Report: Officials could be jeopardizing future south Sutter County projects
The
Sutter County Grand Jury is raising concerns that officials could be
unknowingly jeopardizing development of the Sutter Pointe project and other
future development opportunities in south Sutter County due to oversight
involving an important conservancy board.
Sutter
County and Sacramento each appoint five board members to serve on the nonprofit
Natomas Basin Conservancy, which was established to oversee a conservancy plan
focused on providing a balance between new development and habitat for 22
plants and wildlife species in a large area of land on the south Sutter County
border – an area where plans are in place to develop an eventual city called
Sutter Pointe.
The
grand jury stated a lack of representation and poor communication by the county
in recent years has allowed Sacramento to develop beyond the agreed borders
within the conservation plan, and large tracts of land in Sutter County that
could’ve been used for county development have now been acquired by the
conservancy and other developers as mitigation lands for Sacramento
development. Because of that, the grand jury stated it has concerns that there
is not enough mitigation land available now for the development of the Sutter
Pointe project, which is expected to be a major source of jobs and housing for
Sutter County.
“The
grand jury recommends that the Sutter County Board of Supervisors be kept fully
informed about the Natomas Basin Conservancy plans concerning development
impacting Sutter County and ensure full representation at each meeting,” the
grand jury stated in the latest investigation’s summary released last week.
“The board needs to challenge entities that impact Sutter County’s interest in
the Natomas Basin area and should additionally renegotiate the conservation
plan to keep the benefits laid out in the current plan for Sutter
County.”
Investigation
The
grand jury received a complaint regarding the conservancy and the Sutter County
Board of Supervisors’ lack of a response to complaints about the management of
conservancy lands, which prompted the investigation that saw members review
documents and meetings, and interview county staff and conservancy personnel.
Between
August and October 2019, four conservancy board members who were local
representatives resigned – some cited differences with management, another
cited issues with the conservancy’s policy regarding land rents. The grand jury
said proper attention to the resignations should have alerted the board to a
potential issue at that time. Grand jury members also reviewed board agendas
and couldn’t find evidence that supervisors reacted to the resignations at a
meeting, or were even aware of the need to expedite selection of new members.
Those interviewed cited a variety of reasons for the delay, one of which was
that the process of selecting someone for the conservancy board was different
from other board seats.
Sutter
County staff that were interviewed were also unaware of who the
county-appointed liaison was to the conservancy. The grand jury found little
in-depth communication existed between the conservancy and the Sutter County
Board of Supervisors in an official capacity.
The
investigation also uncovered that Sacramento started development in an
incorporated section of the Natomas Basin not shown as permitted development in
the conservancy maps and therefore not approved under the conservation plan.
With the city circumventing the conservation plan by starting a new
development, the grand jury stated there is a need to reevaluate the
conservancy plan, as the Sacramento project is using mitigation lands in Sutter
County, which further reduces the development and mitigation land available for
Sutter County.
With
a finite amount of land available in the Natomas Basin for development and
mitigation, Sacramento County is further complicating the matter as it has
plans to develop two new areas in the basin that will require mitigation land.
The original Natomas Basin agreement between the city, Sutter County, and the
federal and state agencies concerned was for development of 17,500 acres – if
one party exceeds its allotment then the other party’s allotment may be reduced
to keep the overall development to 17,500 acres.
“If
Sacramento County and the city are allowed to develop at their current rate
then Sutter County will not have enough mitigation land to develop their
allotment of 7,467 acres,” the grand jury stated. “...One thing is clear:
Sacramento is growing faster than south Sutter County. Further development will
cause the conservation plan to be reevaluated and Sutter County will inevitably
lose current acreage for mitigation lands, as there is only a finite amount of land
within these borders. Sutter County must act immediately to lessen the city of
Sacramento’s control over mitigation in the basin or lose out on the
opportunity to develop in that area.”
Findings/recommendations
The
grand jury found that there was a serious communication breakdown between the
conservancy, Sutter County officials and the county-appointed liaison, both in
the time consuming and unclear method of selecting new board members and
ensuring the local liaison representative was actively involved. Jury members
found no evidence that the board was informed of the resignations, resulting in
a lack of corrective measures being taken to ease concerns about the
conservancy’s management and the county’s development interests. Also, past
board of directors at the conservancy approved risky investments of Sutter
County mitigation funds, which are still in place and could lead to financial
problems in the future.
The
grand jury also found that commissions representing the city of Sacramento
(LAFCO) ignored objections from Sutter County on developing outside
conservation plan borders and proceeded with development, which jeopardizes the
plan requiring renegotiation and impacting development in south Sutter County.
Also, current plans for development in Sacramento County, which is not a member
of the conservancy, could disrupt plans for development in the Natomas Basin.
They
recommended Sutter County supervisors immediately create a procedure to receive
briefings of any letters of resignation sent to the board and have the
information relayed during public meetings for full transparency. They asked
that the board direct the county administrative officer to create a board and
commission appointment procedure that is consistent for all boards and
commissions to be completed within a set timeframe. Procedures should also be
set up by the board to receive regular annual updates from the conservancy on
the impacts of all development in the area within the next 90 days.
The
grand jury also recommended the board immediately direct its members to the
conservancy board of directors to investigate management of the conservancy
endowment fund investments and change procedures to minimize financial impact
on Sutter County, as well as immediately start proceedings to renegotiate the
plan with Sacramento and other permittees to remediate the encroachment done by
the city and its impact on wildlife in the new plan – they stated Sacramento
County should be included in its negotiations for a comprehensive conservation
plan for the Natomas Basin. Lastly, they recommended supervisors direct county
staff to prepare a letter for signatures clarifying their position to both
Sacramento County and Sacramento objecting to development not meeting the
conservation plan.
To
view the latest investigation released by the Sutter County Grand Jury,
visit https://bit.ly/2QZZ1of. The report regarding development in south Sutter County is the
second report released by the 2020/21 Sutter County Grand Jury. A final report
is expected to be released in late June or early July.
Appeal-Democrat
By Jake Abbott jabbott@appealdemocrat.com
May 11, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment