Will Efren ignore EPA letter re: Best Family Investors Winery?

[Thomas Morabito]

Linda S. Adams
Secretary for
Environmental Protection


Arnold
Schwarzenegger
Governor
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
North Coast Region
Geoffrey M. Hales, Chairman
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A, Santa Rosa, California 95403
Phone: (877) 721-9203 (toll free) • Office: (707) 576-2220 • FAX: (707) 523-0135

California Environmental Protection Agency

Recycled Paper

March 1, 2010



Ms. Traci Tesconi
Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department
2550 Ventura Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2829

Dear Ms. Tesconi:

Subject: Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Best Family
Winery, Sonoma County, SCH No. 2009072014

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
for the Best Family Winery project. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board (Regional Water Board) is a responsible agency for this project, with jurisdiction
over the quality of ground and surface waters (including wetlands) and the protection of
beneficial uses of such waters. We appreciate the opportunity to comment early in the
planning process.

The proposed project consists of the development of a vineyard, winery and public
tasting room on 3 acres of a 7.61 acre parcel. The parcel is currently developed with a
single-family home and an apple orchard, which will be demolished. The winery facility
will consist of two buildings: a 33,000 square foot production and storage building, and a
5,000 square foot tasting room/office building. The existing driveway will be paved and
widened, and 42 parking spaces for visitors and employees will be constructed. A water
tower and large steel tanks for a water catchment system will be added, a new well
developed onsite, and a septic system with leachfields developed.

The project site is located one mile to the west of the Laguna de Santa Rosa and one
mile to the east of Atascadero Creek. A wetland delineation study found one wetland
area 0.3 acres in size on the southern portion of the site.

The Regional Water Board does not believe that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
provides adequate analysis and mitigation of potential impacts to water quality. Without
further analysis and mitigation, we do not consider the MND to be sufficient as an
environmental analysis.

[Gratongirl]

Here is the entire letter...from a read of the complete letter, it ends on a slightly different note than depicted by Mr. Morabito...




March 1, 2010

Ms. Traci Tesconi
Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department
2550 Ventura Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2829

Dear Ms. Tesconi:

Subject: Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Best Family
Winery, Sonoma County, SCH No. 2009072014



Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
for the Best Family Winery project. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board (Regional Water Board) is a responsible agency for this project, with jurisdiction
over the quality of ground and surface waters (including wetlands) and the protection of
beneficial uses of such waters. We appreciate the opportunity to comment early in the
planning process.

The proposed project consists of the development of a vineyard, winery and public
tasting room on 3 acres of a 7.61 acre parcel. The parcel is currently developed with a
single-family home and an apple orchard, which will be demolished. The winery facility
will consist of two buildings: a 33,000 square foot production and storage building, and a
5,000 square foot tasting room/office building. The existing driveway will be paved and
widened, and 42 parking spaces for visitors and employees will be constructed. A water
tower and large steel tanks for a water catchment system will be added, a new well
developed onsite, and a septic system with leachfields developed.

The project site is located one mile to the west of the Laguna de Santa Rosa and one
mile to the east of Atascadero Creek. A wetland delineation study found one wetland
area 0.3 acres in size on the southern portion of the site.

The Regional Water Board does not believe that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
provides adequate analysis and mitigation of potential impacts to water quality. Without
further analysis and mitigation, we do not consider the MND to be sufficient as an
environmental analysis.

Comments

Surface Waters

The project site contains 0.3 acres of wetland area. In December of 2006, Stephen
Bargsten of the Regional Water Board and Philip Shannin of the Army Corps of
Engineers visited the site, with Mr. Casey Costello, a representative of the project, and
Mr. Dave Davis of Winzler & Kelly, his consultant. The following comments were made
on behalf of the Regional Water Board at the site visit, and clarified later within an email
(Attachment 1):

1. At the time of the visit, Mr. Costello and his consultant indicated project was to
avoid filling of the majority of wetlands, with only a possible road crossing in the
upper narrow reach. Avoidance of wetlands was the primary objective.

2. The required setbacks from the wetland to any construction or buildings was
discussed. Regional Water Board staff indicated that the setback distance
could vary, although hydrology should not be altered and untreated storm water
runoff should not be allowed to enter the wetland area.

3. If avoidance of the wetland is deemed impracticable, then onsite mitigation
could be performed at the lower portion of the wetland, assuming that the
downhill flow and hydrology of the wetland is preserved.

4. The wetland should be kept as intact as possible, with no apple trees removed,
no grapes added, and no landscaping.

5. Regional Water Board staff would like to meet with the project coordinators to
discuss potential configurations for the project in order to provide a clearer
response.


Project coordinators for the Best Family Winery project have not followed up on this
correspondence with the Regional Water Board. In March of 2008, the Army Corps of
Engineers and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued
revised regulations governing compensatory mitigation. The hierarchy of preference for
mitigation options now considers mitigation bank credits to be the preferred form of
mitigation, followed by in-lieu fee program credits, onsite in-kind Permittee-responsible
mitigation, and other Permittee-responsible mitigation.

The current MND states that the project will result in the fill of the wetland, as ìbased on
the wetland siteís layout and its relationship to the proposed winery facility, there is no
choice but to ìtakeî the wetland.î The MND offers two mitigation measures with
associated ëmonitoringí measures, summarized as follows:

Mitigation Measure 4.c(1): The Sonoma County Permitting and Resource Management
Department (PRMD) shall not issue any permits (grading,
septic, building) that directly impact the wetland until the
permit holder has approved 404 and 401 permits.

Mitigation Monitoring 4.c(1): A 404 permit and a 401 permit will be obtained.

Mitigation Measure 4.c(2): PRMD shall not issue any permits until the permit holder has
submitted a copy of the final agreement for the purchase of
off-site credits.

Mitigation Monitoring 4.c(2): PRMD shall not issue any permits until the permit holder
has submitted a copy of the formal agreement for the
purchase of off-site credits.


None of these ìMitigation Measuresî provide actual mitigation. Rather, they enumerate
the benchmarks that any project seeking to fill a wetland area must meet prior to
proceeding with the projectís development. According to CEQA ß15370, mitigation
includes:

(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of
an action.

(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation.

(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
impacted environment.

(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.

(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.


The MND does not provide sufficient justification for the fill of these wetlands. The
project applicant wishes to construct a 3 acre vineyard and winery on a 7.61 acre
property with 0.3 acres of jurisdictional wetland. The MND does not detail any attempts
at avoiding or minimizing the impacts to the onsite wetland. The project applicant has
not yet attempted to discuss different project configurations with the Regional Water
Board as suggested. The MND must exhaust all possibilities for avoiding or minimizing
impacts to the wetland prior to suggesting compensatory mitigation.

In addition, the purchase of wetland mitigation credits from a mitigation bank may not be
an option for compensatory mitigation. The project must be within a mitigation bankís
service area in order to purchase mitigation credits.


Storm water

Storm water runoff has the potential to cause erosion and carry sediments and other
pollutants to sensitive habitats. The Regional Water Board strongly encourages utilizing
Low Impact Development (LID) techniques when mitigating for storm water, as LID
techniques use bioinfiltration and evapotranspiration to prevent increases in runoff
leaving the site. The MND for this project identifies some good mitigation measures for
storm water runoff, but more specificity is needed.

Item HYD-8(c) on the CEQA Environmental Checklist asks whether the project would
ìsubstantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?î The MND describes the NPDES and

SUSMP requirements, which include the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for pre- and post-
construction impacts of storm water runoff. The MND concludes that no mitigation is
needed, which is not correct.

Permitting and the preparation of SUSMP BMPs and a SWPPP are not in themselves
mitigation. Mitigation can and should occur through the permitting and planning
process. We cannot evaluate whether the preparation of SUSMP BMPs and a SWPPP
is sufficient to mitigate for potential impacts to storm water quality without knowledge of
the specific mitigation measures and BMPs included in the plan. The MND should
articulate the BMPs and mitigation that will be included in SUSMP BMPs and the
SWPPP and explain how they will be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less
than significant level.

The MND states that the project will not result in additional storm water leaving the site,
which is the ideal result. The Regional Water Board strongly supports this goal,
although we would like to add that maintaining the pre-development peak flow is
different (and not as desirable) as maintaining the pre-development volume of flow as is
required under new storm water regulations. However, in addition to the lack of detail
regarding mitigating through the permitting and planning process, there is a lack of
detail regarding the site design features described in the MND. The use of grassy
swales to infiltrate storm water (p. 49) is a good technique, but the MND does not
describe the size, extent, or other details regarding these swales. The swalesí expected
infiltration capacity should be included with the MND.

The MND states that pervious paving will be used for all roads and parking facilities.
Please note that if underdrains are present under the pervious paving, it does not
qualify as mitigation or treatment of storm water runoff. In addition, the MND should
include provisions to ensure maintenance of pervious paving, as poorly maintained
pervious paving is inefficient and provides little mitigation for storm water.

Preserving natural areas is an important component of LID and a useful tool in
mitigating for alterations in storm water runoff. The Regional Water Board would like to
see this addressed in the MND.

If you have any questions or comments regarding wetlands and 401 permitting, you
may contact Stephen Bargsten at (707) 576-2653 or [email protected].
Questions or comments about storm water may be directed to Mona Dougherty at (707)
570-3761 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
John Short
Senior Water Resources Control Engineer
030110_CMT_BestFamilyWinery_MND

Cc: Philip Shannin, San Francisco District, US Army Corps of Engineers, 1455 Market
Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1398


Attachment 1

>>> On 12/18/2006 at 8:26 AM, John Short wrote:

Stephen - Good e-mail. I would like to hear more about this project.
>>> Stephen Bargsten 12/14/2006 4:46 PM >>>
Casey,
In general, we want to avoid impacts to wetlands. In your case, the setback distance
would depend on what impact it may have on the wetland. The hydrology should not
change, and stormwater runoff from the new project shouldn't enter the wetland
without being treated (for example, by running through a vegetated swale) before it
enters the wetland area. Without seeing your proposed plans, it is hard to say exactly,
but a setback of 20 feet from the northern boundary of the upper part of the wetland
area, would be a good rule of thumb, as long as the impacts are minimized (IE:
treatment of runoff into the wetland area). Something that has a low impact, such as a
bridge over the wetland, could encroach closer to the wetland, if this would minimize
the overall impacts to the wetland.

If it is impracticable (as described below by Philip) to avoid the wetland, then mitigation
could be done on site, at the lower portion of the wetland, as long as the source of the
water feeding the wetland is preserved and kept hydraulically connected, since this
seemed to be a sloped wetland, rather than a vernal pool. (I did not look to see what
was uphill of the wetland area, was there any sort of water conveyance that feeds the
wetland?) The downhill flow of the wetland seems critical for its preservation.
As far as the agriculture goes, I would suggest that the wetland area be kept as intact
as possible, keeping the apples there. The area of the wetland that is not currently
planted with apples should not be planted to grapes. No new landscaping should be
done within the wetlands.

I would suggest that if you want to proceed, that you think about some configurations
for the project, and then come in and meet with us to discuss them. When we have
more specific ideas of what you want to do, then we can be clearer with our response.
I hope this helps.

Stephen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Bargsten
Environmental Scientist
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region
5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Office Hours: Tuesday-Friday 7:00-5:30
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o o o o O
o o o o O
o o o o o
><(∫> ><(((∫> ><(((∫> ><((((∫> ><(((((((∫>
>>> "Shannin,Philip A SPN" <> 12/12/2006
3:48:32 PM >>>
Yes, this is basically correct. But to clarify, you must avoid the wetland unless you give
us documentation that avoidance is impracticable to fullfill the project purpose taking
into consideration other factors such as avoiding leach fields, scenic easements, etc. If
this statement is acceptable, the Corps will allow a permit application to be processed,
with mitigation. Wetland creation can be done onsite. Preservation of ESA plants will
also be required, unless you can provide evidence that the plants do not exist on site,
according to FWS protocol level surveys.
Philip

From: Casey Costello
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:22 PM
To: Shannin,Philip A SPN;
Subject: Costello Winery Site Visit
Dear Philip & Stephen,
I would like to thank you both again for taking the time to meet with us out at our
proposed winery site to review the wetland area found by Jane Valerius & Dave Davis
of Winzler & Kelly. I just wanted to send this e-mail to you to confirm some of the
conclusions we came to at the end of our meeting last Wednesday.


Philip - as discussed at our meeting Wednesday the 6th of December, it is the Corp's
Voice (707) 576-2653
FAX (707) 523-0135
[email protected]@pcf-1.com]
[email protected]onclusion that we may bring the building up to but not within the wetland area.

You also mentioned that should we be forced to have to build within a portion of the
wetland area, and a hardship is proven to exist, that we may do so, so long as the
appropriate mitigation measures are followed. One idea which was discussed during our
meeting was to possibly use the southwest corner of our property as a mitigation area.

Stephen - you mentioned you would need to check with your boss, John Short,
a County scenic corridor that exists on both Highway 116 and Occidental Road. That, in
addition to the found wetland area, the building envelope has been seriously reduced.
Given the quality, or lack there of, of the existing wetland area I would like to ask that
the setback requirement be minimized as much as possible. You also mentioned that
the Board would be ok with us replanting within the wetland area and changing the ag
use from apples to grapes so long as we do not rip the soil too deep.

As I mentioned at our meeting we are taking this project on a step-by-step basis, with
this being the first large step. Should the setback requirements be too great and
mitigation measures too expensive this project will not get past this first hurdle. We
understand we have a long way to go but want to make sure we have our basis
covered from the sites environmental point of view from the onset.

If any of the above is incorrect or I interpreted in error please let me know. Also,
should you need to contact me to ask any questions please feel free to give me a call at
(707) 477-6740 or Dave Davis at (707) 523-1010.

Again thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Casey Costello
E-Mail:
Cell: (707) 477-6740

regarding the possible setback requirements mandated by the Regional Water Board. I
would ask that you please keep in mind some of the constraints we are already facing.
As discussed during our meeting, the building area is already being greatly restricted by
[email protected]







[Zeno Swijtink]

From: Rue Furch
Sender: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 22:51:01 -0700
Subject: [SonomaWildlife] FYI: Best Family Investors Winery LLC


Hi there,

One of the next projects to go before the Board of Supervisors involving a zone change to accommodate a change in use is the Best Family Winery at the corner of Hwy 116 and Occidental Road. As mentioned in one of my previous emails - there are several more in the pipeline. So many small communities are valiantly fighting development in their area. Many have been doing so for years, and many are (or will be) facing the massive effort of raising money (and giving much time) preparing for a lawsuit. Our representatives should speak for us, not require us to spend time and money asking them to do the right thing.

If you, or someone you know, has the time - please show up and show solidarity for this community. This is not a NIMBY issue - this is a planning / land use issue (with traffic, water and sewage, etc. thrown in as impacts). This last year we've seen more zone changes (and appeals to the BoS) than have been processed in many, many years. Our County General Plan has parcel specific zoning, and anyone who wanted a change (technical or otherwise) had the opportunity to request that change during the most recent GP update - at no expense. It is therefore, very hard to understand why so many changes are now being requested when they cost a good deal of money. These new uses will change the fabric of our landscape.

We have voted in Urban Growth Boundaries to place high density development inside the City limits (the UGBs). What good will density do within the urban areas if we continue to develop outside the Urban Limit line in the unincorporated areas? The changes in zoning, and in uses, create greater impacts and in many cases do not support our local businesses.

If you would like a copy of the NCWQCB letter that is mentioned in the email alert from the community (see below) - let me know. I'm not attaching it because some of the email services choke on an attachment.

I know you are very busy, and so appreciate your dedication, time, and energy in protecting our fragile home.

Have a great spring week, and thank you for caring. (On, or before the 8th PLEASE VOTE!)
Rue

------------------------------


Dear Friends,
The Best Family Investors LLC Winery proposal is on the Board of Supervisors agenda again scheduled for June 8, 2010 at 2:10 p.m. We've been submitting new information and reports that should give pause to the Board of Supervisors and force an Environmental Impact Review.

We scrubbed the Public File at PRMD and look what we found!!

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region- a division of the California EPA- prepared an 8 page report dated March 1, 2010 and submitted it to Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD). It includes copies of correspondence dating back to December 2006.

Here is a direct quote from the report.... "The Regional Water Board does not believe that the Mitigated Negative Declaration provides adequate analysis and mitigation of potential impacts to water quality. Without further analysis and mitigation, we do not consider the MND to be sufficient as an environmental analysis." This report discusses serious concerns and lack of mitigation regarding the existing wetlands on the project site and the proposal to "take" the wetland for a winery facility.

This report has never been mentioned at a Public Hearing. This report does not appear on The Best Family Investors LLC Winery web page even though they have posted many other reports.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors took a straw vote on March 2, 2010 to approve this project. Is this how the County protects the people? Is this how the County protects our environment? The Board of Supervisors must put the brakes on this project! Will the county continue to ignore the California Environmental Protection Agency? Will the county continue to ignore us?
If we can't count on our elected Supervisors to speak for us then we must be sure to speak for ourselves! It is not only our right, it is our responsibility to hold them accountable. Please write, call, or e-mail the Board of Supervisors. Urge them to vote NO on this project. An EIR is required if this project is to continue. We Must Demand It!

Valerie Brown, Board Chairman and 1st District: [email protected]
Mike Kerns, 2nd District: [email protected]
Shirlee Zane, 3rd District: [email protected]
Paul Kelley, 4th District: [email protected]
Efren Carrillo, 5th District: [email protected]


Please attend the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday June 8, 2010 at 2:10 p.m. We Must Be Heard!

[bakerchic]

Here is the entire letter...from a read of the complete letter, it ends on a slightly different note than depicted by Mr. Morabito...

You're right. In my opinion, the entire letter paints a much more negative picture of the potential effects on the environment than the simple summary of the agency's opinion posted by Mr. Morabito. Especially, that what has passed as "mitigation," by the BoS, is not mitigation at all under CEQA. And the fact that the BoS has basically approved (so far) a project, whose impact, dimensions and specifics are still evolving and therefore, not completely known.

[Thomas Morabito]

Hi Gratongirl,
You must work for the county. If not, you should. You have that same way of ignoring the facts and flooding the argument with paper work. Read the post again and you'll see that "Mr. Morabito" did not contribute one word other than the thread title. The only depicting done was by John Short of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board which is a division of the California Environmental Protection Agency.