COUNTY OF LAKE

In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 (b), the County of Lake, as the lead agency, prepared a subsequent mitigated negative declaration in response to project changes initiated by the applicant and the availability of new information pertaining to the proposed project. The proposed subsequent mitigated negative declaration based on initial study IS 04-67 was circulated for public comment. The document was circulated through the State Clearinghouse for a thirty-day public review period and copies were also sent directly to the Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15073 (a) & (e).

Comments were received from the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Water Resources, Greg Giusti representing the University of California Cooperative Extension, Dean Enderlin, Environmental Consultant/Geologist hired by the appellants, Roberta Lyons representing the Audubon Society, Juliana Vidich representing the Sierra Club Lake Group, Karl Giovacchini, Alicia Farnsworth, Glori C. Anderson, Larry Hanson, Board Member for Forest Unlimited, Kimberly Burr, Attorney for the Appellants, Christina Farnsworth, K. MacKenzie and Cliff Rediger (BOS Attachment A).

Comments received from Dean Enderlin question conclusions based on the April 2003 James Richmond letter. Additionally, staff was contacted by George Dunnfield, Department of Consumer Affairs, Board for Geologists and Geophysicists, regarding this matter. Staff would like to emphasize the fact that the James Richmond letter is mentioned in the hydrology and water quality narrative section of the "environmental setting" section of the subsequent mitigated negative declaration as this letter is currently a part of the record, submitted as application materials by the applicant. Analyses within the initial study used to determine whether or not potentially significant impacts would result from the proposed project are based upon conclusions drawn in the report completed by Richard Slade and Associates and supported by Tom Smythe’s comments.

Mr. Enderlin’s comments imply that staff included "serious misinterpretations and mischaracterizations of the conclusions in the RCS report," which need correction in the public record. He cites page 31 of the initial study as saying "it was determined that a combined pumping rate of eighty-two gallons per minute would be necessary, assuming continuous, twenty-four (24) hour pumping to meet the estimated water demand" for the proposed vineyard development and then proceeds to cite the RCS report’s conclusion that, "on a more realistic, 50% operational basis (pumping 12 hours per day) onsite wells would need to produce groundwater at a combined rate of approximately 164 gpm." Page 31 of initial study IS 04-67 as referred to by Mr. Enderlin, actually reads as follows:

This citation, taken directly from the circulated document, prepared by Community Development Department staff, does in fact document that "pumping twelve (12) hours a day would require twice the production and is a more likely approach to meeting the irrigation demands of the proposed project and the existing vineyard," which calculates to one hundred and sixty-four gallons per minute, consistent with the calculations and conclusions drawn in the RCS report.

Mr. Enderlin is also critical of interpretation of the RCS hydrological report, eluding that staff is "reading more into the conclusions than what is actually stated." The initial study determination is based on conclusions documented within the final report from RCS as well as verbal communication during a conference call between Richard Slade and his staff geologist Anthony Hicke, Kaj Ahlmann and Community Development Department staff April 12, 2004. Taken from the Planning Commission memo dated April 16, 2004, the following excerpt summarizes that conversation as it pertains to the personal communication cited in initial study IS 04-67:

The conclusion that the proposed water usage for vineyard irrigation will not likely affect neighboring wells is also reiterated in Tom Smythe’s comments dated April 24, 2004 (BOS Attachment B), and also states that "long term overdraft of the aquifer is not anticipated."

The proposed drilling of a single well in addition to the two existing wells does not represent a change in the proposed project description, as Mr. Enderlin indicates in his critique of Tom Smythe’s analysis. The drilling of an additional well has been a part of the project description since original project application submittal (see Appendix C of IS 04-67, correspondence dated January 6, 2002).

Dwight Russell of the Department of Water Resources also commented on the subsequent mitigated negative declaration. His comments conclude with the following statements:

His comments also suggest that the applicant "should be required to show proof of supply prior to permitting the project." He also requests all borehole and well log data be provided to the Department of Water Resources prior to permitting and suggests that proposed wells should be cited and installed, with aquifer pump tests and monitoring occurring in order to provide proof of supply for the project. Mr. Russell suggests that monitoring of nearby domestic wells should be incorporated into these pump test protocols and that tests should be conducted over a period of two weeks "or until there is some indication that the pumping wells are reaching equilibrium drawdown." Mr. Russell’s comments also suggest local monitoring should be done coinciding with any DMV Project well development and include: "if impacts to nearby off site wells are found to occur, a mitigation and monitoring program should be developed" and he then lists components that should be included in that program. His comments conclude with the following statement:

The applicant supplied proof of supply with the submittal of a well completion report from the Water Development Corporation (BOS Attachment C). Staff understands that the responsibility for submitting borehole and well log data to the Department of Water Resources lies with the well driller.

According to the January 2000 State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, Information Pertaining to Water Rights in California handbook, the following guidelines apply to groundwater:

Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are considered less than significant for the proposed project. Grading Permit conditions of approval HYDRO.1 and HYDRO.2 require the applicant to implement best management practices for water conservation and comply with all applicable state laws relative to the transfer and impoundment of water.

The Department of Fish and Game comments dated September 8, 2004, state that it is the Department’s "practice and policy recommend both the conservation and replacement of native oak species at an equal or greater ratio to mitigate the continuing loss of oak woodland and associated habitat." The proposed project would implement a replanting program through Acorn Soupe, supervised by a professional restoration expert and would establish a one hundred and fifty acre oak woodland conservation easement. The Department of Fish and Game states that the replanting program and the conservation easement are inadequate and goes further to recommend preparation of an EIR, although in comments dated July 10, 2002, April 5, 2002 and April 26, 2004, DFG recommends the establishment of a conservation easement combined with a replanting program to mitigate potential impacts related to oak woodland habitat loss.

The comments from the Department of Fish and Game base their official opinion on their "analysis of County conversion land use trends, that the County continues to have a net-loss of oak tree woodlands, particularly through vineyard conversion," this conclusion and analysis is based on personal communication with "Mike Giusti, U.C. Hopland Extension." Staff assumes that DFG is referring to Greg Giusti, and has also contacted Mr. Giusti regarding oak woodlands within the County. Mr. Giusti referred staff to vegetation maps and GIS data compiled and created by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which upon review have proved to be inaccurate assessments of oak woodlands within the County, when analyzed in conjunction with aerial photos. Figure 8 contained within the subsequent mitigated negative declaration is a land use map taken from the 2004 Irrigated Lands Report, prepared by the Lake County Farm Bureau, which shows the predominant land use within the watershed boundary is characterized by the native vegetation land use category.

The Department of Fish and Game, in written comments and correspondence, continues to extend their availability to work with the applicant on an acceptable conservation easement however, when contacted, has refused to meet onsite with the applicant to discuss the location, as well as the terms and conditions of the conservation easement (see BOS Attachment B, of the memo dated September 1, 2004). In addition, it appears apparent through comments from Kimberly Burr, that the Department of Fish and Game, instead of working in cooperation with the applicant and support of the lead agency, has made a consistent, repeated and determined effort to work with the appellants in opposition to the proposed project.

The Department of Fish and Game does not concur with the biological assessment prepared by Theodore Wooster, which the Community Development Department is relying on to remove former grading permit condition of approval 4.E, requiring raptor surveys prior to grading during the raptor nesting season and is requesting that permit condition not be omitted from grading permit conditions of approval.

Greg Giusti’s comments criticize the subsequent mitigated negative declaration for not providing an assessment of the blue oak woodland acreage across the ranch in order to establish the context and setting in which the proposed project is being analyzed and subsequently assess the adequacy of the oak woodland conservation easement. Data is not currently available to accurately assess oak woodlands within the County. Available GIS data does not accurately characterize the County’s vegetation or oak woodlands when compared with aerial photos. The 2004 Irrigated lands report does however, offer an assessment of native vegetation within the watershed and was utilized in the preparation of the subsequent mitigated negative declaration. Additionally, Mr. Giusti is critical of the document in that it does not assess the potential impacts in relation to other projects within the area. As previously stated, the County of Lake requires wildlife corridor establishment for projects impacting large acreages of native vegetation in order to conserve wildlife habitat areas within the County. His comments also question the reason for choosing the proposed project location. As stated in the subsequent mitigated negative declaration, the proposed project site is characterized by a soil type prime for winegrape growing, in an area not requiring frost protection. Finally, Mr. Giusti’s comments state the "fundamental issue for the CEQA process is to minimize negative environmental impacts." In fact the primary objectives of CEQA include:

Comments submitted on behalf of the Sierra Club Lake Group question the estimated number of oak trees proposed to be removed as part of vineyard block development, stating that "The phrase ‘approximately 1006’is nebulous and does not constitute a limitation." In fact, this number represents an estimation of numbers of individual oak trees, for assessment of potential environmental impacts, previously stated as lacking in initial study IS 02-10, documented in Sierra Club Lake Group Comments dated August 24, 2003. Sierra Club Lake Group comments received September 9, 2004, emphasize that the number of oak trees within the conservation easement has not been determined and further state that in order for the conservation easement to be considered adequate as mitigation this number is crucial. However, it is important to recognize that the conservation easement is proposed as a mitigation measure designed to reduce potentially significant impacts resulting from oak woodland habitat loss and not the loss of individual oak trees. Additionally, it is recognized that oak trees grow relatively slow and that is why the combined proposed mitigation of a conservation easement combined with a replanting program is considered adequate.

For the sake of clarification and to set the record straight, staff would like to take this opportunity to clarify the fact that Acorn Soupe has never been and is not involved with the Delta Breeze oak tree replanting program.

Impacts related to Biological resources are considered potentially significant, but would be reduced to less than significant levels by requiring the permit holder to comply with grading permit conditions of approval BIO.1 through BIO.10.

Kimberly Burr, representing the Concerned Citizens of Coon Flat/Jerusalem Grade, cites four reasons for the appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to deny Administrative Appeal AA 03-03. Reasons two and three read as follows:

In comments dated September 9, 2004, Ms. Burr makes the following statement:

In fact, as a result of the appeals process, the proposed subsequent mitigated negative declaration incorporates a more detailed project description, defining the specific number of oak trees currently existing and proposed for removal within the proposed vineyard blocks. Additionally, the proposed subsequent mitigated negative declaration incorporates new technical studies and analyses, including the Results and Analysis of 24-Hour Constant Rate Pumping Test, prepared by Richard Slade and Associates, and the final Biological Survey, prepared by Theodore Wooster, as well as a conservation easement addendum and a refined replanting program, all submitted following project approval by the Community Development Director and the filing of the notice of determination for the proposed project.

Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors make a motion of intended decision to deny the appeal AB 04-06 of the Concerned Citizens of Coon Flat/Jerusalem Grade, adopt the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration IS 04-67 and direct issuance of a Grading Permit in accordance with the modified permit conditions.