Streamside restrictions split county
Environmentalists, landowners at odds over proposal to extend building limits
By GUY KOVNER AND MARTIN ESPINOZA
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Sunday, July 30, 2006
A showdown between landowners and environmental groups over proposed restrictions along seasonal streams has taken center stage in the arduous and often unnoticed redrafting of Sonoma County's land use blueprint.
The clash between property rights and environmental protection is a familiar one in a county that has struggled for decades to accommodate agriculture, urban growth and a bucolic landscape.
It is being played out in a fiery debate over a proposal that would limit grazing, fencing and construction within 100 feet of streams and 200 feet of the Russian River. And it is part of deliberations likely to take the rest of the year in revising the Sonoma County General Plan.
Some 1,100 people have packed two previous public hearings held at the Wells Fargo Center for the Arts, and hundreds more are expected to attend the third hearing Tuesday night.
"It's almost the fight for the soul of the county between agriculture uses and conservation uses - and both sides are right," said Richard Fogg, a member of the Planning Commission.
Other elements of the county's General Plan that have made their way through forums hosted by the Planning Commission this year include public safety, noise, agriculture, public facilities and services. The current element on open space and resource conservation has been by far the most contentious.
Many of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau's 3,100 members are "really angry" over the open space proposal to limit activity within 100 feet of any year-round or "intermittent" stream, said Lex McCorvey, the bureau's executive director.
But Anne Hudgins of the Sierra Club Sonoma Group has little sympathy for property owners with plans to develop too close to natural waterways.
"People need to understand the ecology of creeks," she said. "What they don't understand is that government has always interfered with our rights and it serves the common good. If not, there would be rampant destruction."
Major landowners like Kendall-Jackson, the county's largest wine company, as well as one-lot rural residents are worried about the economic impact of the regulations, including possible loss of property values.
"I don't think it's right," said Chris Anderson of Wikiup, whose entire back yard would fall within the proposed 100-foot setback from Mark West Creek.
He believes the setback, known as a "biotic habitat area," could complicate or prohibit his effort to add a patio, Jacuzzi or fence to his yard.
Barbara Banke, owner of Kendall-Jackson with her husband, Jess Jackson, said the new setbacks could cover 8,000 acres of the company's land. "I don't think anyone has really calculated the effect," said Banke, a former land use attorney.
But environmentalists are backing the proposals included in what is formally called the General Plan 2020, which will eventually replace the current plan adopted in 1989.
After completing its series of hearings, the Planning Commission will send a revised document to the Board of Supervisors for approval, probably early next year.
Hudgins said increased setbacks are necessary because current agriculture practices are damaging waterways.
"A lot of farmers are clearing the creeks that go through their property," she said. "Brush and plant growth from out of the creeks helps slow the water flow and keeps the creek from becoming channelized and allows for natural meandering of the waterways."
She said that riparian areas protect the waterways by shading them and keeping water temperatures cool for fish and other creatures.
McCorvey said the Farm Bureau sent letters about the proposed stream setbacks to about 1,500 farm landowners who are not members of the organization. About 300 of them returned a card, and McCorvey said his phone "was ringing off the hook."
The current General Plan includes setbacks of 50 feet from perennial streams. The proposed rules would extend the minimum setback to 100 feet and apply it to intermittent streams as well.
"There is no evidence that bigger setbacks work," McCorvey said.
The North Bay Association of Realtors sent postcards with information about two previous General Plan public hearings to about 40,000 property owners in the unincorporated area of the county.
"Folks really need to know who's impacted (by the proposed setbacks)," said Kathy Hayes, the association's government affairs director.
Hayes faulted the proposed setbacks for loading too much detail into the General Plan, a document that can be amended only four times a year.
If a home lies entirely within a stream setback, Hayes said, the owner would have to undertake a lengthy and expensive process simply to add on a room. An owner across the road might simply need a building permit, she said.
Nadin Sponamore, a member of the Planning Commission, said at least two more public meetings are planned on the setbacks issue. The commission will consider comments and then vote on the proposal, as it has with other elements of the General Plan revision. It then goes to the Board of Supervisors.
"The public will have another opportunity - if they don't like what we do - to try and get their concerns addressed," she said.
Copyright © 2006 The Press Democrat