Today Mike Rodrigues, Mark Winters, Michael Haley, and George Bachich met with Steve Lederer of the Napa County Planning Department to discuss the new CEQA Guidelines, and Steve offered the following changes.
A. The new definition of “Environmental Resource of critical Value or Hazardous Concern” will be changed as follows.
1. “Earthquake-shaking prone area” will be deleted.
2. “Groundwater Recharge Zone” will be deleted.
3. “High air pollution area” and “High noise pollution area” will be defined and we will be asked to review and comment on the new definitions.
4. “Culturally sensitive area” is current jargon for “archeologically significant area” (Indian sites) which are already mapped, so this will remain in the definition. Similarly, “Biologically critical areas“ are also already mapped and will remain in the definition. However, Will Selleck will try to compose more precise and useful definitions of “habitat of limited distribution” and “wildlife movement corridor”, and if Will’s new definitions are not satisfactory to Steve Lederer, these terms will be removed from the definition of “Environmental Resource of Critical Value or Hazardous Concern”. If the new definitions do pass Steve’s review, we will be asked to review and comment on them.
“Special status species site or area” will remain in the definition, but “Special Status Species” will be redefined. For instance, Steve does not believe the “Point Reyes Bird List” belongs in the definition. Steve has Laura researching which species lists must be included under state or federal law, and he will inform the Supervisors of that requirement and advise them of other possible lists they can choose to include if they wish. We can comment on his selections at the public hearing.
5. “Heritage tree” will remain in the definition, but will be changed to include only trees of the specific sizes listed, and those of historical significance, but to delete reference to trees “determined by the Planning Director to be a distinctive specimen in size or structure for its species in the County”.
6. Syntax of the definition will be improved to clarify that in the case of those resource areas that are already mapped, their inclusion on the map (rather than plan reviewer’s personal preference) will determine whether they are “Environmental Resources of Critical Value or Hazardous Concern”.
B. Regarding the other definitions that concern us:
1. The definition of “Groundwater deficient area” will be changed to include only the areas on the Groundwater Ordinance Map of Groundwater Deficient Areas (currently only the Milliken-Sarco-Tulocay (MST) basin, plus any parcel that exceeds the “Phase 1 Water Availability Standards” that have been in place since 1991, i.e., annual use of 0.3 acre-feet per acre within the MST, 1.0 acre feet per acre on flat land outside the MST, and 0.5 acre feet per acre on hillside property outside the MST. This means that those projects proposing to exceed the Phase I standards are not exempt from CEQA review, but it does not mean that they cannot be approved if the proposed water usage does not actually cause unmitigatable problems for others.
2. “Habitat of limited distribution” and “wildlife movement corridor” will either get a new and reasonable definitions or they will be deleted.
3. “Heritage Tree” will be redefined as stated in A.5. above.
4. “Scenic Resource” will be redefined in conformance with State guidelines (to be researched). “Scenic vista” and “a prominent ridgeline” may be removed if they are not required by State guidelines, or if “areas regulated by the County’s Viewshed Protection Program” is deemed to be sufficient (Steve is going to think about it). “Tree”, and “stand of trees” will be removed from the definition.
5. The definitions of “Special Status Animals” and Special Status Plants” will be re-visited and the supervisors will be presented with options as described in A.4. above.
6. “Stream” will be redefined to match the definition in the current Conservation Ordinance, i.e., (roughly paraphrased) blue-line streams and others at least 4 feet deep from top of bank and containing trees.
C. Regarding the Exemptions of concern to us:
1. Categorical exemptions will be contingent on no “heritage trees” being removed. All references to “mature trees” will be deleted.
2. Steve says the new phrasing, “very minor modifications of a use permit” actually gives the County more latitude to approve projects larger than the old 50% or 2500 square foot limit, and says he has already used it to approve a 7500 square foot addition.
3. According to Steve, “Emergency projects” are already excluded under state law, so they don’t need to be excluded under County regulations.
4. Demolition permits are exempt under these new guidelines under the exemption for “building permits”.
5. The exemption for driveways under 300 feet long is a new exemption, and so is the exemption for longer driveways that “do not discharge concentrated runoff”. Steve says driveways can be designed for “sheet flow” runoff, and that this is what is meant by driveways that “do not discharge concentrated runoff”. He will consider defining “concentrated runoff” to make this clear.
6. The redefining of “Groundwater Deficient Area” (see B.1. above) will probably solve the problem we see in the exemption for wells.
7. Steve will consider including a ministerial exemption for “fire hazard reduction plans approved by CDF”.
In addition, Steve will research the County’s basis for claiming Class 8 Categorical Exemptions for this and other ordinances and report back to us. Even though our law suit against the County on this issue had to be dropped because Measure P was defeated at the polls, we still maintain, based on political opinions from both Washington Legal Foundation and Pacific Legal Foundation that this is an abuse of the Categorical exemption process, and that any ordinance that will impact the environment both positively and negatively must have a full CEQA review, even if it is initially believed that the positive impacts will outweigh the negative impacts. CEQA is clear on this and the courts have affirmed it, yet Napa County has apparently not yet got the message.
Steve maintains that his objective in revising the CEQA guidelines is to exempt more projects and to make it easier for land owners, not to impose more obstacles. He immediately recognized that many of our points are valid and that the new CEQA Guidelines should be revised to reflect them. We think he is acting in good faith and we expect the revisions he proposes will be largely satisfactory. However, we are still very concerned about Will Selleck’s pending attempt to redefine “habitat of limited distribution” and “wildlife movement corridor”. We advocate the elimination of these new terms from the definition of “Environmental Resource of Critical Value or Hazardous Concern”, but if they must be included, we insist that they be defined as narrowly and precisely as possible.
We expect to hear back from Steve in about a week. The consideration of these new guidelines by the Board of Supervisors has been continued until October 3, and could be continued again if we are not able to come to agreement with the County on the revisions. We will strive to keep you informed.
George Bachich, president