calaveras County, California (SCH 2008042071)
Deal' Ms. Goulart:
This responds to the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sawmill Lake Specific Plan in
. Calavcras County, California. On June 29, 2010, we were advised that the comment period for
this project has closed, however, we appreciate the willingness of your Department to consider
0\11' comments. At issue are the potcntial adverse effects of the proposed project on the
tlncatened California red-legged frog (R(tJw allrom dmytollii), valley elderberry longh0111 beetle
(DeslI/ocems cali/orlliclls dill/O/pll/(s), threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Brallchillecta
'YIICIIl), endangered vemal pool tadpole shrimp (Lep/dllrlls packardii), Federal and State
endangercd Hartweg's golden sunbmst (Pselldobahia bahii/olia), Federal threatened and State
endangered Chinese Camp brodiaea (Brodiaea pal/ida) endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo
bellii jJllsillllS), and threatened Califomia tiger salamander (AII/bystoma cali/omiellse). The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Selvice (Service) is issuing this Ictter under the aUlhority of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act). Om comments and
recommendations are provided to assist you with your environmental review of the project and
are not intended to preclude futme comments from Selvice.
The comments and recommendations in this letter are based on I) Draft ElIl'irollll/elltal Impllct
Report/or the SlIlVmill Lake Specific Plall (SCH 2008042007J dated April 2010 (draft
environmental impact report); 2) letter from the Selvice to Geoff Thomas regarding the
Califomia red-Icgged frog at the sitc datcd August 30, 2007 (Service liIe 1-\-07-TA-1574); 3)
Biological Resollrce Assessmellt/or ± 243-acre Sa lVII/iii Lake Project Calaveras COllllty,
Cali/omia dated April 18, 2007, that was prepnred by North Fork Associatcs (Biological
Report); 4) Wetland Delilleatioll/or the ±243-Acrea SawlII/II Lake S/lbdivisloll Calavcl'lls
Ms. Darcy Goulart
2
COllllly, Calijomia dated December 13,2007, that was prepared by Northfork Associates; 5)
letter from the Service to Geoff Thomas regarding the Califomia red-legged fi'og and the
Califomia tiger salamander dated July 18,2007 (Service file 1-1-07-TA-1059); and 6) other
information available to the Service.
It is our understanding that the proposed project is a 243-acre mixed-use and residential mastcr
planned community. The applicant has requested the following entitlements from the County of
Calaveras: Amendmcnt of the Calaveras County General Plan, Amendment of the Calaveras
County Zoning Map, Adoption of the Sawmill Lake Specific Plan including the Sawmill Lake
Specific Plan Zoning Regulations, approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a
Development Agreement. The Specific Plan project would consists of a maximum of 800
dwelling nnits within 140 gross acres of mixed-use village center, 7 gross acres of a community
park, and 83 gross acres of opcn spacc.
The habitats at the proposed project include blue oak woodland, blue oak-foothill pine woodland,
annual grassland, and riparian. Four creeks flow into the northeast end ofthe proposed project.
Three of them join Sawmill Creek that becomes a tributary of Black Creek. Pages 7-6 of the
draft environmental impact rep01t states that seasonal wetlands on the site include seeps and
swales. Page 7-7 noted that Waters of the U.S. at the site include seep, wetland swale, marsh,
ephemeral stream, intermittent stream and pond.
Section 9 of the Act prohibits the take of the Califomia red-legged frog, California tiger
salamander, valley elderberry longhom beetle, least Bell's vireo, vemal pool tadpole shrimp, and
the vemal pool fairy shrimp, and other federally listed species by any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States. As defined in the Act, take is defined as "".to harass, harm,
pursue, Imnt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such
conduct." "Harass means an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood
ofinjury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral
patterns which include, but are not limited to breeding, feeding, 01' sheltering." "Harm has been
further defined to include habitat destruction when it injures or kills a listed species by
interfering with essential behavioral pattems, such as breeding, foraging, 01' resting. Thus, not
only are Califol'llia red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, valley elderbeny longhorn
beetle, velllal pool tadpole shrimp, and the vernal pool fairy shrimp protected from such
activities as collecting and hunting, but also from actions that result in its death 01' injury due to
the damage or destrl1ction of its habitat. The Act prohibits activities that "".remove and reduce
to possession any listed plant from areas under Federal juriSdiction; maliciously damage or
destroy any such species on any sllch area; or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any such
species on any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in the
course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law." The tenn "person" is defined as "".an
individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any other private entity; or any officer,
employee, agent, department, 01' instnnnentality of the Federal government, of any State,
numicipality, or political subdivision of a State, or any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States." "Action Area" under the Act are all areas to be affected directly or indirectly
by the Federal action and are not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CPR §
402.02).
Ms. Darcy Goulart
3
Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one oftwo procedures. If a
Federal agency is involved with the permitting, funding, or cal1'ying out of the project and a
listed species is going to be adversely affected, thcn initiation of fOllnal consultation between
that agency and the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act is required. Such consultation would
result in a biological opinion addi'essing the anticipated effects of the project to the listed species
and may authorize a limited level of incidental take. If a Federal agency is not involved in the
project, and federally listed species may be taken as pmt of the project, then an incidental take
pennlt pursuant to section 10(a)(l)(B) ofthe Act should be obtained. The Service may issue
such a permit upon completion of a satisfactory conservatioll plan for the listed species that
would be taken by the project.
Our specific comments on the draft environmental impact report are as follows:
I)' The project, as described in the revised draft environmental impact repOlt, likely will result
in take or adverse effects to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. We recommend that the
Service's Conservation GlIidelines/or the Valley Elderbeny Langham Beetle dated July 9,
1999, be implemented for the proposed project. The County of Calaveras and/or the
applicant should obtain authorization for incidental take of the valley eiderbel1'Y longhorn
beetle via sections 7 01' 10(a)(J )(B) of the Act prior to certification ofthe final environmental
impact report. If the Service authorizes incidental take for this listed animal, we recommend
the County of Calaveras incorporate the Conservation Measures and Reasonable and Prudent
Measures from the biological opinion 01' section 10 permit into the County's grading and
oth~r appropriate pel1'llits. At this time we do not concur with Impact BIO-9 and Mitigation
Measure Bio-9a and BIO-9b of the draft environmental impact repOli. We recommend that
adequate infonnation be provided us for review and approval, including the impacts to this
threatened species and also the specific location for the proposed conservation site for the
elderberry shrubs that are proposed for transplantation. A Service-approved management
plan and in-perpetuity funding for the management of the site based on a Service-approved
PAR should be completed.
.
2) Vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp: We recommend that the Waters of
the U.S. and other wetlands on the proposed project site be assessed for the presence ofthe
threatened vemal pool fairy shrimp and the endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp. If
suitable habitat is present, then surveys following the Service's Illterim SlIrvey Guidelilles to
Perlllittees/or RecovelY Permits IIlIder Sectioll JO(a)(J)(A) a/the Endangered Species Act
/01' the Listed Vemal Pool Brallchiopods dated April 19, 1996, should be completed at the
site. If appropriate, the County of Calaveras and/or/ the applicant should obtain authorization
for incidental take of these listed animals via sections 7 or I O( a)(1 )(B) of the Act prior to
certification of the final envirolllnental impact report. If the Service authorizes incidental
take for these species, we recommend the County of Calaveras incorporate the Conservation
Measures and Reasonable and P11ldent Measures from the biological opinion or section 10
permit into the County's grading and other appropriate permits.
3) California tiger salamander and Califomia red-legged frog: The Service concurred that the
proposed project was not likely to result in take of the California tiger salamander and the
Califomia red-legged frog in our letters dated July 18,2007, and August 30, 2007. However,
Ms. Darcy Goulart
4
survey results are generally valid for two years, therefore, at this time, we do not concur with
Impact BIO·7 and BIO-8 on pages 7·40 and 7-41 of the draft envirolmlental impact repolt.
We recommend that an updated assessment for these two listed species be completed
following the Revised Guidal1ce 011 Site AssesSlllellts alld Field Surveys jor the Califol'llia
Red-legged Frog dated August 2005, and the Il1terim Guidallce Oil Site Assesslllellt alld Field
Surveys jor Deterlllillillg Presellce or a Negative Finding ojthe Califol'llia Tiger Salall/ander
dated October 2003. If appropriate, the County of Calaveras and/or! the applicant should
obtain authorization for incidental take ofthese listed animals via sections 7 or 10(a)(1)(B) of
the Act prior to celtification of the final environmental document. If the Service authorizes
incidental take for these species, we recommend the County of Calaveras incorporate the
Consclvation Measures and Reasonable and Prudent Measures from the biological opinion or
section 10 permit into the County's grading and other appropriate pemlits.
4) Chinese Camp Brodiaea: This federally threatened plant is known only fi'om two
populations in Tuolumne and Calaveras counties. In Calaveras County, the Chinese Camp
brodiaea grows in the channels of two converging intelmittent streams, Sawmill Creek and
Black Creek, in the watershed of the Stanislaus River above Tulloch Reservoir.
Page 7-2 of the draft environmental impact repOlt stated that a focused sUlvey for rare plants
was conducted, and Page 13 of the Biological RepOlt noted that the Chinese Camp brodiaea
was not obSClved along Sawmill Creek in 2002 and 2006. The Biological Report stated that
sUlveys for rare plants at the site were conducted on May 3, June 27, lind October 30, 2002,
and May 30 and 31, 2006. Page 11 of the Biological RepOlt states that the potential for this
federally threatened species to OCCl1\' at the Sawmill Lake site is "Possible. Suitable habitat
occurs along Sawmill Creek." However, page 7-15 of the draft envirOlllllental impact repolt
states that the probability of the Chinese Camp brodiaea on the project site is "Unlikely.
Suitable habitat present on site, but not encountered during rare plant surveys conducted in
appropriate floristic periods of2002, 2006, and 2008." A Selvice-approved focused survey
should be completed for the endangered Chinese Camp brodiaea within the action area to
adequately determine the potential effect of the proposed project on this federally t1ueatened
species. The survey report should include high quality photocopies of the reports on the
floristic sUlveys and the original field notes conducted in 2002, 2006, and 2008,
The proposed proj ect may result in adverse effects to the Chinese Camp brodiaea located
downstream on Sawmill Creek on adjacent properties resulting fi'om changes in hydrology,
such as velocity, inundation times, siltation, erosion, chemical contaminants, such as
herbicides and pesticides, and introduced weeds. Impacts mo-t, BIO-2, and BIO-3 in the
draft environmental impact report discuss the effects of the proposed project on the on-site
wetlands and riparian habitats, but apparently not the effects fluiher dowllstream on Sawmill
Creek. At this time, we do not' concur that they will result in the reduction or elimination of
adverse effects 011 the federally tlu'eatet\ed Chinese Camp brodiaea. We recommend that the
County of Calaveras andlor the applicant analyze the effects of the proposed project on this
listed species resulting from the alterations and impacts to Sawmill Creek, including
downstream of the proposed project, and the infolmation and avoidance measures and
mitigations be provided to us for review and comment.
Ms. Darcy Goulart
5
If there will be adverse effects to the Chinese Camp brodiaea from the proposed project and
there is a Federal permit, funding, or other Federal involvement with this project, the County
of Calaveras andlor the applicant should obtain a biological opinion for the project prior to
certification ofthe final environmental document. If the Service issues a biological opinion
for this federally threatened species, we recommend the County of Calaveras incorporate the
Conservation Measures and Conservation Recommendations fi'om the biological opinion into
the County's grading and other appropriate permits.
5) Hattweg's golden sunburst: This endangered plant is known from the eastem San Joaquin
Valley in Stanislaus, Madera, Merced and Fresno counties. There are documented
OCC11l1'enCeS near Cooperstown in Stanislaus County. Hartweg's golden sunburst grows in
grasslands in the southem pOltion of its range and within the transition zone between
grasslands and blue oak woodland in the northem part of its range. The optimal habitat is the
north to northeast-facing small hills or Mima mounds associated with the upland portion of
vemal pools.
A Service-approved focused survey should be completed for the endangered Hartweg's
golden sunburst within the action area to adequately detelTIline the potential effect of the
proposed project on this endangered species. If there will be adverse effects to this
endangered species from the proposed project and ifthere is a Federal permit, funding, or
other Federal involvement with this project, the County of Calaveras and/or the applicant
should obtain a biological opinion for the project prior to certification ofthe final
environmental document. If the Service issues a biological opinion for Hartweg's golden
sunburst, we recommend the County of Calaveras incorporate the Conservation Measures
and Conservation Recommendations from the biological opinion into the County's grading
and other appropriate permits.
6) Least bell's vireo: We recommend that an adequate survey for the endangered least Bell's
vireo be completed in the action area. The County of Calaveras and/or the applicant should
contact us regarding the proposed survey method prior to its implementation. The written
results should be provided to the Service for review and approval. If appropriate, the County
of Calaveras and/or the applicant should obtain authorization for incidental take of the least
Bell's vireo via sections 7 or lO(a)(l)(B) of the Act prior to certification of the final
environmental impact report. If the Service authorizes incidcntal take for this listed species,
we recommend the County of Calaveras incorporate the Conservation Measures and
Reasonable and Ptudent Measures from the biological opinion or section 10 pelmit into the
County's grading and other appropriate penllits
The Service recommends that the issues regarding potential adverse effects, including indirect
effects, on listed species be resolved prior to celtification of the final environmental document.
The Service is especially concerned about the potential adverse effects ofthe Sawmill Lakc
project, including downstream effects, on the federally threatened Chinese Camp bl'Odiaea. We
are interested in working with the County of Calaveras and the applicant in the resolution of
these issues. Please contact Chris Nagano or Casey Collins at the letterhead address, via
6
Ms. Darcy Goulart
electronic maill (Chris_NagHno@fws.gov; Casey_ Collins@fws.gov), or at telephone 916/414·
6600 if you have any questions regarding this response on the draft environmental impact report
for the Draft Ellvirollmelltal impact Report for the Sawmill Lake Specific Plall.
Sincerely,
.FI.
t~j\fv- ").?::[" /'D
Cay C. ,0 de
(
.:::::::- Assistant ·ield Supervis I'
Endangcred Species Program
cc:
Kent Smith, Armand Gonzalez, Dan Gifford, California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho
Cordova, California
Kathy Norton, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California
ENTOF FISH
GAME
JoIIIl McCammall,
DI/~ctor
Central Region
1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
(916) 356-2900
hUp:/Iwww.dfg.ca.gov
June 10, 2010
Darcy Goulart, Planner III
Calaveras County Planning Department
891 Mountain Ranch Road
San Andreas, CA 95249
Dear Ms.Goulart:
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for the proposed Sawmill Lake Specific Plan (SCH#2008042071). The
project consists of a plan to develop a Residential Master Plan Community on 243 acres
that are currently zoned as Natural Resources and Agricultural Preserve. The preferred
alternative includes 800 homes, recreational facilities, a village center, community park,
and open space areas. The project is located near Copperopolis, in Calaveras County.
Wildlife habitat resources consist of a large area of oak woodland and grassland habitat.
Significant natural resources include Sawmill Lake, as well as, Sawmill Creek which
traverses the project site.
Although the DEIR discusses the project's Impacts to oaks and oak woodland habitat, and
finds the project will have a significant affect on these resources, it fails to provide
adequate mitigation for the loss of over 8000 oak trees. Important details of mitigation
intended to off-set the loss of oak habitat Is left unresolved and deferred until after the
project's adoption. The following are our specific concerns and recommendations:
Mitigation Measure BI0-6b:
In order to reduce impacts to oaks and oak woodlands the DEIR proposes to place a
conservation easement over nearby oak woodland habitat and provide "administration and
management" of the easement by a suitable third party, in perpetuity. However, the DEIR
does not mention how administration and management will be funded .
We recommend that the DEIR be revised to include a funding mechanism for management
and monitoring of conservation easements established as mitigation for the loss of oaks
and oak woodland habitat. Also, the DEIR should provide a list of potential third party
entities that are willing to accept management responsibilities.
Mitigation Measure BI0-6c:
The DEIR states that within 30 days of approval of the Specific Plan the applicant will
record a conservation easement, or other mechanism, within either the Copper Valley
project area or an alternative site located In the same geographic area. We are concerned
that by deferring Important considerations like the manner of the conservation mechanism,
or the terms and conditions of conservation easement language, or the location of
Conserving Ca[ijornia's WiUCifeSince 1870
Ms. Goulart
2
June 10, 2010
alternative mitigation sites (Including size, habitat value, incompatible land uses, etc.) the
current mitigation measure may ultimately be infeasible.
We recommend that the DEIR be revised so that the location, size, and habitat values of
the mitigation site and any alternative sites are Identified and, the means of conserving the
mitigation site has been established (i.e. accepted by the County and the DFG) prior to
project approval.
This project will have an impact to fish and/or wildlife habitat. Assessment of fees under
Public Resources Code Section 21089 and as defined by Fish and Game Code Section
711.4 is necessary. Fees are payable by the project applicant upon filing of the Notice of
Determination by the lead agency.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092 and 21092.2, the DFG requests
written notification of proposed actions and pending decisions regarding this project.
Written notifications should be directed to this office.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If the DFG can be of further
assistance, please contact Mr. Dan Gifford, Staff Environmental Scientist, at
(209) 369-8851 or, Mr. Jeff Drongesen, telephone (916) 358-2919.
Sincerely,
J~~
Jeff Drongesen
Acting Environmental Program Manager
ec.
Jeff Drongesen
Dan Gifford
Department of Fish and Game
North Central Region
jdronges@dfg.ca.gov
dgifford@dfg.ca.gov
Arnold Roessler
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2800 Cottage Way, Room W2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1800
CCllt1'a1 Sicl'ra Ellyil'olllllclltal Rcsoul'cc CClltCI'
Box 3% • Twain Ilal'lc, ell. 95363 • (?09) 566-70140' FII.X (?09) SIl6-'1986
\ h it ~n' r "tI' llt e ~ I : \I IHI.unf.'" i!
Apri I 28, 2011
Darcy Goulart, Planner III
Calaveras County Govemment Center
891 Mountain Ranch Rcl.
San Anclreas, CA 95249
RE:
Ot ((Inl ~ ( 1
"I :II: joh" lo ii(lc lt.OI!l
MAY
2 7.011
Caluvo'", <;o unly
COllllllulllly I) c'V ( :1, 'p!1l0nI I\OOIlGY
[llIlIlIclln(J l_I I'IOliClifl(j I .'
ass
SAWMILL LAKE RE-CIRCULATED EIR
Dear Darcy,
The revisecl EIR contains revisions ancl Information relatecl to a new traffic slucly ancl a revisecl
traffic impacts section. This 2010 analysis replaces the stucly incluclecl in the April, 2010 EIR.
From our unclerstancling the project itself ancl the key finclings have not substantially changecl,
however, new mitigation measures have been incluclecl to aclclress some of the traffic impacts.
These measures inclucle the applicant funcling ancl constructing tum lanes, raisecl meclians ancl
a bike lane on Litlle John Roacl.
While these improvements to the original proposal arc positive, the ElR still finds that the
project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to O'Bymes Ferry Roacl at Lake
Tulloch briclge. Regardless of the project paying its "fail' share" of Improvements for these
roaclway segments, the roadway improvements have not been designecl or partially funclecl by
other sources ancl there is no plan In place to actually Implement them. For this reason, the
l'evisecl ElR lists Implementation of Project Altematives 2 ancl 3 (reclesigning the project) as
potential mitigation measures that may recluce the magnltucle of the impacts.
CSERC recommends that the applicant ancl County sedously evaluate other aitematives (in
adclition to the Iimitecl measures now proposed) to not only reduce traffic impacts, but also to
recluce the negative effects to oak woodlancls, biological resources, ail' quality, water quality
ancl water resources.
Because the latest clocumenl focuses primarily upon traffic, there is still no adequate
environmental analysis or adequate mitigation for many of the significant impacts that we
previously spelled out in our earlier comments. As we statecl in our previous leiteI', the EIR
cloes not aclequately 0" sedously consiclel' the project altematives in any clepth. As presented in
Alternative 2 (Reduced Project Size-Mixed Use), some level of reduced intensity and magnitude
may be appropriate for the site. This alternative would still provide a mixed-use housing
development but with a reduced footprint and greater preservation of open space. Yet even
though this could meet the majority of project objectives, it is not given as detailed an
assessment 01' consideration as the proposed action.
d
It is highly problematic that the revised EIR does not address any of the major planning and
legal concern.s that ~ur Center identified during the original circulation of the document and
comment period. There is still time for the County to work with the applicant prior to release of
. the Final ElR to redesign the project and draft additional mitigation measllt'e that could reduce
'il~elevel of environilie~lt;;i l'l\pacts and reduce what is now cedain to be a legally flawed
environmental document. We again urge the County to more fully address the following key
issues ill the Final ElR:
Inadequate General Plan
The County's current existing General plan suffers from numerous deficiencies that are
currently being addressed during the General Plan update process. Accordingly, this project
application for a large development ill the Copperopolis area is premature and should not be
evaluated or analyzed for impacts and consistency with County policies until the General Plan
Update process is completed -- with the revised General Plan adopted by the County and
certified by the state. As specific plans are subordinate to General Plans, a specific plan cannot
be approved if a General Plan is legally deficient. No project of this scale shou Id move forward
until such legal deficiencies are addressed.
Agricultural Resources
The ElR does not provide an evaluation of impacts to agriclliturallands specifically for the site,
which would result in the conversion of nearly 200 acres of agricultUl'allands to residential and
commercial land llses. It also does not adequately address cumulative impacts to agriculture
that tie to the previous project by the applicants, this project, the Oak Canyon Ranch project
across the street, the Saddle Creek project, the Tuscany Hills project, and other projects
approved by the County is this vicinity. Furtherlllore, conversion of this land would almost
certainly result in further growth inducement and further pressure to develop additional
agricultural lands in the general vicinity.
Biological Resou1'ces
The ElR does not provide adequate mitigation for a number of significant impacts to biological
resources. We again strongly recommend that the County planning staff require a greater
degree of protection for these valuable resources. The huge loss of oak woodland is unnecessary
and significant, regardless of the plans to give some long-term easement protection to existing
oak woodland nearby. The fact is that a huge number of oaks and acres of oak woodland will be
destroyed. Mitigation can reduce the extent of that loss by working with the project site,
creating building envelopes to avoid oaks, adjusting roads to avoid oaks, and otherwise
minimizing oak losses. Rathel' than remove all natural vegetation frolll the developed areas of
2
the site, CSERC urges the Coullty to require the developers to retain as much natmal vegetation
and oak trees as possible within the development footprint.
We also urge the County' to consult with the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) regarding
measures to protect pond turtles and then complete the Pond Turtle Habitat Management Plan
prior to finalizing the EIR. This will ensure that adequate mitigation measures are incorporated
and that the public is given the opportunity to comment on adequacy or inadequacy of the plan
in the time period prior to approval of the project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The uncertainty of futme water allocations for the Copperopolis area should be evaluated much
more closely and thoroughly in the EIR, given the cUlTent urban and agricultural demands on
wate,' throughout the state of California, combined with increasing cOlicel'lls regarding flows to
maintain sensitive fisheries, and a steadily decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack. This is tl'llly
an issue that will draw legal scrutiny. CCWD has already promised to serve a vast number of
lots that are not yet constl'llcted, but are already legally approved. The cumulative amount of
existing vacant lots and approved lots must be fully analyzed and described along with a clear
assessment of what the true capacity of CCWD is dlll'ing drought periods, etc.
We also urge the County to require additional measures to absorb and store storm water runoff
and reduce runoff from the impervious ~urfaces on the project site. While the project
description states that such measures may be used in the design of the project, these should be
explicitly described in the project description or reqUired as mitigation and conditions of
approval to ensure implementation.
Ail' Quality
As dearly stated in the EIR, the County has continuously failed to meet state ail' quality,
standards for particulate matter and ozone: The addition of these pollutants to an air basin that
already exceeds safe levels canl\dt be considered less than significant, particularly in a County
where senior citizens and the elderly, considered "sensitive receptors" comprise a large
percentage of the population. The EIR needs to fully consider the fact that the County already
exceeds the threshold. Thus any additional pollution generated. by the project adds to an
existing significant environmental problem. CSERC debates the claim that the Sawmill Lake·
project can be mitigated to reduce the Significance to a level that is acceptable.
Additionally, the EIR does not provide adequate analysis and mitigation for the introduction of
other air pollutants of concel'll such as asbestos, nitrogen oxides, toxins associated with diesel
exhaust and carbon mo',10xide. A more comprehensive analysis of options for reducing these
pollutants should be carefully described in the FEIR or re-circulated DSEIR.
Growth Inducement
With expanded facilities built to provide for the Sawmill Lake project, infrastructure barriers
will be removed for the next project application. This exp,lIlsion 01' extension of infrastructure is
3
a classic definition of growth inducement. The EIR discussion of growth inducing impacts
should be expanded to include a more thorough discussion of these potential impacts, as well as
consideration of reasonable mitigation measures to reduce the significance
of the impact.
,
Mitigation Monitoring
The E1R does not provide the public with adequate information regarding the implementation
of the proposed mitigation measures. The E1R must describe how each mitigation measure will
be monitored and what mechanism will trigger its implementation. Each mitigation discussion
should include clear information as to what entity is responsible for the measltre and the timing
of implementation.
GHG Emissions
The Statehas made it c1eaJ_ that AB 32 is going to be implemented and that counties will b,,resp-o)lsible for reduci!}g_GHG emissions to PJl'iUevels, not increasing emissionsJo higher
levels. CSERC believes that this alone will be the key legal flaw that will cause this project to
fail if there is not an adequaJe detailed calculated anaJ.l'sis of all GHG emissions directly and
indirectly generated by a full project atjmild-out, with accompan),ing information describing
how mitigation measures can reduce the magnitude of that additional GHG emissions by at
least 50% or greater, if not 75% or more. Calaveras County is asking for a legal challenge if it
fails to move towards the very clear, very strOl}g_direction from the State Whetl it comes to
considering_llPl1l'Oval for major projects that will significantl)' inS~ease, not decrease, GHG
elnissiQ~lS.
Please notify us of any and all opportlmities to provide fmther input conceming this project or
any policies 01' actions tied to this proposed action.
Respectfully,
Rebecca Cremeen, planning specialist
4
Central Sierra Environmental Resolll'ce Center
Box 396 • Twoin I-i orlc, CA 95383 • (209) 586-7440 ' FA X (209) 586-4986
\ hil .. II~ '" I"i l ~ ~ I '" .",.nffl".•,, ~
"r fO, ,, ' ~(I 'I' al : j ulo,,"" n trr.Of!!:
RE c r·:r\!i-o
-
June 1, 2010
..
JUN
Darcy Goulart, Planner III
Calaveras County Planning Department
891 Mountain Ranch Rd.
San Andreas, CA 95249
.. I
'-
2 20 10
Culovaros County
COlTllTlunily Devolopment /\genc y
Building 0 Planning 0 ass
o
Re: SAWMILL LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR
CSERC provides this letter listing numerous serious concerns regarding the Sawmill Lake
proposal that would result in yet another large development project in the Copperopolis
area. To begin with, processing and consideration of this proposed development conflicts
with the current effort by Calaveras County to complete a comprehensive update to its
General Plan. Some in favor of this development will point enthusiastically to the adjacent
property with its newly constructed "town center" and claim that residential and mixed use
should certainly be allowed in close proximity to the existing Castle and Cooke investment.
Yet the current existing Calaveras County General Plan is both legally inadequate and
sadly out of date and thus it cannot be a valid basis for approving such a major project at
this time.
No matter how strongly certain County supervisors or business leaders may favor another
large project approved adjacent to Castle and Cooke's "town center" development, this
application is immediately burdened with the acknowledged legal deficiencies of the
existing Calaveras County General Plan. The Sawmill Lake proposal is being broughl
forward prematurely -- before County residents and County decision-makers have the
chance to form the basic planning groundwork of a completed General Plan Update and
to bring the County's General Plan into legal compliance.
Also of major concern, this project, combined with other projects (including those
previously approved in the area, but not yet constructed), will result in significant,
unavoidable environmental impacts that will forever change the rural character of the
project area as we)) as this general portion of the County. Construction of the four phases
of Sawmill Lake will denude large areas of the landscape and remove significant amounts
of oak woodland vital to wildlife (despite the mitigation to protect other existing oaks to
supposedly make up for the significant loss of oaks on this site). In addition, because so
much other development has already been approved based upon promises by CCWD to
provide water, this latest large-scale development may also create unsustainable demands
for water.
To expand upon these legal points and concerns, CSERC provides the following specific
comments:
THE EXISTING, CURRENT COUNTY GENERAL PLAN IS INADEQUATE
1. The County's current existing General plan suffers from numerous deficiencies that
are currently being addressed during the General Plan update process.
Accordingly, this project application for a large development in the Copperopolis
area is premature and should not be evaluated or analyzed for impacts until the
General Plan process is completed -- with the revised General Plan adopted by the
County and certified by the state. As specific plans are subordinate to General
Plans, a specific plan cannot be approved if a General Plan is legally deficient. No
project of this scale should move forward until such legal deficiencies are addressed.
2. In 2007, legal counsel for CSERC provided a very detailed letter to the County,
spelling out the specific legal deficiencies of the existing General Plan and
emphasizing that new development projects would be legally vulnerable if they
relied upon the inadequate current plan. After that time, the director of the
Calaveras County Community Development Department stood before the Board of
Supervisors and openly acknowledged that the existing General Plan did not/ does
not currently meet State requirements. In part, due to her clarity on that point, the
Board chose to move forward with the General Plan Update process in order to not
only update the obsolete General Plan, but also to bring it up to minimum State
standards and requirements. As part of these Sawmill Lake comments, CSERC
submits a copy of that November 2007 letter from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger
because the legal problems identified with the General Plan at that time have still
not yet been corrected.
3. Approval of a major development project at this time, especially as the update
process is actually moving towards an end product, will limit options for Calaveras
County residents and County decision-makers. It is essential that new land use
designations or major growth-inducing, open space-consuming projects be held in
abeyance until the General Plan Update process is complete. Only then can County
decision-makers have confidence that any major development project approval will
be consistent with the direction and policies of that revised General Plan.
4. As just one of its numerous legal deficiencies, the current General Plan fails to set
population density standards as required by state law. Although it may be the
desire of some influential members of the Copperopolis community to expand
development in the area significantly, the Copperopolis Community Plan has yet to
be evaluated under the General Plan update. The potential environmental impacts
associated with this level of growth must legally be evaluated on a comprehensive
General Plan leveL rather than the piecemeal project-level review that continues to
occur, particularly in the Copperopolis area. The Sawmill Lake EIR contains no
discussion of the allo'wable densities under the current General Plan designations for
the site because these standards do not exist in the General Plan. Because these
standards do not exist, there is no baseline for evaluation of the impacts of the
proposed population densities that would result from build-out of this project.
5. Building intensity standards are also lacking from the current General Plan. In
particular, these are not defined for commercial areas, as required by law. Given the
lack of building intensity standards in the General Plan, the environmental impacts
of the commercial component of this project cannot be adequately evaluated. While
some may argue that this specific problem is relatively minor in nature, the real
problem is that the cumulative effects of multiple deficiencies compound the legal
deficiencies of the General Plan.
6. A representative of Castle and Cooke recently communicated with CSERC staff that
the already consh'ucted "town center" development cannot stand on its own
economically at the present time. He said that the development "needs rooftops"
with residents to shop and sustain the businesses in the "town center". CSERC
recognizes that with the current moderately severe economic instability and with a
low level of shopping by traveling consumers, an expensive development such as
the Copper "town center" certainly needs local area residents in order to reap profits.
But despite the perceived need to sustain the "town center" it is not the charge of
Calaveras County to ensure that speculative development by Castle and Cooke or
any developer is profitable. It is part of the uncertainty of speculative development
that the economy will ebb and flow. Unfortunately, the decision to move ahead and
construct the marketed "town center" coincided with the recession. That does not
justify the County rushing to prematurely approve the Sawmill Lake project under a
legally inadequate General Plan to attempt to aid the floundering town center
project.
LAND USE AND PLANNING CONFLICTS
The EIR inappropriately bases its evaluation of land use impacts on the assumption that
the draft Copperopolis Community Plan will be adopted. In Table 12-1, it states that the
Sawmill lake project is consistent with a number of General Plan policies that promote
community-centered growth. In particular, the EIR states that the project is consistent with
GP policy II-4A that focuses growth in existing community centers. Because the
Copperopolis Community Plan has yet to be incorporated into the General Plan and
adopted, this project cannot be said to be consistent with an existing community center.
The county-wide impacts of the Copperopolis Community Plan and the biological impacts
of adopting its land use designations and zoning have yet to be evaluated; therefore,
references to community centered growth for communities that do not yet exist (or have
not been approved) are premature.
AGRICUL TIJRAL RESOURCES ARE INADEQUATELY EVALUATED
1.
The Initial Study that was prepared by the County discounts impacts to
agriculturallands as "less than significant" without further discussion and
evaluation in the EIR. The Initial study also incorrectly states that the project would
not conflict with existing agricultural zoning despite the fact that the majority of the
site is zoned for agriculture. This by itself is a major flaw in the document. While
the ErR contains a cursory discussion of cumulative impacts to agricultural lands,
the EIR does not provide an evaluation of impacts to agricultural lands specifically
for the site, which would result in the conversion of nearly 200 acres of agricultural
lands to residential and commercial land uses.
2. The Cumulative Impacts section of the EIR limits the geography for cumulative
impacts to the Copperopolis area. The loss of agricultural lands is a countywide and
statewide issue and should be presented as such -- at the very least, on a countywide
basis. The preservation of agricultural lands is important for many reasons:
preserving working landscapes, open space, visual quality, maintaining the rural
character of the County, and preserving important wildlife corridors for numerous
species.
3. Although the project site may not be considered "high value" agricultural land, it is
nonetheless designated and zoned for agricultural use. The fact that it is in close
proximity to water gives the property even higher agricultural value than many
other dry land parcels. Furthermore, conversion of this land would almost certainly
result in pressure to develop additional agricult1.1l'allands in the general vicinity. A
full evaluation of potential impacts to agricultural lands should be provided in the
EIR.
4. As part of that evaluation, CSERC asks that the EIR list the number of already
existing vacant parcels in the County that now have potential for residential
development of at least onc home or more. Then CSERC asks that the ErR identify
how many of those already existing vacant parcels available for residential
development are parcels that either are now agricultural parcels or directly adjacent
to agricultural parcels. That information will assuredly show that a huge number of
vacant residential parcels already exist in the County, far exceeding any projected
need for the next decade. Furthermore, that information will show that agricultural
lands are already going to be sh'essed by residential development on existing
parcels. Thus, adding the 200 acres of this site would cumulatively be that much
more significant of an impact on agriculture. Completion of the Housing Element
and the General Plan Update will give the County a better idea of housing needs
and facilitate better decision-making when or if the County considers a finding of
overriding consideration that would be necessary for this project.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Pond turtles threatened
1. The project would have a potentially significant impact on the western pond turtle.
Although the EIR acknowledges that there may be impacts to the turtle, potential
mitigation measures have been crafted prior to conducting any protocol level
surveY". Consultation with the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) regarding
measures to protect the turtles should occur and the mentioned Western Pond Turtle
Habitat Management Plan should be completed before the EIR is finalized to give
the f'ublic an opportunity to comment on the measures and the study results.
2. There is no mention of impacts of potential traffic mortality to the pond turtle nor is
there consideration of options to reduce this threat. For instance, migration culverts
specifically designed for safe turtle passage could be built under roads. Also flashing
or other kinds of fencing could be installed to direct turtles away from the road and
towards the turtle movement culverts.
3. Surveys for pond turtles should encompass not only the lake, but also surveys
should be done along the intermittent streams and in wetlands since there is a
substantial amount of development proposed adjacent to these habitat areas, with
relatively narrow setbacks.
4. The proposed dam improvements would likely involve the relocation of turtles,
with collection of the turtles proposed for July. As described in the Biological
Resource Assessment, turtles will begin laying eggs in July and August, so if dam
construction occurs in September and October, the turtles will be laying their eggs in
a new location that may be inferior habitat. This could result in a high rate of
mortality and in the loss of an entire generation of turtles. Relocated turtles are also
much more susceptible to predation and other forms of mortality which is not
accounted for in the discussion. Timing of relocation needs to be re-evaluated and
approved by DFG before the ErR is approved. Other impacts to the turtle need to be
given more detailed analysis in the EIR.
5. Mitigation measure Bio-l0d needs to be expanded and should include monitoring of
turtle population demographics before, during, and 3 years after final project
completion to truly determine impacts to turtle populations.
6. The EIR needs to describe development and disturbance setbacks from turtle
populations once surveys are completed. These setbacks should be determined
sufficient by DFG.
7. Turtles can lay eggs up to '12 mile from the nearest water source, although most nests
occur within 300 feet of water. Because the proposed project would result in trails,
roads, residential and commercial development within turtle habitat, significant
impacts would likely result from this project.
8. Current failure by the EIR to consider all potential impacts to the western pond
turtle and insufficient mitigation measures described for consideration end up
resulting in the potential for the project to cause a significant negative impact to
turtles. CSERC recommends that the EIR acknowledge that significant impacts to the
turtle would occur unless the project is redesigned. Additional off-site mitigation
that protects similar pond turtle habitat should be required to reduce impacts to a
less than significant level.
Oak Woodlands
1. Implementalion of this project as presently designed would result in the potential
removal of more than 8,000 oak trees over 104 acres, with the impacts discussion in
the EIR assuming that all oaks outside those areas designated for open space would
be lost or damaged. Rather than remove all natural vegetation from the developed
areas of the site, CSERC urges the County to require the developers to retain as
much natural vegetation and oak trees as possible within the development footprint.
This could be accomplished by reducing the number of lots, clustering home sites,
and defining building envelopes on the larger residential lots so as to retain mature
oaks. Retention of some oaks on residential lots would undoubtedly enhance
property values by providing a natural aesthetic ambiance as well as shade in a very
hot climate, and would also serve to retain some wildlife habitat value.
Furthermore, retention of native vegetation would result in naturally landscaped
areas that require little to no irrigation. Retention of oaks within the developed area
would lessen the degree of impact to biological resources, aesthetics, and water
supply.
2. The project proposes off-site preservation of oak woodlands as mitigation for
removal of oaks on the project site. However it is unclear which third party entity
would administer the proposed conservation easement. To ensure that there is a
realistic mechanism for long-term preservation of those mitigation woodlands, the
ErR should provide information as to what options will be selected for the
administration of a conservation easement by a land trust.
3. Regardless of the establishment of a conservation easement on nearby agricultural
lands, the loss of over 100 acres of mature oak woodlands resulting from
development of this site would be a be a tragic loss to the County and a significant
impact. Simply because existing oaks someplace else are given protection, the loss
of oaks on the project site cannot be considered to be insignificant.
Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources
The Cumulative Impacts section of the EIR acknowledges that the project would add to
the cumulative degradation of biological resources and finds that these impacts would
be Significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures CUM-4a through 4e recommend
that the County adopt a number of policies and standards that protect biological
resources through adoption of a Biological Resources Preservation Ordinance or
amendments to the General Plan.
These suggested measures underscore the need for the County to address the
cumulative impacts to biological resources at the General Plan level. Without a clear
inventory of resources valued for protection and without programs in place to gUide
development, the County can only react to proposals that are brought forth.
Addressing these important issues is imminent and critical prior to processing any large
projects that will continue to cumulatively degrade the natural environment.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Water Supply
1. While the ErR discussion asserts that CCWD has sufficient water rights to serve the
project, there is no discussion of potential impediments to expanding the existing
agreement from the State Water Board for further river diversions. While the Water
Supply Assessment does acknowledge that there is a degree of uncertainty as to the
impacts of state and federal laws on future allocations, there is no discussion of this
in the EIR. In reality, CCWD has already promised water for projects beyond the
assured capacity of the District. The uncertainty of future water allocations for the
Copperopolis area should be evaluated more closely and thoroughly in the EIR,
given the current urban and agricultural demands on water throughout the state of
California, combined with increasing concerns regarding flows to maintain sensitive
fisheries, and a steadily decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack.
2. The issue of water supply is of critical importance to the entire region and should be
closely evaluated under the General Plan Update prior to approval of large scale
developments such as this proposed project. The Water Supply Assessment notes
that the SWRCB Order 97-05 requires the District to obtain an order from the
SWRCB prior to delivering more than 6,000 afa in the Copper Cove service area.
During debate over the already approved Oak Canyon Ranch development with its
massive water demand, CCWD representatives assured county decision-makers that
although they might not have enough water available currently to provide for full
build-out of the Oak Canyon Ranch project, they were confident that they could get
expanded water rights by showing the demand. Yet as has been proven often in the
past, actions and decisions by the State Water Board cannot be consistently
predicted when it comes to awarding additional water to a water district. 11ms,
there is no evidence that CCWD actually can guarantee that water will be available
to provide not only for full build-out for all the development that CCWD has
already promised to serve, but for the Sawmill Lake project at full build-out as well.
Yet CCWD assumes that the SWRCB will grant them additional water supply from
the Stanislaus River.
This is not the way that CEQA requires information to be ascertained. It is not
sufficient for a water supply district to guess what the State Water Board will do in
some still-to-be-determined time period on the matter of water rights for CCWD.
Instead, CEQA requires that accurate information relative to environmental issues
be prOVided. In this situation, given that CCWD has already promised to deliver
water to an already approved massive Oak Canyon Ranch project as well as a host
of other partially build out projects in the Copperopolis area, the ErR should fully
acknowledge that CCWD does not at this time have assured capacity to provide all
the water needed by Sawmill Lake at full build-out if all other projects move
forward as planned. This is a significant impact that should further add to the
County delaying any approval for such a big project. The EIR cannot rely upon a
Water Supply Assessment that does not spell out fully what CCWD has already
promised to supply to all previous developments.
Water Quality/Drainage
1. As described in the ElR, the significant amount of storm water runoff generated
from the site has the potential to degrade and cause "down cutting" along certain
reaches of Sawmill Creek. Mitigation proposed to address this issue consists of
complicated geomorphic-based bank stabilization measures. While this may serve
to reduce the impacts from increased runoff once it reaches the stream banks,
additional measures should be taken to absorb and store storm water runoff and
reduce runoff from the impervious surfaces on the project site.
2. Designing the site to incorporate a greater amount of permeable surfaces would be
one way to address the issue of increased runoff. The installation of permeable
pavers is one technique that is being used in many innovative development projects.
Additional Low Impact Development (LID) techniques should be incorporated into
the project to provide natural percolation and water conservation and reduce the
need for storm water retention basins. Examples of such measures include roof rain
catchments that could be used for landscaping and natural drainage swales along
roadways that would reduce the amount of excess water going to the lake. This
would also provide for filtration of pollutants from the roadways. The EIR should
address these points raised in this letter and respond to the suggested mitigation
measures.
3. When storm water retention basins are used, these should be naturally vegetated to
provide habitat for waterfowl and to replace wetland areas that will be removed.
While the project description states that such measures may be used in the design of
the project, these should be explicitly described in the project description or required
as mitigation and conditions of approval to ensure implementation.
AIR QUALITY
1. As dearly stated in the EIR, the County has continuously failed to meet state air
quality standards for particulate matter and ozone. The EIR states that the County
has an attainment deadline of 2009 and that the County is working with the state
and the local APCD's to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet this
attainment deadline. Since the time that this section was drafted, this deadline has
passed, and the County still has not met attainment standards. This further
underscores the need to address the existing problem on the General Plan level
before approving another large development project. The Final ErR should include
timely, current information regarding the County's attainment status for ozone,
particulate matter, and all other air quality standards.
2. The EIR acknowledges on Page 6-5 that an increase in population and construction
activity associated with a project of this scale would exacerbate already existing poor
air quality:
"A larger population, travelling a greater number of miles per year(VMT),
congestion, increased cOllstruction and grading activity, and heavier truck traffic all
contribute to poor regio11al ail' quality, especially with respect to pm'ficulate matter
(PM1O and PM2.5)."
3. The negative health affects of ozone are well known. High ozone levels contribute
to many respiratory ailments, immune system deficiencies, and arc damaging to the
natural and built environment as described on Page 6-7:
"Ozo11e is a powelful oxidant-it call be compared to llOusellOld bleach, which can kill
living cells (such as gerllls 01' /zuman skin cells) lIpOIl Call tact. Ozone call damage the
respiratory tract .. . Exposure to levels of ozone above tile CUI'1'C/1t a1llbient air quality
standards leads to IUllg inflammation and lung tissue damage, mzd a rcdllcliOiI of ail'
inhaled into the lungs. Recent evidence has, for tile first tillie, lillked the ollset of
asthma to exposure to elevated ozone levels in exercising cllildrell. Elevated ozolle
concentratiolls also reduce crop and till/bel' yields, da1llage native plants, and dall1age
materials sllcll as rubber, paints, falJrics, aud plastics (California Ail' Resources Board
and Americall Lung Associatioll of Califol'llia, 2004)."
4. Particulate matter is also associated with a number of health concerns. Page 6-11
and 12 of the ElR describe some of the negative health effects, particularly to
sensitive populations:
"Although particulate matter can cause llealth problems for everyone, certaiu people
are especially vuinemb/e to adverse healtll effects of PMlO. These "sCllsitive
populations" include children, tile elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from
chrollic IUllg disease such as asthma or bronchitis ... Premature deaths linked to
particulate matter are /lOW at levels cOlllpamb/e to deaths froll1 traffic accidents and
secolld-hmld smoke ... A recellt study provides evidence that exposure to particulate
air pollution is associated willi/ling cancer."
5. The addition of these pollutants to an air basin that already exceeds safe levels
cannot be considered less than significant, particularly in a County where senior
citizens and the elderly, considered "sensitive receptors" comprise a large
percentage of the population. We re-state this for emphasis. The addition of these
pollutants to an air basin that already exceeds safe levels cannot be considered less
than Significant, particularly in a County where senior citizens and the elderly,
considered "sensitive receptors" comprise a large percentage of the population. The
EIR needs to fully consider the fact that the County already exceeds the threshold.
Thus any additional pollution generated by the project adds to an already significant
environmental problem.
6. The ErR provides an inadequate discussion of the potential impacts of Nitrogen
oxides (NOx), another pollutant of concern. For instance, Table 6-3 of the EIR
utilizes background data taken from a site in Yosemite National Park, over 100 miles
away, to demonstrate that thresholds in the vicinity of the project site have not been
exceeded for NOx. What occurred in Yosemite Park is totally irrelevant to this
project site and Calaveras County. A more appropriate site, near a population
center and closer geographically, should be used for this analysis. If another more
aggrogriate data source is not available, this deficiency and lack of imgortant data
should be acknowledged in the E1R.
7. Page 6-15 of the E1R acknowledges that naturally occurring asbestos is commonly
found in ultramafic rocks, which are commonly found within the Foothill fault
system occurring in western Calaveras County. The ErR fails, however to tell us
whether or not that rock type occurs on the project site or whether the I1roiect has
the potential to disturb rock that may contain asbestos. Furthermore, t le ErR does
not discuss the gotential air quality impacts that may result from that material being
brought in and used for paving or other activities on the project site. This should be
corrected in the EIR.
8. There are a number of toxic air contaminants that could be generated from the
project and these are discussed on Pages 6-21 through 6-27. A number of these are
generated from diesel exhaust:
"Diesel exhaust and many individual substances conlail1ed in il ... have tile polmlial
10 contribute to l1Iutations in cells that can lead to cancer .. . Exposure to diesel.
exhaust can have immediate health effecls. Diesel exhaust can irritate tlie eyes, nose,
throat and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness and
nausea.,. Diesel engines are a major source offim-parlicle pollution."
The massive amount of earthmoving and construction associated with this project
will require the use of heavy equipment that is powered by diesel fuel. The air
quality section does not include discussion of the specific health impacts. Nowhere
in this E1R are the potential health impacts from exposure to diesel exhaust
discussed. Mitigation measures should also be included to address this issue.
9. Page 6-33 of the EIR states that the Mountain Counties Air Basin (MCAB) has
identified four pollutants of Concern that are found in increasing amounts in
Calaveras County; ozone, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. It further states
that these pollutants "can be the cause of a variety of health problems, along with
crop and material damage".
The ErR then goes on to acknowledge that the County has no stated goals or
objectives that address air quality. The clear deficiency in the General Plan relative
to air quality further underscores the need to postpone any further approval of new
development until these county-wide issues are resolved in a comgrehensive
manner though policy development in the General Plan.
10. The CCAPD lists carbon monoxide as an "unclassified" pollutant in Table 6-10. An
unclassified pollutant indicates that the data are incomplete. Previously, on Page 633, ozone was identified as a pollutant of concern in Calaveras County. It is unclear
how this state designation relates to the County's listing of the pollutant as a
concern.
11. The significance criteria discussion on page 6-38 through 6-41 presents thresholds
for determining whether or not a project would have a significant impact on air
quality:
"According to the CEQA guidelines, a project could have a poteutially sigllific!1I1t air
quality impact on the envirOllmellt if it would ... result in a cu/lllllatively considerable
net illcrease of allY criteria pollutant for which the project region is in/lOll-attainme1lt
under Federal or State standards."
This is pivotally important. CSERC asserts that once a project has been found by the
state to be non-attainment, any major addition of these pollutants would be a
significant cumulative impact. Therefore, approval of the Sawmill lake project would
have a significant air quality impact whether or not it is shown to produce the level
of pollutants provided on page 6·39.
12. Table 6-23 shows that full build out of the project would result in exceedance of the
significance level for ROG emissions of 10 tons per year. Mitigation measures AQ2a-2f would then supposedly reduce the project emissions at build-out to a level of
insignificance. In reviewing Appendix III of the Air Quality report, it is unclear
what inputs for "smart growth principles" were used in the URBEMIS model to
reduce emissions under the mitigated versus unmitigated project scenarios.
Numerous other statistical judgments chosen by the consultant to reduce the
emissions levels of the project are not clearly rationalized nor shown in a fashion
that reveals how the assumptions were judged. In the final EIR, it is essential to
provide a clear discussion of how emissions would be reduced to a level of
insignificance by incorporating "smart growth principles" or by taking other actions.
Instead of simply dropping emissions levels, there needs to be clarification of exactly
how lowered emissions levels were calculated so the public has the opportunity to
refute or support those assumptions.
13. Section 15126.4(A) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the discussion of mitigation
measures ... "shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed by project
proponents to be included in the project and other measures proposed by the lead,
responsible or trustee agency ... " It should be clearly shown in the ElK whether the
mitigation measures proposed to reduce air quality impacts are a component of the
project proposed by the applicants or whether these will be required by the County
as a condition of approval. For example, design elements that are already part of the
project deSCription cannot be considered mitigation measures.
14. It is also unclear what calculations or inputs were used to determine that
"sustainable landscaping" would reduce emissions. The project description and the
Specific Plan describe the use of native vegetation "wherever possible" and "where
feasible and desirable." Will the development be conditioned to incorporate ollly
native and drought tolerant landscaping? If the use of sustainable landscaping
techniques is being used in the URBEMIS model to show reduction in emissions and
increased efficiency, the mitigation measures should specifically require that this
approach be incorporated in all landscaped areas Of a percentage of the site. In
addition, calculations showing how sustainable landscaping results in a specific
statistical reduction should be clearly described and rationalized.
15. Mitigation measure AQ-2f proposes incorporating the existing transit system as a
mitigation measure. A more effective measure would be to require the developers of
the project to provide funding for expansion of service, or installation and
construction of new transit facilities. CSERC asks that the EIR consider this in the
FErR.
16. CSERC strongly disputes the EIR claim that the project would have an insignificant
impact to air quality including greenhouse gases. Given that the State of California
has identified GHG emissions and climate change as a significant impact that has
already caused environmental harm, and given the fact that Calaveras County and
other counties are required by AB 32 to significantly reduce GHG levels compared
to past levels, it is inarguable that the additional GHG emissions produced by this
Sawmill Lake project will add cumulatively to an already significant problem.
Thus, as CSERC provided in recent legal arguments concerning a major project in
Alpine County, there are strong legal grounds to overturn any approval of the
adequacy of the ErR for this project simply due to the misinformation tied to climate
change impacts and the failure of the ErR to accurate show that the project will
indeed add cumulatively to a significant negative impact.
17. At the very least the ErR must acknowledge that this project will add cumulatively
to GHG emissions and in combination with past. present. and foreseeable
development projects Sawmill Lake does cumulatively contribute significantly to
climate change impacts. With that clear acknowledgment, it is also obvious that the
project could be designed to reduce impacts further. CEQA requires mitigation for
significant impacts and the application of all feasible mitigation measures. There is
no arguing that the Sawmill Lake project does not currently list all feasible
mitigation measures to reduce the significance of GHG emissions generated by the
project. For instance, one simple and feasible condition ties to building design
standards. While there are presently some positive mitigation measures proposed to
reduce impacts related to energy use and consumption, the applicants and the
County have the ability to require that all residences and commercial buildings of
the Sawmill Lake project be required to meet "Green rater" standards or LEED
(Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design) to ensure these measures are
incorporated in the design prior to building permits being issued. Numerous other
feasible and reasonable GHG reduction measures should also be evaluated in the
ErR and added to project conditions.
18. CSERC debates the claim that the Sawmill Lake project can be mitigated to reduce
the significance level to a level that is acceptable. If the County does not currently
meet air quality standards, any increase in these specific pollutants would result in a
significant impact.
GROWTH INDUCEMENT IS A SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT
Development of the Sawmill lake project would lead to additional development not
previously considered by the General Plan and designate an area for urban development
not currently designated for such use. With expanded facilities built to provide for the
Sawmill Lake project, infrastructure barriers will be removed for the next project
application. In particular, installation of a new PG&E substation, expansion of CCWD
facilities, and roadway improvements needed at key intersections would result in
irreversible growth inducing impacts to the Copperopolis area. This expansion or
extension of infrastructure is a classic definition of growth inducement. The ErR discussion
of growth inducing impacts should be expanded to include a more thorough discussion of
these potential impacts, as well as consideration of reasonable mitigation measures to
reduce the significance of the impact.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IS DEFICIENT
As noted at the beginning of these comments, CSERC strongly urges the County to
postpone further review or approval of any version of this project until the General Plan
update is approved. Once the General Plan Update is complete and this project is ready
for consideration, then would be the time for a more scaled-down proposal to be given
close scrutiny. As presented in Alternative 2 (Reduced Project Size-Mixed Use), some level
of reduced intensity and magnitude may be appropriate for the site. This alternative
would still provide a mixed-use housing development but with a reduced footprint and
greater preservation of open space. Given the current economic downturn and slump in
the housing market, this proposal is a more realistic and sustainable approach to growth
for the Copperopolis area once the General Plan Update is completed. Site plans should be
provided in the EIR for each of the alternatives in order to more fully evaluate potential
impacts. Howevel~ even with this reduced scale alternative, a reasonable range of project
alternatives has not been appropriately or legally provided. CSERC urges the County to
require a full range of reasonable alternatives in the FElR.
MITIGATION MONITORING
Pursuant to AB3180 and Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, local agencies must
establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a
mitigated negative declaration or an EIR. The ErR must describe how the mitigation
measure will be monitored and what mechanism will trigger its implementation. Each
mitigation discussion should include clear information as to what entity is responsible for
the measure and the timing of implementation. This should clearly be shown not only in
the discussion section of each impact chapter. but also in Table 2-1 at the beginning of the
document to facilitate reference. The ElR should indicate if each measure or condition
would be required prior to project approval (Tentative Map), Final Map, Building Permit,
Grading Permit, or Certificate of Occupancy for the commercial or residential components
of the project. The County, State or Federal agency responsible for monitoring compliance
should also be identified.
In summary, CSERC asks that any action on the Sawmill Lake Specific Plan be
postponed until the General Plan Update process is completed, Once the County
General Plan is updated, and the Copperopolis Community Plan is finalized and
adopted, this project may be ready for renewed analysis. The BIR should be revised to
address the numerous deficiencies identified in the above discussion. In addition to the
significant and unavoidable impacts to scenic resources, cllitural resources, roadways,
biological resources, utilities and services, the BIR should fully disclose those impacts to
agricultural lands that would result from build out of this project. The question of water
supply availability at full build-out is also a major issue that needs far more evaluation
and assessment.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Respectfully,
Rebecca Cremeen, planning specialist
Project # 2006-110 Sawmill Lake Project
Staff Report of August 24, 2012
Attachment 5
Draft EIR of April 2010 (Under Separate Cover)
Project # 2006-110 Sawmill Lake Project
Staff Report of August 24, 2012
Attachment 6
Recirculated Draft EIR Sections of March 2011 (Under Separate Cover)