|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
Time Set 10.
|
| Planning Commission |
|
|
|
| Information |
| SUBJECT |
9:00 a.m.
ZF #2011-0033: Request for a Use Permit, a Flood Hazard Development Permit, and a Williamson Act Open Space Agreement to construct a 320-acre habitat conservation bank for the endangered giant garter snake. The property is located at the north end of County Road 155, east of CR 152, in the Yolo Bypass, approximately 10 miles southeast of the city of Davis (APN: 033-190-010). The property is zoned Agricultural Preserve (A-P) and is under Williamson Act contract. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. Owner/Applicant: Dustin Smith/Capitol Conservation Bank. (E. Parfrey)
|
| SUMMARY |
FILE # ZF 2011-0033
|
APPLICANT: America's Habitats
|
OWNER: Ron and Clover Smith
|
LOCATION: north end of County Road (CR) 107 and east of CR 152 within the Yolo Bypass area, approximately 10 miles southeast of the City of Davis (APN: 033-190-010)
GENERAL PLAN: Agriculture (AG)
ZONING: Agricultural Preserve (A-P)
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT: 4 (Sup. Provenza)
|
SOILS: CC, CN, PC
FLOOD ZONE: AE
FIRE SEVERITY ZONE: none
|
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration
|
|
| RECOMMENDED ACTION |
That the Planning Commission recommends the Board of Supervisors:
1. Hold a public hearing and receive comments;
2. Determine that the Mitigated Negative Declaration with the Errata and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment C) is the appropriate level of environmental documentation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines;
3. Adopt the Findings (Attachment D);
4. Approve the Use Permit/Flood Hazard Development Permit with the Conditions of Approval (Attachment E); and
5. Approve the Williamson Act Open Space Agreement (Attachment G).
|
| REASONS FOR RECOMMENDED ACTIONS |
The proposed garter snake conservation mitigation bank must comply with several layers of federal, State, and local plans and laws. Staff recommends approval of the project because it is consistent with the County General Plan, the Delta Land Use and Resource Management Plan, the open space provisions of the Williamson Act, and the applicable County development regulations, including the County ordinance regulating habitat mitigation projects and the Flood Hazard Development ordinance.
|
| BACKGROUND |
The applicant submitted an application for a Flood Hazard Development Permit in June, 2011. The project was subsequently delayed for over a year as the applicant negotiated with the Central Valley Flood Protection Board over a barn built on a four-foot high pad located at the northeastern edge of the Phase 2 site. To resolve the enforcement action, the agency has ordered the applicant to remove the unpermitted barn and the imported fill that was used to create the pad by November 1, 2014. During the intervening period the County adopted the Habitat Mitigation Ordinance in January, 2013, which requires the applicant to proceed through the Use Permit process,with a final decision by the Board of Supervisors.
|
| PROJECT DESCRIPTION |
The project is a Use Permit, a Flood Hazard Development Permit, and a Williamson Act Open Space Agreement, to construct the first and second phases of a 320-acre wildlife conservation bank for the giant garter snake, an endangered species. The first phase of 137 acres has been designed; the second phase will proceed if the first phase is successful. The property is located at the north end of County Road (CR) 107 and east of CR 152 within the Yolo Bypass area, approximately 10 miles southeast of the City of Davis (APN: 033-190-010). Land uses that surround the project site include adjacent agricultural operations, including rice and grain fields, and the established Pope Ranch Conservation Bank, located to the west, also developed as a giant garter snake mitigation bank.
The conceptual site plan for the Phase 1 of the project shows construction of a mosaic of wetlands and uplands to create suitable habitat for the giant garter snake. Approximately 78 acres of wetlands would be graded interspersed with 57 acres of mounded upland habitat. The project would create a mix of wetland types with variable water depth and duration of ponding, ranging from shallow, seasonal wetlands to perennial wetlands with associated deep channels. The upland habitat would be graded to include mounds above variety of flood elevations, including the 100-year flood elevation to provide opportunities for the snakes to escape floods and to possibly capture snakes that are transported down the Yolo Bypass during high flow events. The shallow upland benches along the perimeter of the wetlands channels would be planted with tules. The shallow perimeters of the wetlands would be planted with plants such as rushes and creeping spikerush. Phase I would take approximately 101 days to construct. Grading for Phase I would involve approximately 247,000 cubic years of cut and fill.
If Phase 1 is deemed a biological success, Phase 2 of the project would proceed with construction of an additional 197 acres of GGS habitat, with similar portions of wetlands and upland habitat as in Phase 1. Phase 2 construction would take a little longer, about 125 days and grading for Phase II would involve an additional approximately 233,000 cubic years of balanced cut and fill.
The second phase will proceed if the first phase is successful. The federal and State permitting agencies will not allow a second phase to proceed unless the first phase has been proven to be a biological success, in terms of verifying a population of giant garter snakes in the newly created habitat. Along with Phase 1, the second phase has also been designed and has been analyzed in sufficient detail (e.g., completed biological species surveys, wetlands delineation, and hydraulic modeling) for Yolo County’s environmental analysis.
Phase 1 and Phase 2 are also being considered together in this environmental analysis because Phase 1 by itself may not balance in terms of grading. Some soil may be exported to one of two identified spoils sites in Phase 2 fields to meet the cut and fill grading requirements for Phase 1. Thus, this analysis by Yolo County has taken into account development of the entire 320-acre project and the permits will be issued for the entire area, if the project is approved by the County.
The applicant has received preliminary approvals for Phase 1 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (acceptance of wetland delineation) and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (issuance of a "no jeopardy" biological opinion related to fish species).
The wildlife permitting authorities (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife) have not yet begun their analysis and approval process for the second phase, as they have with the first phase. The second phase of the project may require additional supplemental environmental analysis before these agencies can complete their review in the future, as allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations).
|
| ANALYSIS |
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the project. The 30-day review period for the MND began on April 24, 2013 and ends on May 24, 2013. The MND has been circulated to a wide range of agencies and individuals, including neighbors, the Farm Bureau, local environmental organizations, the federal and State wildlife agencies, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, the State and federal Water Contractors, and others. No comments have been received to date.
The following issues are summarized from the MND.
Biological Impacts
The project will require the approval of the following federal and State agencies:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Approval of the Bank Enabling Instrument and consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, with possible permitting through a Nationwide Permit 27.
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Approval of a Consistency Determination or an Incidental Take Permit.
• Central Valley Flood Protection Board: Approval of a Floodway Encroachment Permit.
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board: Issuance of a water quality certification associated with the U.S. Army Corps permit.
According to the analysis contained in the MND, the project could have impacts on two species of concern as well as wetlands and some plant species. Mitigation measures required by the MND would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level.
Construction of the project has the potential to affect any giant garter snakes that currently occupy the site. Implementation of standard avoidance measures recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been incorporated in Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in the MND .
The applicant has prepared an Interim Management Plan and a Long Term Specific Management Plan which outline the details of how the property will be maintained for the benefit of the giant garter snake. The two plans describe responsibilities that include, for example, management and maintenance of canals, gates, pumps, flashboard risers, and similar water management infrastructure; and management of wetland and upland vegetation to maintain habitat suitability for giant garter snake.
The other animal species that could be affected is the burrowing owl. A mitigation measure requires that prior to any site grading or construction activity in both the breeding and non-breeding season, the applicant shall conduct burrowing owl surveys in conformance with CDFW burrowing owl recommendations.
The applicant is not required to mitigate for loss of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat. According to the biological analysis, high-quality foraging habitat is limited in the vicinity of the site. The majority of the site and immediately surrounding areas are actively farmed rice, fallowed agricultural land, or wetlands. Rice and wetlands provide little to no foraging value due to poor accessibility to Swainson's hawk and relatively low prey populations. Fallowed agricultural land can support a constant prey base, but the vegetation structure (typically characterized by tall weeds) inhibits effective Swainson's hawk foraging
Agricultural Impacts
The 320-acre project site previous supported rice production (now fallowed) in the Phase 1 southern field and is cultivated in corn production in the northern Phase 2 field. Previous uses have included farming of wheat, Sudan grass, rye grass, corn, and tomatoes.
The Soil Survey of Yolo County, California (Soil Conservation Service 1972) indicates that the primary soil on the project site is Capay clay, flooded (Cc). This a non-prime Class IV soil, with a Storie Index of 34. These soils are poorly drained and are subject to flooding at least one year in three due to flood easements. According to the USDA, the Capay clay soils are suitable for summer-grown irrigated crops, field crops, and pasture, and dry farmed field crops.
Mitigation Measure AG-1 in the MND requires that the applicant mitigate for the loss of agricultural land for each individual phase of the project according to the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (Section 8-2.2416 of the Yolo County Code), or implement alternative mitigation subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors. The applicant may acquire agricultural easements to mitigate for the first and second phases of the project by placing other portions of his family’s lands under easement, or purchase easements from other owners in the area, as allowed under the ordinance.
The project site is under a Williamson Act contract. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or, if certain criteria are met, “open space” as defined in Government Code Section 51201(o). If the project is approved by the Board of Supervisors, a Williamson Act Open Space agreement will be adopted.
Flooding Impacts
The project requires the issuance of a Flood Hazard Development Permit according to Section 8-3.401 of the Yolo County Code The Floodplain Administrator must determine that the proposed development does not adversely affect the carrying capacity of areas where base flood elevations have been determined but a floodway has not been designated. For purposes of the Code, “adversely affects” means that the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other existing and anticipated development will increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point.
The applicant has submitted a hydraulic analysis that has been peer-reviewed by an engineering firm retained by the County. The applicant study concludes that development of the project would "affect minor local changes in the water surface elevation and water velocity during the most probable 100-year flood but will only impact the water surface elevations or water velocities at the edge (banks) of Yolo Bypass if project vegetation is allowed to grow without annual grazing and then only by 0.01-foot." The peer review agreed and states “Provided that annual grazing is maintained, construction of the Capital Conservation Bank will not significantly increase flood risks to the health and safety of the public, will not significantly increase the risk of flood damage to structures and properties, and will not significantly increase risks to off site channel stability.…If the project is proposed without annual grazing, appropriate agencies should be consulted and the sufficiency of the levee to maintain the minimum required level of protection should be evaluated prior to allowing the project to proceed without annual grazing.”
A Condition of Approval has been include in the Use Permit/Flood Hazard Development Perrmit to require adequate vegetation maintenance.
Consistency with Plans and Ordinances
The proposed project would not conflict with the Yolo County General Plan or any other applicable plan. The project is located within the Primary Zone of the Delta, which is regulated by the Delta Protection Commission (DPC) through its adopted Land Use Resource Management Plan (LURMP). Consistency with the LURMP is ensured through the policy framework of the 2030 Yolo Countywide General Plan. The DPC staff reviewed and responded to the 2030 Yolo Countywide Draft General Plan and its accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Report and did not note any inconsistencies with the updated General Plan policies as they relate to the Primary Zone of the Delta. The project is consistent with the Yolo County General Plan and the General Plan is consistent with the current LURMP.
In order to proceed, the project must receive approval of a Use Permit issued pursuant to the Habitat Mitigation Ordinance of Yolo County, adopted by the Yolo County Board of Supervisors on January 29, 2013. For habitat projects that are 160 or more acres in size, the Planning Commission shall act on the Use Permit in an advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors, which shall make the final decision. The ordinance requires the deciding body to make all of the following determinations based on substantial evidence in the record:
(a) That the project applicant has substantially complied with the requirements of this Chapter, including but not limited to provisions addressing the submission and contents of a management plan;
(b) That the project would not significantly conflict with surrounding land uses;
(c) That the project would not have a significant adverse effect on biological resources and, in addition, is not reasonably expected to significantly conflict with the Yolo Natural Heritage Program (HCP/NCCP);
(d) That the project would not significantly compromise flood safety and the protection of life and property;
(e) That the project would not have a significant adverse economic effect—either by itself or cumulatively—within the County or region. This factor shall only be considered for projects that convert 40 or more acres of farmland;
(f) That the project, if undertaken in furtherance of the "co-equal goals" and the habitat restoration objectives of the Delta Reform Act, will proceed in a manner that is faithful to the Act in its entirety, including its basic policy direction that the coequal goals of “providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem” are to be achieved in a manner “that protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource, and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place”;
(g) If the project site is subject to a Williamson Act contract, that the project is an “open space use” under Government Code Section 51201(o) or that it would not otherwise cause a material breach of the contract. Any project that is an “open space” use under Section 51201(o) shall also require approval of an amended Williamson Act contract or other appropriate action to authorize the open space use;
(g) That any conversion of farmland to habitat or other non-agricultural uses will be mitigated in accordance with Yolo County Code Section 8-2.2416 (notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth therein regarding its application to habitat projects) or, subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors, that the applicant will implement an alternative approach to addressing the conversion of farmland that provides an equal or greater level of mitigation; and
(h) That the project would not significantly conflict with other relevant considerations of public health, safety, or welfare, sufficient to require preparation of a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff believes that the project as planned and mitigated complies with all of these requirements. Written findings addressing each of these points will be provided to the Commissioners in a supplemental memo prior to the hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|