Re: General Plan Text Amendment on Expressways
MARSHA A. BURCH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
131 South Auburn Street
GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945
Telephone:
(530) 272-8411
Facsimile:
(530) 272-9411
maburch@onemain.com
December 19, 2006
Mr. Gene K. Fong
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
980 Ninth St, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-498-5014
gene.fong@fhwa.dot.gov
Margaret Lawrence
Caltrans
P.O. Box 2048
Stockton, CA 95201
209-948-7427
fax 209-948-7782
Margaret_Lawrence@dot.ca.gov
Merced County Board of Supervisors
2222 M Street
Merced, California 95340
Fax: (209) 726-7977
Ph: (209) 385-7366
dist1@co.merced.ca.us ; dist2@co.merced.ca.us ;
dist3@co.merced.ca.us ; Dist4@co.merced.ca.us ;
dist5@co.merced.ca.us
Via facsimile and Email
Re: Proposal -- To amend the Merced County General Plan Circulation
Chapter (Chapter II) by establishing an expressway standard and
designate an expressway alignment, known as “Campus Parkway”,
east of the City of Merced from Coffee Street to Yosemite Avenue.
Campus Parkway will be approximately a 4.5-mile route; and 2006
Cycle IV General Plan Amendment: General Plan Text Amendment
No. GPTA06-001- Campus Parkway.
Dear Supervisors, Mr. Fong and Ms. Lawrence:
This office, in conjunction with the Law Office of Donald B. Mooney,
represents the Central Valley Safe Environment Network, San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and Protect Our Water with respect to the above-referenced proposal for General Plan Text Amendment.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide the following comments, which are submitted this morning as a result of the fact that, despite considerable effort, our clients were unable to obtain the Merced County Board of Supervisors, staff report for the proposed amendment until approximately 3:30 p.m. yesterday.
The Proposed Text Amendment does not comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code § 2100 et seq.) Accordingly, we request that the Board of Supervisors deny the Proposed General Plan Text Amendment, and reject adoption of the Campus Parkway CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
The Amendment includes two separate projects. The first project is an
amendment to General Plan that will apply County-wide. The second
discretionary approval would designate an expressway alignment.
These two projects require separate environmental review. There has been no environmental review that we are aware of for the County-wide expressway standard, nor any review of the expressway alignments other than the Campus Parkway. The two projects may not legally be lumped together without appropriate review of all of the discretionary acts.
It appears that the entire proposal, including the expressway standard and alignments, will be based upon the EIR for a 4.5-mile route. It appears that two other expressways are planned to join with the Campus Parkway: the Atwater- Merced Expressway and the Bellevue Expressway. These additional expressways are not mentioned in the Campus Parkway Environmental Impact
Report (“EIR”). There are also plans for expressways on the west side of Merced County, which have not been the subject of any CEQA review that we are aware of.
Because of the fact that there has been no environmental review of the
consequences of this amendment to the General Plan, the proposal must be rejected. Sufficient environmental review must take into account the consequence of its cumulative impacts to traffic, air and water quality, public health and safety, and particularly impacts to biological resources and wildlife corridors. Also, the amendment will necessarily result in the loss of a considerable amount of agricultural land, a consequence completely at odds with the General Plan goal of preserving it. This significant conflict with the existing general plan must also be considered during the CEQA process.
Other potentially significant impacts exist, none of which have been the subject of any CEQA review. For example, the potential impacts to private property, including potential for condemnation in the future, that will arise as a result of expressway alignment designations has not been considered or reviewed. Also, the essence of the expressway designation under the state Streets and Highways Code is fully controlled access. By severing county roads used by farmers and ranchers for trucking and agricultural equipment, this
amendment cannot fail to disrupt normal agricultural practices with consequent economic damage.
Also, County staff reports that the Campus Parkway will take 83 acres of agricultural land out of farming but this is “below the threshold of significance established by the Federal Highway Administration,” and the County has no “significance” standard for agricultural lands.
The County sees no problem because the “land use designation
underlying the Campus Parkway will remain Agriculture.” Under this
reasoning, the County, Merced County Associations of Government, the state Department of Transportation and the FHWA could pave over thousands of acres of farmland in Merced County through this General Plan amendment and still account for them as “Agriculture.” This violates planning and zoning laws.
If the expressways already mapped by MCAG and CalTrans are built, the County will be carrying thousands of acres on its zoning maps as “Agriculture,” which will in fact be paved over expressways with “fully controlled access.”
Furthermore, by piecemealing one section of expressway after another, a process that would be enabled by this General Plan amendment, the County would stay beneath the federal threshold for significance, insuring that no state or federal funds could be used for agricultural conservation easements. This results in the untenable situation summed up by County staff as follows: “Thus,
the only potential funding source for agricultural conservation easements is Merced County. No budget exists in the Department of Public Works for the acquisition of agricultural conservation easements.”
One option for the Atwater-Merced Expressway passes close to the
Riverside Motorsports Park (“RMP”). But, said one supervisor at the last meeting on the RMP project, the Atwater-Merced Expressway cannot be discussed in connection with traffic jams around RMP because that expressway “is not a project” (although its alternative routes are mapped and posted on the MCAG website – see attachments).
The proposed General Plan amendment attempts to circumvent the
environmental review for the entire projected expressway system in Merced County by relying upon the EIR for 4.5 miles of expressway. Further, the proposal appears to intentionally deprive agriculture of state and federal funds for conservation easements on lost agricultural land. This bold attempt to create fictional Agriculturally zoned areas should be rejected, as it violates environmental, land use, and agricultural preservation laws.
An additional funding issue has also received no review or discussion. It appears that County plans to divert funds remaining in the transportation budget to the construction of the Campus Parkway. Further analysis and public disclosure is necessary in this regard.
Because of the issues raised above, we believe that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
For these reasons, we believe the proposal should be withdrawn and appropriate environmental review completed prior to further consideration.
If you have questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact me at 530/272.8411.
Sincerely,
Marsha A. Burch
Attorney
MAB/tm
Enclosures
cc: Central Valley Safe Environment Network
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center
Protect Our Water
Donald B. Mooney, Esq.
Steve Rough, County of Merced Public Works, srough@co.merced.ca.us
Demitrios O. Tatum, County Executive Officer; ceo@data.co.merced.ca.us
Robert Lewis, Development Service Director , RLewis@co.merced.ca.us
Kursten Sheridan, Caltrans , Kursten_Sheridan@dot.ca.gov
Kim Turner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Turner/SAC/R1/FWS/DOI@FWS