The High Sierra Rural Alliance is a non-profit grassroots organization committed to the preservation and enhancement of the rural Sierra experience. Our goal is to promote good local and regional land use planning that will balance economic growth with the preservation of the area's unique natural and scenic resources. |
posted Jun 21, 2010 9:10 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Jun 21, 2010 9:19 PM
]
On June 8, 2010, the High Sierra Rural Alliance filed a legal action asking the Superior Court to set aside Sierra County’s amendment of the Zoning Code to establish a new definition of the “High Water Line” to be used by planners in measuring stream setbacks. HRSA filed this action because the County’s amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of the 1996 General Plan, which, over a decade after enactment, has still not been implemented by the Sierra County Board of Supervisors.
Background
The General Plan was adopted in 1996 after two years of public meetings and hearings in an intense collaborative effort involving the Planning Commission, Planning Department, Board of Supervisors and interested public citizens. At the time of adoption, the Plan was heralded as outstanding. The County Planning Director even received an award for the Plan’s adoption.
In developing the General Plan, the County considered the need for varied stream setback requirements depending on whether development was to occur outside community core areas, within community core areas or in the towns of Downieville and Sierraville. The General Plan provides for larger stream setbacks outside community core areas, but setbacks of only 50 feet in core areas, and potentially even smaller setbacks - based on what is feasible -- in Downieville and Sierraville. The Plan requires the County to adopt a new stream setback ordinance to implement this flexible regulatory approach.
To protect public health and safety – and the stream environment – in Sierra County, the General Plan also requires the County to establish and map special zones around stream areas relating to flood control, stream protection and open space preservation. The purpose of these special treatment zones is to supplement the General Plan's varied stream setback requirements to afford the greatest protection for public health and safety and the environment, while also offering residents a reasonable opportunity to develop their parcels.
The General Plan has been called “the constitution” for land use planning in local jurisdictions. It is the policy statement which informs the ordinances which govern. The General Plan envisioned that these new ordinances would be passed within a year or two following Plan adoption in 1996. Instead, today in 2010, the County still has not adopted a single required ordinance. This failure has led to the present situation.
The County’s Failure to Implement the General Plan’s Requirements Leads to Greater Restrictions on Community Core Development While Allowing for Harmful Development near Streams and in Floodplains Outside Community Core Areas
Rather than adopt the required ordinances the County has, over the last 15 years exercised an inconsistent and at time arbitrary application in measuring stream setback requirements, including the use of the 100 year floodplain line as the beginning point for measuring the existing zoning code requirement for a 100 foot stream setback.
The County’s new zoning change attempts to redefine this measuring point without incorporating any of the flexibility and protections required by the General Plan when it was enacted over a decade ago. As a result, development in non-community core areas will not be subject to the setback requirements required by the General Plan, and development in community core areas, and in Downieville and Sierraville, will be required to obtain variances in order to develop within 100 feet of the stream zone even though many of these developments would not be required to do so under the General Plan.
In the meantime, the County’s failure to adopt the other General Plan required ordinances designed to protect the public from the risks of floods and preserve water quality and riparian habitat has the potential for harm. In the past, these impacts were avoided or at least alleviated by the County’s use of the 100-year flood line as the basis from which to measure stream setbacks. This approach, while imperfect, at least allowed the County to condition proposed uses, such as gas stations, in the floodplain. With the adoption of the new definition the County no longer has the discretion or authority to deny potential harmful development within the floodplain, even where there are other feasible development options that do not threaten public safety and the environment.
HRSA is committed to advocating for sound planning, consistent with applicable state and local law, to ensure that our community grows in harmony with our surrounding environment. The County’s shotgun approach of simply changing the definition of the high water line without implementing the General Plan ordinances puts the public and the environment at risk, and doesn’t help property owners in Sierraville, Downieville or other communities, who want to build near streams which don’t flood. For that reason, HRSA is challenging the County’s zoning amendment.
|
posted Dec 13, 2009 5:39 PM by Stevee Duber
Recently, HSRA offered testimony regarding a zone variance in Sierra County allowing placement of a residence closer to the Downie River than ordinarily permitted without environmental review. The comments generated a storm of criticism based on rumors, innuendos and falsehoods designed to destroy our credibility. We are writing this update to remind our supporters why HSRA makes comments and what we are trying to achieve.
We are concerned project approval in Sierra County is done without the benefit of a consistent and legally required process. We believe when mandated procedures are followed, decision-makers are provided with the best information available; the public is informed and protected; and, individual projects are considered within the context of a bigger picture.
In the past several years Sierra County has avoided its obligation to evaluate projects by exempting projects from the initial environmental review required by California State Law. A perception has been promulgated characterizing the Initial Study as a costly, inessential procedure. This simply isn't so.
The State provides a template for jurisdictions to use in order to ensure methodical and diligent review of potential problems which need to be examined before granting approval to a development project. Click here to see the Initial Study Checklist. The Study is the first step in determining if closer inspection is warranted.
History
The Sierra County Planning Commission wants to reduce the stream setback currently required because they believe it causes the need for too many variance applications. The Commission believes current code as interpreted by historic practice is too restrictive. Current code requires new construction, including septic systems be setback 100 feet from the high water line of streams. The high water line in Sierra County historically has been interpreted to be the limit of the100-year floodplain.
On September 14, 2005 the Planning Department made a decision to revise the definition of high water line in order to avoid the need for applicants to get a variance to build closer to streams than required by the code. The HSRA argued such a policy change cannot be made unilaterally through a Planning Department staff Memo. Such a policy change has wide ranging ramifications and must be evaluated through a public process under the California Environmental Quality Act. The revision was revoked.
However, since then, variances allowing building and septic facilities be constructed within the setback have been routinely granted without environmental review. The practice is an end run around meaningful review of a sweeping policy change. It is argued each individual project will not cause a significant impact and can be exempt from CEQA. We believe, however, the cumulative impacts of the practice will be significant. The ramifications of allowing construction to occur closer to streams than what is currently allowed must be reviewed so that the public is informed and decision makers have a clear understanding of the consequences of the policy change.
Until the County moves to adopt a new ordinance amending the zoning code to be consistent with their intentions, the only way to oppose the evasive process the County currently uses to avoid meaningful environmental review, unfortunately, is to challenge projects which are approved through the evasive procedure.
In its most recent attempt to revise the stream setback ordinance in order to reduce the need for variances, the Planning Commission is considering a new definition of "high water line". Instead of the limit of the 100-year flood plain which is an objective, calculable standard mapped in the community areas of the County by FEMA, the Commission proposes to substitute a highly subjective definition without reference to data or maps and without benefit of an Initial Study. The proposed definition which is also the ideological basis for approval of current projects is:
"The line found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of water are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil of the bed a character distinct from that of the banks evidenced by: a clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and debris etc."
The definition is taken from a Supreme Court Case decided in 1851. The particular description is taken from a partially dissenting opinion of one of the Justices. In the description the Justice was not attempting to define "high water line", but rather trying to determine the location of a boundary line between the State of Georgia and the State of Alabama defined as the western bank of the Chatahoochee River (Howard v. Ingersoll, 54 U.S. 381, page 54 U.S. 427). The Justice did not intend to define the high water line of a river with this description then; and, the description shouldn't be used to do so now. Nor was the description meant to be useful when trying to determine stream setbacks to protect water quality. The Commission is proposing to use this definition not to help determine useful and practible stream setbacks, but to minimize, if not avoid altogether, having any limitations on development near streams.
An Analogy
In the recent project involving granting a variance to build a house closer to the Downie River than ordinarily permitted, we believed the risks involved called for more investigation than what was being offered.
Streams and adjacent areas are complex areas. Extra caution is necessary when considering construction near a stream. Stream setbacks provide buffers which maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of water resources, remove pollutants delivered from urban stormwater, reduce erosion and sediment entering the stream, stabilize stream banks, provide infiltration of stormwater runoff, maintain base flows, contribute organic matter that is a source of food and energy for aquatic ecosystems, provide tree canopy to shade streams and promote desirable aquatic organisms, provide riparian wildlife habitat and furnish scenic value and provide recreational opportunities. An Initial Study is the appropriate tool to use to determine the risks and benefits of development adjacent to streams when a policy change is being contemplated.
Before crossing the street, do you look both ways? If so you are doing an Initial Study. On some streets in some circumstances, the solution is simple. No traffic, two lanes, no obstructions, healthy legs, good vision—cross the street. According to CEQA procedures, you would have made a Negative Declaration. If after your Initial Study you find a street with lots of traffic, multiple lanes and foggy weather, you might opt to walk to the corner where there’s a traffic light and wait for oncoming traffic to stop. You've mitigated the risk. Under CEQA that would be a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If, after the Initial Study, you find the risks of crossing the street are substantial, an alternative route isn't obvious, and your need to get to the other side is great, you might opt to investigate more thoroughly or in CEQA terms prepare an Environmental Impact Report. After careful study you could make an informed decision on whether or not the risks of crossing a dangerous street are worth it. You might decide your need to get to the other side outweighs the consequences. You would minimize the risk in whatever way possible and go for it. Under CEQA you would have issued a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Building next to a stream or revising the definition of high water line without considering the ramifications by at least preparing an Initial Study is like crossing a busy street with your eyes closed. |
posted Dec 11, 2009 12:10 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Dec 12, 2009 10:29 AM
]
September 19 was a beautiful ,clear, windy day in the Sierra Valley. Our volunteers met at the Roundup Café for a hearty breakfast before heading out to pick up trash on our adopted two mile stretch of Hwy 49. HSRA volunteers worked for several hours scouring the shoulders of the highway.
When our section was complete, thirteen bags of trash, five bags of recyclables and approximately 4 tires had been corralled. The recyclables were taken to the transfer site and Caltrans picked up everything else. Thanks go to our volunteers and Caltrans for administering this program and being a good partner in the efforts to keep our Valley clean.
If anyone is missing a duck decoy or a black bra, you can probably find them in the landfill by now. |
posted Nov 25, 2009 11:03 AM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Dec 17, 2009 9:40 PM
]
On Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 11:00am the Sierra County Board of Supervisors will be deciding whether or not to allow a new residence and septic system within the floodplain and stream banks of the Downie River. The HSRA is appealing the Planning Commission's approval of the project because we believe the project threatens the water quality of Downieville's popular swimming holes. The septic system is proposed to be placed within the floodplain and on the bank of the Downie River just upstream from the Pearl Street Bridge.
Septic systems which are not properly sited pass suspended solids and fecal coliform bacteria into receiving waters. Conventional septic systems remove no more than 10-40% of the total nitrogen in domestic wastewater. Nitrification results in increased bacterial and algae growth in streams. Other pollutants that may not be completly removed include pharmaceuticals, other synthetic organic chemicals, phosphorus and viruses.
Building in Downieville is challenging because of steep terrain and flood prone rivers, but there are ways to develop which will not further pollute the water we, our kids and visitors bathe in. Please, let your Supervisor know how much you value clean water and the ability to swim in the river. Beach closures are common in California. Don't let it happen here! For more information click here |
posted Jul 8, 2009 12:15 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Jul 8, 2009 1:10 PM
]
On July 6, 2009 HSRA filed a petition in Superior Court challenging the Plumas County Board of Supervisors' approval of the Feather River Inn Master Plan Project. Although we support the renovation of the Inn and the use of the property as a resort, the approved project proposes considerable development on open space lands, including the floodplain and sensitive wildlife habitat area to the east of Bonta Creek. The development proposes to realign and channelize Bonta Creek to allow for 88 resort condominum units. Channelization of a creek to accommodate new development in Plumas County is not only unnecessary, but is also inconsistent with the existing general plan. To read more information about the Feather River Inn Master Plan Project including the full petition click here. |
posted Apr 18, 2009 7:53 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Apr 23, 2009 5:12 PM
]
Since the announcement of the HSRA settlement with Sierra Pacific Industries and Sierra County, there have been a spate of letters-to-the-editor and an opinion piece in local newspapers implying that the closing of the SPI mill in Quincy was caused by the litigation settlement between the parties. This is not true. The agreement which SPI proposed and was agreed to by HSRA and the County of Sierra resulted in:
- 7000 acres of land zoned as Timber Production remaining in Timber Production Zone, and
- Reimbursement of HSRA costs and attorney fees by SPI, $15,640.
Making sure productive timberland within reasonable distances of timber mills is not converted into other uses protects mill jobs. The monetary settlement consists of less than four months wages for one mill worker. SPI receives generous property tax deductions by having the land in Timber Production Zone rather than General Forest. This case did not cause the loss of 150 jobs at the SPI mill in Quincy or anywhere else.
For more information, please see:
What are your thoughts about this issue?
|
posted Feb 27, 2009 12:12 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Feb 27, 2009 12:16 PM
]
Settlement Protects Forest Lands from Premature Development posted
10 minutes ago by Stevee Duber [ updated
4 minutes ago ]
February 27, 2009, Sierra City--The High Sierra Rural Alliance announced the successful settlement of a lawsuit the group brought against the County of Sierra and Sierra Pacific Industries. HSRA had challenged the County’s approval to rezone over 7000 acres of forested lands from a zone which limited development to a zone which would encourage development. Under the agreement the property owned by SPI in a remote and environmentally sensitive area within the checkerboard of the Tahoe National Forest will remain protected from premature development.
Under the settlement the County has agreed to rescind the disputed approval. Sierra Pacific Industries has agreed to cover all of HSRA’s attorney’s fees and court costs, and HSRA has agreed not to pursue the litigation in court. more....
| |
posted Feb 6, 2009 1:47 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Dec 14, 2009 4:09 PM
]
After hearing and reviewing testimony from the applicant and the public, the Zoning Administrator continued the February 11, 2009 hearing on the Thran Subdivision until May 21, 2009 at 10:00 am in order to give the Plumas-Sierra Ag Commissioner and Farm Advisor an opportunity to testify. Thank you to everyone who sent a letter to the Zoning Administrator voicing concern about the subdivision of land in the Sierra Valley. , If you didn't have time to send a letter before today, don't despair. The public hearing is still open through May 21, 2009. Your opinion counts.
The Thran project proposes subdivision of 250 acres into three parcels of about 80 acres each. The property is located about 5 miles north of Loyalton. Its southern and eastern borders are Dotta Lane and Highway 49. For years ranchers have told the County that the General Plan policy permitting 80 acre homesite parcels on the Sierra Valley floor would be detrimental to the overall integrity of agriculture in Sierra Valley. Now, as the County is poised to reconsider these policies in its update of the General Plan, the Zoning Administrator will be considering allowing just such a split. The subdivision is remote from existing services, surrounded by range land and enrolled in a Williamson Act Contract.
Please write to the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Supervisors. Request, that they complete the General Plan Update before entertaining requests for subdivisions or land use changes on agricultural land. Making changes now will frustrate the planning process. A Sample letter is included below.
Here are links to the documents HSRA submitted:
Feel free to use the information in your own letter. Or, use this sample letter below. It can be emailed to:
Randy Wilson, Zoning Administrator
555 Main Street
Quincy, CA 95971
date
Re: Thran Tentative Parcel Map
Dear Mr. Wilson,
To date the Sierra Valley is a functioning ecosystem supporting sensitive wetlands in delicate conjunction with working ranchlands. The Sierra Valley is the headwaters of the Feather River, the largest alpine valley in North America and a well recognized migratory bird sanctuary. It contains an unusually rich flora and sensitive endemic specides. It is one of the highest elevation sites where vernal pools are found. Agricultural uses have historically sustained large areas of open space, but the Valley is under increasing pressure for development from many directions. The future of Sierra Valley is at a critical juncture.
Ranchers, ag experts and the public have all voiced overwhelming support for the protection of agricultural lands from premature development. Experts are on record saying 80 acre minimum parcel sizes are too small to sustain commercial agriculture in Sierra Valley. Sierra County which shares jurisdiction of the Valley with Plumas County determined that 640 acre minimum parcel sizes are required.
Plumas County is beginning to update its General Plan. In the General Plan Update process consideration of minimum parcel sizes and other policies to protect the Valley from premature development will be addressed. Subdividing parcels now within the Valley floor threatens to undermine a candid and credible public process.
The proposed subdivision is on land designated Farmland of Local Importance by the California Department of Conservation. It is in a Williamson Act Contract. If subdivided, undoubtedly, the only things that will be grown are McMansions and ranchettes. Please, deny approval of this project.
Sincerely,
Your Name
|
posted Jan 22, 2009 10:42 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Jan 22, 2009 10:50 PM
]
As reported earlier, the High Sierra Rural Alliance has appealed the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Feather River Inn Master Plan. The appeal hearing should be in early February. There is a lot of political pressure on the Board of Supervisors to move this project forward. For your review the HSRA has posted the staff recommendations and environmental documents for the Feather River Inn Master Plan here along with information about land use law in general. You can help the Plumas Board of Supervisors make the right decision by writing and requesting that they uphold the HSRA appeal, deny the Planned Development Permit and find the Environmental Impact Report inadequate. The Supervisors need to know the community supports them in voting against the Feather River Inn Master Plan project.
Write to the Plumas County Board of Supervisors
It is best to write your own letter expressing your concerns about the project, but we know there isn't always time to compose a letter. Feel free to copy and paste the text below and edit it any manner you see fit. Plumas County board members email addresses can be found here. If you prefer to send the letter to the whole Board, send it to pcbs@countyofplumas.com
Sample letter:
Dear Supervisor [name], or Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:
I am concerned about negative impacts the Feather River Inn Master Plan may have in our region, community and environment. The project will change an historic landmark surrounded by open space into a residential subdivision with a potential population larger than most of the nearby towns.
In justifying the legality of the Planned Development Permit the Schomac Group is requesting for the Master Plan, the Environmental Impact Report and Staff Recomendation contort legal definitions beyond recognizability. Approval of the project will further endorse an unacceptable level of uncertainty in the standards and laws regulating land use in Plumas County.
The regulatory process is designed to guide developers toward a solution which is compatible with the opportunities and constraints presented by the law and the facts on the ground. This project, however, began with a Master Plan Map designed without benefit of environmental analysis or recognition of the regulatory framework. Clearly, from the beginning the developer's plan has been to trample land use regulations to achieve the vision of the developer rather than use the regulatory process to find a responsible solution. The project proponents, facilitated by the County, have spent the past three years squeezing the project through deceitfully created loopholes. Codified definitions have been disregarded. The clear intentions of policies have been reduced to nonsense. Subterfuge has been substituted for clarity.
Please, don't let a poorly planned development spoil a unique historic and aesthetic icon of Plumas County. Please, insist the County develop and maintain clear standards that are consistently enforced. Require the removal of all the “golf cottages” because they are “dwelling units” not “lodging facilities”. Require restoration of any sensitive habitat disturbed by activities permitted for the purposes of constructing "lodging facilities" which are actually residential condominiums. Require the restocking of the timber which was removed under false pretenses. Please, protect the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law of the constituencies which you were elected to serve.
Sincerely,
[ Your Name ]
Your Support Matters
If you believe Sierra and Plumas Counties are under pressure to alter their rural character, your membership donation can make a difference. Please, Donate Now through the Just Give organization's secure server.
or
send a check to: High Sierra Rural Alliance, P.O. Box 65, Sierra City, CA 96125
The High Sierra Rural Alliance is a non-profit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. All donations are tax-deductible. |
posted Jan 14, 2009 3:18 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Jul 18, 2009 5:54 PM
]
The project has been approved. The HSRA is considering options.
New:
|
The 2009 Appeal Hearing and General Plan Amendment Hearing Documents:
|
|
Sierra and Plumas Counties are under pressure to alter their rural character, your membership can make a difference. 
