Annual Report Reports Continuity Implementation Compliance Sutter County Corrections and Rehabilitation Reform:*

Conclusions 2

• CL1
  The Grand Jury annually completes its term of service with published reports on completed civil investigations. These reports generate findings and recommendations which require a variety of required and invited responses. The Grand Jury's investigation revealed all required responses and most invited responses were received from the investigated agencies. This is a marked improvement over past years when this level of response was lacking. The Grand Jury appreciates all departments and agencies that replied to the 2020-2021 Grand Jury's findings. It is important for responses to be complete and responsive so the public can know when to expect actions to be taken to address investigated issues. Reporting publicly on the completion of previously committed actions goes a long way toward enhancing the positive impact of the Grand Jury in its role as a public watchdog. Appendix A Natomas Basin Conservancy Letter 2150 RIVER PLAZA DRIVE SUTTE 160 ENDORSED FILED SACRAMENTO, CA 95833 PHONE: 916.649.3331 July 6, 2021 AUG 0 2 2021 FAX: 916.619.3322 DUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SUTTERCLERK OF THE COURT The Honorable Susan E. Green, Presiding Judge Sutter County Superior Court Deputy 1175 Civic Center Blvd. JACKIE LASWELL B۷. Yuba City, CA 95993 RE: Response to the 2020-2021 Sutter County Civil Grand Jury Report, "Development in South Sutter County; Fowl Play in the Natomas Basin?" Dear Judge Green: On behalf of The Natomas Basin Conservancy, a California Non-profit Public Benefit Corporation, I submit this response to the Sutter County Grand Jury's report titled, "Development in South Sutter County; Fowl Play in the Natomas Basin?" It pertains only to those remarks that are listed as "Findings" and "Recommendations" in the Grand Jury Report, and only those that have to do with the Natomas Basin Conservancy specifically. The Conservancy has no interest in commenting on, nor does it have purview, with respect to County government and the proposed developments the Grand Jury finds problematic. OFFICERS AND Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations BOARD OF DIRECTORS F1. There is a serious communications breakdown between the Conservancy, JOHN F. SHIREY Chair Sutter County Board of Supervisors and County appointees, both in the time consuming and unclear method of selecting Conservancy board members and MICHAEL JOHNSTON insuring our county liaison is actively involved. Vice Chair CHANDRA CHILMAKURI Response: There has been no breakdown in communications between the Secretary Conservancy and County appointees to the Board of Directors or Sutter County GABRIELLE STADEM leadership. There are periodic communications, mostly by email and telephone, Treasurer with the County's CAO and its Principal Planner. These are well documented. Additionally, the County's Principal Planner is invited to and actively MELINDA BRADBURY Board Member participates in the NBHCP Implementation Group, which meets periodically and consists of all "Parties" to the NBHCP, including the Conservancy, the City DAVID CHRISTOPHEL of Sacramento, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish Board Member and Wildlife Service. Occasionally the County's Principal Planner is joined by STEVEN COHN the County's Development Services Director at these meetings. (Note: no Board Member meetings have been held during COVID-19.) Finally, the County's appointees NANCY JOHNSTON to the Conservancy's Board of Directors meet in session every other month, Board Member receive periodic emails from the Conservancy's Executive Director, and a number of Sutter County appointees are contacted and consulted with on CHRIS NOREM various matters, usually related to their expertise and engagement in Board Board Member activities (e.g., committee assignments, etc.). PAUL SQUIRES Board Member F3. 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. EXECUTIVE OFFICER Response: It would be helpful if the Grand Jury would specify what John R. Roberts investments the Conservancy's past Board of Directors approved which could Executive Director Appendix A Natomas Basin Conservancy Letter (cont) The Honorable Susan E. Green Presiding Judge of the Sutter County Superior Court Grand Jury Report comment Page 2 of 4 be deemed "risky." If there were risky investments made, they would have been identified by the independent auditor, by other HCP fee payers (which regularly examine the Conservancy's operations), by the Conservancy's investment advisor, which continues to note the Conservancy's endowment funds are 100 percent invested in T. Rowe Price mutual funds and in accordance with a carefully-approved (by the Board of Directors) investment policy (considered by the investment advisor to be conservative). Or the alleged risky investments would have been identified by one or more of the knowledgeable people who serve and have served on the Conservancy's Board of Directors appointed by Sutter County, which include past members of the Sutter County Board of Supervisors, by attorneys or by the County's senior management appointed to the Conservancy's Board of Directors. Or by a long- standing former Sacramento City Mayor, City Councilmember, multiple former City Managers, an attorney and similar officials (such as City Treasurer's office management executive) appointed by the City of Sacramento. Or, more recently, a CPA in private practice. But we are unaware that any Board member has ever voiced to Conservancy management or the Board of Directors in meeting any concern about such "risky" investments. Instead, they regularly approve the investment policies, as amended, by unanimous vote, which investment policies are followed by the investment advisor (T. Rowe Price). Additionally, the City of Sacramento's city management officials recently spent approximately a year reviewing details of the Conservancy financials in a due diligence effort, and having completed its review, awarded the Conservancy a non-interest bearing, non-recourse loan of $2 million to use in purchasing additional mitigation land. If investments were risky, as alleged by the Grand Jury, the City would have identified that and recommended corrective action. Finally, the Yolo County Grand Jury recently met with the Conservancy, extensively, and ended up posting in its final report that a consequential conservancy organization in Yolo County consider partnering with the Natomas Basin Conservancy,1 having told Conservancy management that "everywhere we go, when we ask questions about successful conservancy organizations, it seems they always tell us to meet with you." (That is, with the Natomas Basin Conservancy.) If the Conservancy invested its endowment funds in risky investments, the Yolo County Grand Jury would surely not have made the recommendations it did. 1 "Final Consolidated Report," 2019-20 Yolo County Grand Jury. page 67. As presented in the report, responses section: "The Plan provides the YHC Board of Directors with the authority to partner with an existing land management agency (a plan operator) such as the Natomas Basin Conservancy that has an existing staff with the required qualifications and infrastructure to manage the Plan and to hire and manage the necessary environmental consultants. Response [by Yolo Habitat Conservancy]: The respondents agree with this finding." Later: By June 30, 2021, the YHC Board of Directors and the member agencies of the JPA should evaluate whether the Plan would be best served by partnering with an existing plan operator, such as the Natomas Basin Conservancy." Appendix A Natomas Basin Conservancy Letter (cont) The Honorable Susan E. Green Presiding Judge of the Sutter County Superior Court Grand Jury Report comment Page 3 of 4 R3. The Sutter County Board of Supervisors establish procedures to receive regular annual updates from the Conservancy on impacts of all development in the area within the next 90 days. Comment: The County has already approved and bound itself by unanimous vote of its Board of Supervisors under contract with the State of California and the U.S. Government the annual reporting process by the Conservancy to all Parties to the NBHCP, including the County. The Conservancy has followed and adhered to that reporting practice and responsibility in each of its 21 years. After the annual reporting process, the County (and all Parties to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan) are invited to meet in public session to discuss the annual reporting. R4. The Sutter County Board of Supervisors immediately direct its members to the Conservancy board of directors to investigate management of the Conservancy endowment funds and change procedures to minimize the financial impact on Sutter County. Comment: This would be the fifth investigation of the Conservancy emanating from Sutter County in as many years. In contrast, after 21 years, the City of Sacramento has investigated the Conservancy zero times, and Metro Air Park's HCP group has also conducted zero investigations of the Conservancy in its long involvement. The Conservancy welcomes inquiry into the management of its endowment funds just as it has always encouraged and welcomed Sutter County engagement in Conservancy matters. The Conservancy's investment policies have been shared with Sutter County officials (including as recently as February 1, 2021) and all of the Sutter County appointees to the Conservancy's Board of Directors on a regular basis. It was a Sutter County appointee to the Board that made the motion to accept and approve the investment policies when they were last approved by the Board (via unanimous vote). Sutter County's Grand Jury has no authority to cause investigations to "change procedures" at the Conservancy. The Conservancy is not operated on behalf of any public entity. During the last federal litigation on the matter of the NBHCP, in which Sutter County was a defendant, Sutter County agreed with the other defendants that the Conservancy is a separate and non-governmental organization, and this is clearly stated in the NBHCP. This was approved by the Sutter County Board of Supervisors. Also approved by the Sutter County Board of Supervisors is Section 8.16 of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement which states as follows: "Neither this Agreement nor the NBHCP shall make or be deemed to make any party to the Agreement the agent for or the partner of any other party." (Emphasis added.) Appendix A Natomas Basin Conservancy Letter (cont) The Honorable Susan E. Green Presiding Judge of the Sutter County Superior Court Grand Jury Report comment Page 4 of 4
• CL2
  Finally, the Conservancy believes errors in the overall Grand Jury Report are extensive. Clearly, the manner in which the Grand Jury obtained its information to file its report and make its recommendations are suspect. Moreover, the Grand Jury substantially misrepresented itself when it requested a meeting with Conservancy officials. Sutter County continues its campaign of one investigation after another of the Conservancy (never once finding any allegations that have been substantiated). In doing so, it is creating a serious burden on the Conservancy, creating higher HCP fees as a result, and burdening other HCP fee payers with needless costs. We encourage Sutter County to re-consider its path. Sincerely, The Natomas Basin Conservancy, a California Non-profit Public Benefit Corporation John F. Shirey, Chair By: Board of Directors Board of Directors C: The Natomas Basin Conservancy John Roberts, Executive Director The Natomas Basin Conservancy Edward J. Quinn, Jr. Best, Best & Krieger RECEIVED JUL 1 4 2021 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SUTTER Appendix A Sacramento County Planning and Environmental Review Letter 79 Office of Planning and Interim County Executive Environmental Review Ann Edwards Leighann Moffitt, Director July 15, 2021 Susan E. Green, Presiding Judge Sutter County Superior Court 1175 Civic Center Boulevard Yuba City, CA 95993 Re: Response to Sutter County Civil Grand Jury Report "Development in South Sutter – Fowl Play in the Natomas Basin?" Dear Ms. Green: The Sacramento County Office of Planning and Environmental Review appreciates the opportunity to review and respond to the 2020-2021 Sutter County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Development in South Sutter – Fowl Play in the Natomas Basin". Although the majority of the Report focuses on the City of Sacramento and Sutter County's development activities and the Natomas Basin Conservancy's efforts to acquire and/or manage lands consistent with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan (MAPHCP), the Report mentions two pending Specific Plans proposed by private developers in unincorporated Sacramento County. Specifically, the report expresses concern that current plans for development in Sacramento County (not a member of the conservancy) will disrupt planned Sutter County development in the Natomas Basin. The Report correctly states that Sacramento County is not a signatory to the NBHCP. However, the potential for additional urban development beyond the current City of Sacramento boundaries and approved Metro Air Park in unincorporated Natomas has been the subject of much discussion over the last three decades. Sacramento County, with the concurrence and cooperation of City of Sacramento management, took the lead in responding to requests from development interests to pursue potential development starting around 2008. The Sacramento County 2030 General Plan was approved in 2011 and includes an overlay on the Land Use Diagram recognizing the Natomas Joint Vision area as a location where Sacramento County would study potential urbanization. The related General Plan Policy LU-114 states: "It is the policy of Sacramento County that development and open space preservation in the Natomas Joint Vision Overlay Area occur in a comprehensive, responsible and cohesive manner that best addresses land use, economic development and environmental opportunities and challenges in Natomas." Applications from the various landowners led to the Board of Supervisors' formal initiation of the master plan process for Grandpark Specific Plan in March 2016 and the Upper Westside Specific Plan in February 2019. In initiating this master plan process, Sacramento County staff and the applicants for both Grandpark and Upper Westside were fully aware of the existing NBHCP and MAPHCP requirements that at the end of the 50-year permitting period, there be one preserve block of at least 2,500 contiguous acres and that the remaining preserves be in blocks of at least 400 acres and be connected by water. The preserves must be 50% in rice cultivation, 25% in managed marsh habitat and 25% in upland Swainson's hawk habitat. Both HCPs assume that above and beyond the mitigation lands and in-perpetuity preserves, an additional 15,095 acres of land will remain committed to agriculture in the basin and that 12,193 acres of exempt, already approved/entitled development exists. 827 7th Street, Room 225 • Sacramento, California 95814 • phone (916) 874-6141 • fax (916) 874-7499 www.per.saccounty.net Appendix A Sacramento County Planning and Environmental Review Letter (cont) 20 ٦ Sacramento County is also cognizant of the fact that development in the Natomas Basin has been met with challenges from environmental groups due to the presence of numerous threatened, endangered or special status species. Two of the species of greatest concern are the giant garter snake and the Swainson's hawk. There have been several lawsuits filed over past environmental approvals associated with the NBHCP and the MAPHCP. A final ruling by United States District Judge David F. Levi on September 7, 2005 in the National Wildlife Federation, et al., v. Gale Norton case, declared the HCPs valid and cleared the way for development. Among other things, in the National Wildlife Federation case the environmental groups unsuccessfully argued that because Sacramento County was not a signatory to the HCPs, the HCPs were flawed because they relied on land in unincorporated Sacramento County for future mitigation. However, with respect to the issues of potential future growth in Sacramento County, Judge Levi ruled as follows: "The NBHCP and Biological Opinion (BiOp) utilized by the Secretary of the Interior and United States Fish and Wildlife Service do assume that development in the basin will be limited to the 17,500 acres [15,517 acres under the NBHCP and 1,983 acres from the previously approved MAPHCP to total 17,500 acres cumulatively] in the permit areas and relies on that assumption in concluding that sufficient habitat will remain for the covered species. This assumption is based on the current land use plans of Sacramento County. The NBHCP, BiOp, and EIR/EIS also conclude that because any future development in the Basin not covered by the HCP and ITPs [Incidental Take Permit allowing for "take" of an endangered species] would likely result in injury to listed species, any future development in the Basin would require new federal approvals. Any such approvals would in turn require a new HCP and ITP for the particular project, and could also lead to revision of the existing NBHCP, were the additional development to exceed assumed limits." Judge Levi went on to say: "The NBHCP anticipates that development by the City and Sutter will be limited to 15,517 acres – 8,050 acres within the City [of Sacramento] and 7,467 acres in Sutter County - and provides that approval of any development beyond this limit - whether by the City and Sutter or by other entities - will trigger reevaluation and possible amendment of the plan, and could result in suspension or revocation of the City and Sutter permits." With regard to the City/County Natomas Joint Vision, which plaintiffs claimed would fatally undermine the NBHCP, Judge Levi ruled as follows: "The Service, and the court, are entitled to assume at this point that future development will not be permitted if sufficient mitigation land is unavailable and the development will result in jeopardy." The judge footnoted the above sentence with the following statement: "The court notes, however, that the Service and those seeking an ITP in the future will face an uphill battle if they attempt to argue that additional development in the Basin beyond 17,500 acres will not result in jeopardy. The NBHCP, BiOp, EIR/EIS, and Findings and Recommendations are all predicated on the assumption that development in the Basin will be limited to 17,500 acres and that the remaining lands will remain in agricultural use." Sacramento County Planning staff recognizes that any new development in the Natomas Basin above the 17,500 acres already approved and permitted by the Natomas Basin and Metro Air Park HCPs will require careful coordination and consideration of existing approved developments, their mitigation strategies, and the regional conservation context. Sacramento County has no intention of jeopardizing the existing HCPs or ITPs in Natomas, and will include full analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed Grandpark and Upper Westside projects as well as other reasonably foreseeable development projects in the Environmental Impact Reports for both projects. Such analysis will also include an evaluation of each project's proposed conservation strategy and the potential effects on the viability of the existing HCPs in the context of seeking additional development within the Sacramento County unincorporated portion of the Basin as contemplated in the County's 2011 General Plan. .

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.