Letter to the supervisors on the Castle airport rezone
This letter was submitted to the Merced County Board of Supervisors Tuesday, along with 23 supporting documents. -- Editor
Lydia Miller, President
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center
P.O. Box 778
Merced, CA 95341
(209) 723-9283, ph. & fax
raptorctr@bigvalley.net
Steve Burke
Protect Our Water (POW)
3105 Yorkshire Lane
Modesto, CA 95350
(209) 523-1391, ph. & fax
Merced County Board of Supervisors December 12, 2006
2222 M Street
Merced, California 95340
Fax: (209) 726-7977
Ph: (209) 385-7366 Via facsimile and Email
Re: Public hearing to consider the issuance of a proposed decision and findings regarding the Airport Land Use Commission's Finding as to consistency between the Airport Land Use Plan and the Riverside Motorsports Park Project- PH 6:00 PM
We come before you having already – along with other members of the public – submitted numerous oral and written comments on Oct. 24 regarding Resolution No. 2006-189. We saw no evidence at the Oct. 24 public hearing or the Nov. 14 public hearing on RMP nor in the staff report today that our comments were heard or read. Therefore, we are resubmitting our letter and attachments from Oct. 24.
It is our position that:
For the Merced County Board of Supervisors to decide and find that the Castle airport noise and public safety zone should be restricted to accommodate the RMP project and Castle Farms’ future plans violates the spirit, legislative intent, and the letter of numerous state and federal statutes. They include but are not limited to:
California Environmental Quality Act sections:
21000: Legislative intent
21001: Additional legislative intent
21001.1: Review of public agency projects
21157.6: Updating a Master EIR
21065: Project
21083.8: Special Rules of EIRs for Military Base Reuse Plans
21096: Procedures for airport use compatibility
21167.6 (e): Project record
CEQA Guidelines sections:
15110: Projects with federal involvement
15150: Incorporation by reference
15132 (d): Contents of FEIR
15152: Tiering
15180-15190: Special situations (redevelopment zones)
15206: Projects of statewide, regional, or areawide significance
15220-15229: General considerations on projects subject to both CEQA and NEPA
California Public Utilities Code section:
21690.9: Airport facilities and concession
National Environmental Protection Act sections:
1501.3: When to prepare and EIS
1501.4: Whether to prepare and EIS
1501.5: Lead agencies
California Government Code sections:
51200: California Land Conservation Act
51205: Agricultural preserve/wildlife habitat
Ralph Brown Act sections:
54954:
54954.1
54954.2
54957.5
54957.7
65030: State policy, legislative intent to protect state land resource
65030.1: Effective planning process for growth
65030.2: Need for full knowledge of economic and fiscal implications of land-use decisions
65031: Continuous evaluation and execution of statewide environmental goals
65032: Analysis of impact of individual programs on statewide environmental goals
65033: Local agency must involve the public in every level of planning
65089: Congestion management programs
This project, without which the RMP project cannot be certified, is an example of piecemealing, tiering a project off an non-existent Master EIR, which takes no account of cumulative impacts throughout a wide region beyond its borders. This project has unknown, unanalyzed impacts within the expanding Sna Joaquin Valley Foreign Trade Zone, which now includes several other counties in the Central Valley.
On Nov. 20, we filed a state Public Records Act request with Robert Lewis, county planning director, requesting all information pertaining to indemnification agreements between Merced County and Riverside Motorsports Park, including but not limited to:
· meeting notes
· emails
· correspondence
· phone logs
· memos
· findings
· agreements
· staff reports
· drafts of such indemnification agreements
· any budgets or other public financial information pertaining to the County/RMP relationship.
We also requested any information in County possession regarding the necessity of Castle Airport, Aviation and Development Center to have a contiguous property in private ownership in order to realize the commercial potential of its foreign trade zone status. We request access to:
· meeting notes
· emails
· correspondence
· phone logs
· memos
· findings
· agreements
· staff reports
· drafts of agreements pertaining to Castle AADC and RMP regarding the foreign trade zone
· any budgets or financial information regarding the relationship between RMP and CAADC.
In response to this Public Records Act request we received five pertinent documents: a 1997 letter from Morimoto Farms; a 2000-2001 annual report of Pacific Comtech Park (aka Morimoto Industrial Park); a 2003 letter from RMP Chief John Condren to Foreign Trade Zone 226 Administrator John Fowler; the 2002-2003 Foreign-Trade Zone annual report, including the Central San Joaquin Valley Foreign-Trade Zone Advisory Board minutes for Dec. 12, 2003.
This response did not adequately comply with the request we made under California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.
The minutes of the Dec. 12 FTZ 2003 meeting reported that Merced County Board of Supervisors’ Chairman Mike Nelson was elected chairman of the Central San Joaquin Valley Foreign Trade Zone Advisory Board. If he is still chairman, he has a conflict-of-interest voting on this override or on the RMP project approval.
When we look at the RMP project and the Castle airport through the plans of the San Joaquin Valley Foreign Trade Zone, we realize they are one and the same project, and part of a much larger, multi-county enterprise.
In a letter dated June 23, 2003, RMP Chief John Condren wrote John Fowler, administrator of Central San Joaquin Valley FTZ 226, “It is our intent to develop this acreage in its entirety for commercial use and to fully utilize the potential of the Foreign Trade Zone, in conjunction with Merced County’s Castle Airport. To this, our application for development and the Notice of Preparation for Riverside Motorsports Park’s Environmental Impact Report have been filed and processed by Merced County Planning Department.”
The minutes of the 2003 SJV FTZ board of advisors, state: Riverside Motorsports Park committed to performing testing activities with imported motor vehicles on their 240 acres within the Zone. The property owners have been informed that retail uses are not allowed on FTZ designated land.”
In the FTZ Advisory Board minutes, the airport and RMP they are considered one project: “Castle Airport/Riverside Motorsports Park.”
The Merced County Board of Supervisors is the Grantee for the multi-county FTZ 226, as well as being the land-use authority for the Castle Aviation and Economic Development area and for unincorporated Merced County. When it comes to a vote on the noise zone of the Castle airport, a terrific conflict-of-interest ensues. When the public considers that Merced County is also the lead county in the San Joaquin Valley Partnership and for regional transportation planning, the conflicts-of-interest of this board multiply.
Merced County, at this point, should realize from its experience with the UC Merced and UC Community plans that just because project proponents seek to fragment and piecemeal projects by splitting them, it doesn’t mean that from the point of view of state and federal resource agencies, the environmental impacts of such joined projects are viewed separately.
Jurisdiction of foreign trade zones is with the federal Department of Commerce. However, we see no evidence that state or federal resource agencies have consulted on the environmental consequences of the airport/RMP project.
RMP is applying for a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the property from Agricultural to Castle SUDP Industrial. RMP is reliant on the Castle airport and the Castle airport is reliant on RMP. They are one project.
As one project, they are subject the CEQA. Since the airport project is being considered separately and without environmental review, the override must be rejected and the RMP environmental review re-circulated, including the airport project.
We close with a comment written to Deputy County Counsel Walter W. Wall from state Department of Transportation Associate Transportation Planner Joanne Hutton McDermott:
“While the chance of an aircraft injuring someone on the ground is historically quite low, an aircraft accident is a high consequent event. To protect people and property on the ground from the risks if of near-airport aircraft accidents, some form of restrictions on land use are essential.”
To summarize:
· Your own description of the public hearing on the airport issue shows it is totally connected to the RMP project;
· The County has violated sections of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines, the state Public Utilities Code, the federal National Environmental Protection Act;
· The County has violated sections of the state law of public meetings, the Ralph Brown Act;
· The County has violated the state Public Records Act;
· The Merced County Board of Supervisors is in conflict of interest on this project and therefore cannot vote on it: the board is the land-use authority of unincorporated Merced County (the RMP property); the board is land-use authority of the Castle Aviation and Economic Development area; and the board the grantee of the San Joaquin Valley Foreign Trade Zone 226;
· To fragment and piecemeal these two projects violates state and federal environmental law;
· Reopening the public hearing on the RMP project on Dec. 12 violates another section of the Brown Act of public meetings;
· The County neglected to note that the noise zone around the airport is also a safety zone to protect the public against near-airport airplane accidents.
Lydia Miller Steve Burke
Attachments:
Oct. 24 Raptor/POW letter
Nov. 14 Raptor/POW packet
“Forgotten Intent of the Williamson Act,” Christopher Butcher
Badlandsjournal.com, Dec. 8
RMP flyer, Dec. 11
Badlandsjournal.com, Dec. 10
Raptor/POW CPRA request material, received Dec. 11
Cc: Interested parties
BadlandsJournal