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
August 12, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment