Raptor/POW letter on Robinson parcels, July 1, 2008

Badlands is declaring the coming days a Sunshine Week to post a number of documents submitted to Merced County government in the last few months. Some of these documents have been included in the official packets of information for Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings. Others have been suppressed.

This material best understood by reference to the audio or video archives of supervisors' and planning commission meetings and we encourage readers seriously interested in understanding their local government to go to the Merced County webpage, http://www.co.merced.ca.us/CountyWeb/, to seek out these hearings, particularly the two board of supervisor meetings on July 1 and July 8.

Lydia Miller
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
P.O. Box 778
Merced, CA 95341
(209) 723-9283, ph. & fax
raptorctr@bigvalley.net
sjrrc@sbcglobal.net

Steve Burke
Protect Our Water (POW)
3105 Yorkshire Lane
Modesto, CA 95350
209) 489-9178, ph.
protectourwater@sbcglobal.net

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

Re: Appeal of Minor subdivision application/parcel map waiver no. MS07-07-058, Chris Robinson

Date: July 1, 2008 Via: Email and Hand Delivered

Supervisors:

We believe this meeting to be in violation of the Brown Act because of numerous problems with public availability of documents submitted in this appeal.

We shall spend the rest of this letter responding to items in the Planning Department staff analysis.

B. UC Conservation Strategy.

The planning department either through ignorance or willful deceit does not recognize that the Robinson Ranch contains, adjacent to the parcels under discussion, a TNC easement that is part of the UC Conservation Strategy. We will let the Board decide whether the planning department is incompetent, deceitful, or both.

C. Agricultural or Environomental Justification for the Subdivision.

If Robinson had been interested in managing his land differently after the 2002 Robinson Reach Easement, he would have done this parcel split then, not now, when landowners all over the county are doing parcel splits to prepare for further splits to create rural ranchettes.

Planning staff writes that the “applicant also proposes the subdivision to continue the history and legacy of the applicant’s devotion to farming and preserving the wildlife and riparian habitat along the Merced River.”

In fact, the Robinson family destroyed the easement area with its mining operations, the 1997 flood added to the destruction of the reach and endangered the Shaffer Bridge. The state then stepped in and spent $8 million restoring the reach.

Since a favorite phrase in this so-called analysis is “zero evidence” that Chris Robinson plans any projects the least bit destructive to the environment on his ranch, let us suggest that if history is any gauge, the Robinson family intends to destroy what it can to make what it believes is its due. This would certainly include the conversion of seasonal pasture to orchards that may have a negative impact on the Robinson Reach Easement land. We already have, in the proposed sand-mine CUP, a great deal more than “zero evidence” that Robinson plans to change the land use on part of his property close to the easement and the river.

F. Cumulative Impact Analysis of A-1 and or A-2 Zones lands

Fifteen luxury ranchettes, little horse farms for example, would have a major impact on the acreage, particularly if the best viewscapes are taken into account.

“Common sense” regards the argument of five-mile radius for minor subdivisions as a pro-development sophistry left over from the days before Merced County became the nation’s leader in rate of foreclosure and before the passage of AB 32.

G. General Plan Inconsistency

If the Robinson family had been concerned to sort out the parcel lines to separate the Robinson Reach Easement from other parcels, they would have done it when the easement was signed, not during a period of massive agricultural land parcel splitting in the county, clearly aimed at further splitting to produce ranchette-sized parcels for residential development. The first step in conversion to parcels that would be further split, in Robinson’s case, must be to separate out the Robinson Reach Easement. From then on, in Merced County, if history provides more than “zero evidence,” it will be easy for Chris Robinson to get approval for any further splits on these parcels that he wishes to make.

H. General Plan Update.

The appellant did not state that “during the General Plan update process it should allow the County time for long range planning to override the interests of individual landowners.” This is a malevolent misrepresentation of a public comment, but it suggests a motive for the many parcel splits on agricultural land at the moment: Fear that the new General Plan will make such splits more difficult.

I. Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve

Sand mining is not compatible with the intent and policies of the Agricultural Preserve without additional environmental review.

J. Public Agency Referrals

The Planning Department notified the wrong branch of the US Fish & Wildlife Service, whether by design or in ignorance is unknown. The correct branch was notified by the public and Peter Cross, of the Sacramento Office, replied with a strong letter, which the planning department and Robinson’s attorneys are at great pains throughout the staff report to weaken, soften and dismiss, particularly by misrepresentation of Mr. Cross’ subsequent email.

The planning department appears to have become somewhat hysterical over this project. There is no other way to understand the department’s mischaracterization of Mr. Cross’ communications.

L. Exemption from CEQA & Potential Impacts to Listed Species

The Planning Department’s contention that “there is no evidence of any practical likelihood or any intent to change any land use or activity” as a result of this parcel reorganization is bonkers, when seen in light of the material above it on the same page:

“Separating the conservation easement area from the 165-acre parcel where the proposed 40 acre sand mine will be located meets the requirement of the easement documents by prohibiting the extraction of sand, gravel, etc. within the easement area …”

The idea that the “sheer size of the parcels” will protect them from ranchette development is absurd. The lovely, totally protected viewscape of the Robinson Reach (perpetual) Easement, the $8-million donation by the state, grateful at last to get the opportunity to try to undo some of the damage the Robinson family did to the Merced River over decades, enhances the real estate value for large ranchettes with river views. No competent landowner would be unaware of this opportunity of enriching real estate development.

M. Timely Comments

There are several references to policy in the Planning Department staff analysis. Members of the public have been requesting in vain for nearly a decade a Merced County Manual of Operations and Procedures. We don’t believe one exists. “Policies” in the planning department and in the Board of Supervisors’ office change weekly in public experience. For example, on June 30, members of the public were told that hardcopy packets of information available to the public Friday were – according to the County Counsel – provided “only as a matter of courtesy.” CD’s provided by the BOS staff are supposed to be identical to the hardcopy documents in the Agenda binders on the BOS counter. They are not, routinely, and they are not in the Robinson appeal.

Planning Department staff comments regarding the CD submitted by appellant on June 6, 2008

C. Merced Sun-Star Article: State Targets Central Valley Concrete dated April 19, 2008.

Staff cannot quite bring itself to admit that CVC is Robinson’s mining contractor on the CUP for the sand mine. Presumably, staff hopes not all supervisors know that.

It is publicly known that Robinson received a (amount deleted to protect the innocent) retainer from CVC to arrange the parcel splits to enable the sand mining project. That is more than “zero evidence” that Robinson will make millions more on the sand mine. Given past history, there is also more than “zero evidence” that the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and the Board of Supervisors will defraud County taxpayers by not demanding appropriate impacts fees for aggregate projects.

D. Merced River Corridor Restoration Plan

Staff argues that because the plan is not mandatory, it has no bearing on Robinson’s parcel application. It was only “a guide for landowners and agencies who are working on projects to restore the River channel …” With this sort of attitude, the public can hardly wait to see what kind of General Plan Update the staff comes up with.

G., H., J.
Planning Department staff repeat like a singing catfish in Walgreens that there is no relationship between the parcel reorganization application and the sand mine CUP. The truth is that without the parcel reorganization, Robinson could not have his sand mine.

CEQA Findings

There are proposed physical changes to the project site in the mining CUP.

There is no way that the County can guarantee that the agricultural use will not change.

The County is paving the way for authorization to a change of land use on at least one parcel.

The determination that the application is exempt from CEQA review reflects the judgment of the County, which pretends to be independent of CEQA.

We appreciated the County’s inclusion of the Thoreson mining project in the Robinson package because it added weight to the CEQA argument on the cumulative impacts to the Merced River of these proposed sand-mine projects.

Lydia M. Miller Steve Burke

Cc. Interested Parties
Exhibit A

Document access chronology

June 27, Friday, 4:30 p.m. Lydia Miller and Bill Hatch went to the Merced County Board of Supervisors to ask for the CDs for the July 1 BOS meeting and for hard copies of some agenda items in the two-binder Agenda and Reports paperwork available at the counter.

BOS staff first produced three packets of material, for three projects – Robinson parcel split, Thoreson sand mine and Tate microbrewery. Then they gave us reports on other items we requested.

They said the CD would not be ready until Monday. Lydia asked if there was any difference between the hard copy and the CD files. Staff said no. Lydia asked if they were certain because we have found that there ARE routinely different material on the CD that is not made available to the public in hardcopy. Cathy Warneke said there were no differences. She asked Lydia how long ago she had noticed differences. Lydia said, about six months ago. Warneke said that had all been corrected. She assured us that the packet she provided us was no different from what was on the CD.

June 30, 12:30 p.m. Bill went to the BOS office, after we had gone through the staff reports and seen that there were inconsistencies. The two-binder Agenda and Report paperwork wasn’t available. He asked for and received four CDs. When he asked to look at the counter binders of the Agendas and Reports, a staffer went to a back office and returned, saying they were unavailable. She was joined by Cathy Warneke. They explained that the hardcopy reports and documents regarding the Robinson, Thoreson and Tate projects were “mixed” together and that they would notify us by phone when the hard-copy binders were available to the public. The staffer assured Bill that all the material was there, it was just “mixed together.”

Warneke said that BOS staff had checked with County Counsel and that County Counsel had said that the hardcopy packets we received on Friday were “courtesy” only and that the official information was in the CD.

“We just wanted to give you something,” the staffer said.

Bill asked Warneke if, given that half the Robinson hardcopy report was in fact the Thoreson report, there was any additional missing material on the Robinson report. Both Warneke and the staffer replied that there wasn’t any addition material for the Robinson report.

At 3:15 p.m., no phone call had come from BOS to say the binders were ready.

In going through the hardcopy reports, we found that half the Robinson report is the Thoreson report. We submitted 30 documents. Planning staff omitted a number of them, choosing the ones they felt were relevant. For example, only a couple of pages of the Reclamation Plan for the Sand Mining project. Only the Kit Fox map is included

On CD, planners put the whole reclamation, the River Restoration Plan (which they claimed in the staff report was irrelevant); on the CD they included the Sun-Star story on the AG investigation into Central Valley Cement (Robinson’s contractor on the sand mine); they include the Delta Pumps Agreement (also omitted from the hardcopy documents.

At posting we have not finished documenting the differences between the hardcopy packet and the CD. But, it is fair to say that Warneke was misspeaking about the hardcopy and the CD being identical.

Furthermore, Item 19 as stated in the Agenda for July 1 is not adequately descriptive. It states neither a location or the owner, Chris Robinson. The general public would have no way of knowing what this item referred to.

At 4:09 p.m., Board staff called Lydia Miller to tell her the hardcopy documents were ready. Examining them, we discovered a few more documents we had submitted.

At 4:45, Lydia got to the Board of Supervisors office to pick the packet. She picked up Items 18, 19, 20 and 22. When they handed the packet to Lydia, she asked if there was any new information on these items. Staff said there was no new information, it was just the same as had been mixed together in the older packet.

At the counter, Lydia went through the Robinson packet from the back forward. Two-thirds of the packet, she discovered, was new information. She told staff about this, that it was not in the packet she had picked up on Friday. But it was on the CD that Bill had picked up at 12:30 p.m.

Still missing were many of the attachments that we had submitted for the June 10 hearing.

LIST OF EXHIBITS SUBMITTED

June 6:
Robinson Property Project
AG Central Valley Concrete
Army Corps Letter
Four Pumps Agreement
Lewis Letter to USFWS
Merced River Corridor Restoration Plan
MRSHEP Phase 3 Engineering Report

Robinson CUP
Robinson Ranch Application
Robinson Ranch Application Package
Robinson RP
Robinson Ranch RP txt
Vollmar Letter

June 10:
Coalition Statement
DFG Action Plan
Ecofull UC Vollmar
Fish and Game Land-use Change 2
Fish and Game Land-use Change 1
Paving Paradise
Rangeland Resolution
Silviera Report
SJKF Recovery Area
SJKF Documents
TNC VP Target
USFWS Recovery Plan 2
USFWS Recovery Plan 1
USFWS Upland Recovery
Vernal Pools and Related Wetlands
Wildlands Map
Williamson Map