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 Dec 12, 2011 12:42 PM by Stevee Duber
HSRA is honored to be the spotlighted member group in the SNA Newsletter. The most recent issue contains an article about HSRA on page 9 and a summary of a conference workshop about Tea Party political tactics in the Sierra on page 1. The panelists included HSRA project manager, Stevee Duber. |
posted Jul 21, 2011 11:31 AM by Stevee Duber
HSRA members who helped thwart SPI's 2009 bid to rezone 7,085 acres of land in the Timber Production Zone District to a more development friendly zone rejoice! The Truckee Donner Land Trust announced the group has purchased a conservation easement over those same acres along Henness Pass Road, near Jackson Meadows Reservoir. The land will now be open to public recreational uses while remaining a working forest.
This is part of a first-of-its-kind deal with the Sierra Pacific Industries, a timber company and California's largest private land holder, which previously had plans to rezone the property — which could have opened the door for development, said Perry Norris, executive director of the land trust.
“This is a huge leap forward toward fixing the checkerboard, as well as preventing the opening of the flood gates to rural sprawl,” Norris said.
The Sierra checkerboard is a historic land ownership pattern of every other square mile of land being held privately, dating back to the routing of the transcontinental railroad. Today, that pattern could mean a sprawling patchwork of development, inconsistent land management, and increased forest fire risk.
The latest conservation easements went for a total of $3.250,000, Norris said, with funding from the Wildlife Conservation Board and the Nature Conservancy.
“This is very critical for source water protection — there are a bunch of wet meadows that host willow fly catchers, and species like that,” said John Svahn, stewardship director for the land trust. “This conservation easement also keeps migration corridors open — and the wolverine has been spotted in the area numerous times.”
But this easement doesn't mean the land will be closed off to the public, stressed Norris.
“All the easements are working forest so SPI can continue to harvest timber within the terms of the conservation easement — sending timber to Quincy — so it's good for the local economy,” Norris said. “And the public access component allows snowmobiling, mountain biking, hiking, bird watching, hunting — and gives the land trust the right to build public trails in the future.”
If Sierra Pacific Industries sells the land with conservation easements on it, those easements go to whoever is the next owner, so that public access is secured in perpetuity, Norris said.
For more information on HSRA's successful effort to block the rezone in 2009 see postings on Home page. |
posted Feb 2, 2011 10:09 AM by Stevee Duber
Project Description Misleads Public
On January 14, 2011, the Plumas County Superior Court ordered Plumas County to set aside its certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Feather River Inn and its approval of the Planned Development Permit for the project. In a case brought against the County and the developer the Schomac Group by the High Sierra Rural Alliance, the Court found the description of the project in the EIR misled the public into believing the proposed condominium construction would be outside of the 100-year flood plain of Bonta Creek. Instead, as the Court noted, the developer planned to build approximately 66 condominium units within the existing floodplain of Bonta Creek, an area noted for its wildlife habitat, but the EIR and other planning documents failed to disclose this fact, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Court stated, “The inaccurate and incomplete location information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation in the consideration of the issues raised by the proposed construction. Lacking an understanding that the proposed construction is presently located in a 100-year flood plain, the County decision-makers and public participants like the Alliance are not able to meaningfully consider approval of a project that may be inconsistent with General Plan policies prohibiting new development in a primary flood hazard area like an SFHA (Special Flood Hazard Area) identified by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency).”
“HSRA supports having the Feather River Inn up and running as a resort asset for the County. However, the Schomac Group, assisted by the County, has been flouting CEQA regulations and applicable land use law in attempting to shoehorn a large development into a site where it doesn’t fit,” said Stevee Duber, project manager of the HSRA. “On the 114 acre Feather River Inn site I’m sure a creative design exists which can accommodate the developers economic needs while respecting the most sensitive environmental area -- Bonta Creek -- on the parcel. |
posted Jan 28, 2011 9:35 AM by Stevee Duber
Ordinance is Contrary to CEQA and Sierra County General Plan
On January 25, 2011 the High Sierra Rural Alliance submitted a petition to Sierra County Superior Court challenging the recently approved new ordinance for the Timberland Production Zone District. The petition challenges the County’s action as contrary to the Sierra County Genera Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act. The Ordinance has the potential for significant environmental impacts by expressly authorizing large acre residential estates on all TPZ parcels in the County greater than 80 acres and thus the County’s approval of the project using the “common sense exemption” was inappropriate under CEQA.
The petition also states the Ordinance is inconsistent with the General Plan because it allows residential development of TPZ parcels, which is contrary to the policies and standards of the General Plan. The General Plan limits large acreage residential estates to the General Forest district. TPZ parcels are described as “unavailable for residential development” in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
In adopting the General Plan the County found that the proposed land use pattern of rural clusters effectively mitigates the significant environmental impacts of development in the County. Clustering minimizes fire hazard; discourages inefficient vehicle use; prevents growth inducement along transportation corridors inconsistent with existing land use patterns; allows orderly and cost effective extension of public facilities and services; prevents conversion of timber producing lands to other uses; protects habitat and species diversity; reduces the potential for conflicts resulting from residential development on timber management.
Lands zoned TPZ are afforded generous tax benefits in exchange for the being limited to timber production enhancing uses. If residences are allowed on remote TPZ parcels, the property taxes paid by the parcel owners will not cover the cost of extending police and fire protection to them for example. Permit fees will not cover the cost of sending building inspectors to remote locations. In the end the residents of existing communities will end up subsidizing the cost of providing services to new residences on TPZ parcels and/or see a reduction in services to existing communities.
HSRA requests the Court order the County withdraw approval of the Ordinance and to follow CEQA and County General Plan policies in taking any further action with respect to these matters.
For more information please read the testimony submitted to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission and the petition submitted to the Court in the attachments below: |
posted Dec 20, 2010 2:07 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Dec 20, 2010 2:12 PM
]
County Failed to Prepare EIR for McMorrow Subdivision
The Plumas County Superior Court has determined that the failure of Plumas County to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the McMorrow Subdivision was negligent when stream bank failure on Spanish Creek was a known risk. On December 13, 2010 a final judgment on the McMorrow Subdivision was issued. The peremptory writ of mandate commands preparation of a detailed engineering study of the stability of the entrenchment bank of Spanish Creek within the subdivision, and adoption of all mitigation measures identified before issuance of any building permits on the property.
“Obviously, we are pleased the court agreed the County is obligated to investigate and mitigate the danger presented by stream bank failure before approving a project. We are disappointed; however, that so much public money had to be expended to convince the County to act upon its legal duty,” said Stevee Duber, project manager for HSRA.
Despite being in possession of a study detailing the threat of stream bank failure before the subdivision was proposed, the County approved a project which would have located septic systems and allowed construction of homes directly on top of a stream bank with a high probability of failure. Throughout the approval process, and in keeping with the Plumas County General Plan, HSRA requested an engineering study be performed to determine how to minimize potential risk. The Court’s action finally enforces that requirement.
"Had the engineering study been done as required by the County’s General Plan, there would not have been a lawsuit,” Duber continued. "But without legal action, a hazardous situation, where homes and septic could end up in Spanish Creek, would have been unnecessarily created. The engineering study is a small expense for the developer compared to the risk involved and the waste of taxpayer money the County has spent trying to sidestep its own land use laws.”
|
posted Nov 19, 2010 10:51 AM by Stevee Duber
AGREE TO ZONING CODE UPDATES
HSRA is pleased to announce an agreement with Sierra County over the “high water line” issue has been reached. Working to resolve a complicated issue, the parties agreed the best use of resources would be to update the Zoning Code to be consistent with the General Plan.
The Sierra County General Plan was adopted in 1996 after two years of public meetings and hearings. The General Plan has been called the “constitution” for land use planning in local jurisdictions. Sierra County’s Plan was widely heralded and supported at release. That stated, implementation of the General Plan is through the Zoning Code, most of which was drafted nearly 40 years ago and is outdated.
“We are committed to advocating for sound planning, and working with our community to ensure that it grows in harmony with the natural beauty of Sierra County,” stated Stevee Duber, project manager of HSRA. “Applying the goals of the General Plan through the regulations of the Zoning Code makes sense for all citizens of the county and will ensure Sierra County grows in the ways the community envisioned.”
When Sierra County added a new definition of “high water line” to its Zoning Code, HSRA challenged it in court because the new definition made the stream setback ordinance inconsistent with key implementation measures of the General Plan. Under the agreement, the County will enact ordinances to implement General Plan policies and create the zoning districts around stream to meet General Plan designations. The County also agreed to develop a plan to bring the rest of the Zoning Code into conformity with the General Plan within two years.
Bringing the zoning code into compliance with the General Plan will simplify the process for development to occur within community core areas such as Sierraville and Downieville, while ensuring that sensitive stream resources outside the core areas -- which offer benefits of flooding protection, water quality and wildlife habitat -- will be protected as originally intended.
“As we deal with these sometimes contentious issues, it is important to consider the legacy we leave for our children. We live in a unique area. Sound development and preservation of the things that make Sierra County special are not mutually exclusive” said Duber. |
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 |
|
Sierra and Plumas Counties are under pressure to alter their rural character, your membership can make a difference. 
