Home / Archive / Placer County: Preserving Land
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Regional Focus: June 2007
Preserving Land
Is a conservation plan between developers and environmentalists too good to be true?
Story by Jeff Hudson
Electoral strategists advise presidential candidates on ways to turn red states into blue states — and vice versa — and many political pundits believe the “green” factor could be critical in the next election. But in this color-coded political world, fast-growing Placer County is generating a lot of talk around the color purple.
The county used purple on recent maps to identify land that might be affected by the Placer County Conservation Plan, an ambitious document that could decide which parts of the western county will be developed through 2050.
The product of seven years of research, the plan could potentially preserve almost 60,000 acres of floodplains, vernal pools and woodlands, taking into account the Swainson’s hawk, Central Valley steelhead and Valley Elderberry longhorn beetle.
At the same time, the plan would streamline the development process. Rather than dealing with environmental requirements agency by agency, as developers do now, a conservation plan would create a “shorter time frame as far as application for permits,” says John Costa, a senior legislative advocate with the North State Building Industry Association.
It would also provide “an understanding about where the mitigation land is going to be and where the developable land is,” Costa continues. “It would be a better understanding of what’s expected, with more local control of the permitting process.”
Placer County Supervisor Robert Weygandt of Lincoln believes the plan could be valuable to the building industry, environmental groups and agriculture. “It holds out the opportunity to have very comprehensive permit streamlining with a commitment to conservation strategy in Placer County,” Weygandt says. “In my view, it would certainly provide for a significant amount of growth over 50 years.
“But what it will also do is essentially provide a buildout vision for the county, a blueprint for growth over 50 years,” Weygandt continues, adding that this would be “the first time a comprehensive strategic plan has been put in place to maximize the value of conservation investments in Placer County.
“People who live in Placer County consider it to be rich in natural resources,” he says. “All of us are very adamant that we will not allow our county to become like Southern California or the Bay Area. We want it to be differentiated from Sacramento County.”
Although the Placer County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 in January to move the conservation plan forward, it’s far from a done deal. One of the latest versions of the plan is a hybrid drawn from two of the 14 scenarios laid out by county staff.
Supervisor Kirk Uhler of Granite Bay, who represents the fourth district, says he suggested the hybrid because he felt it “best reflected the county’s interests and the city of Lincoln’s interests as a starting point for negotiations with the state and federal agencies.
We will not allow our county to become like Southern California or the Bay Area.”
— Robert Weygandt, supervisor, Placer County
“We certainly expect to be modifying the hybrid map; it’s not going to meet with the [state and federal] agencies’ approval,” he says. But the hybrid map gave us the most negotiating room.”
Uhler says getting broad support for the plan is largely a matter of showing people “what it is we’re trying to accomplish here. If folks understand that if [the plan is] successful, and see that the conservation easements of being ‘in the purple’ will have real market value, then they seem to embrace the plan a whole lot more.”
Uhler says another part of the task ahead is “getting the agencies to recognize that protecting a larger, more connected area has more environmental value than small pockets surrounded by urbanization,” which is the way much development has occurred in the past.
“If [the agencies] recognize that value and allow us to proceed with a plan that allows for habitat conservation through an array of habitats and for a variety of species, then out of that will develop a market value for a variety of land types as they exist today,” Uhler continues.
“That will allow folks who are currently not in the path of development, and currently have no development entitled, to realize a financial gain without having to hope that someday a big developer might come along and buy them up.”
Supervisor Bruce Kranz of Weimar represents Placer’s sprawling fifth district, which stretches from northern Auburn to Lake Tahoe. Kranz voted to advance the plan in January, but he doesn’t agree that it would enhance the market value of property that’s in the purple.
“There is most definitely a devil in the details,” he says. “I’m a private property-rights advocate. I really dislike it when the government comes in and devalues property through zoning.” And to Kranz, a former chair of the Placer County Republican Central Committee, it looks like the plan might be doing just that. “When you throw additional criteria on property that originally had a value,” he says, “you’re really taking property.
“What further bothers me about the plan is where the purple is,” Kranz continues. “It’s drawn in such a way that yes, there are some high-value resources in those purple areas. But there’s also a lot of land that isn’t high-value. Once you put it into that conservation mode, it instantly devalues the property. The chances of you being able to divide that property diminish greatly.”
Rob Haswell, a former Democratic Party assembly district nominee, often differs with Kranz. This time, Haswell says, the devil is in the details — but in a different place than Kranz indicates.
Haswell believes the hybrid map advanced by Uhler is “completely unacceptable. But that said, you’ve got to take these guys at their word that they will negotiate in good faith. And what good faith means, in my mind, is respecting some of the thresholds established in the last four years of negotiations between all the stakeholders.”
Good faith would include “saving the majority of the vernal pools” and having “a contiguous swath of open-space land,” Haswell says. “Maybe you trade off the ability to fight for more [land, in exchange] for the idea of having a quality level of open space where ecosystems are allowed to thrive with protection.”
“I really dislike it when the government comes in
and devalues property through zoning.”
— Bruce Kranz, supervisor, Placer County
John Costa of the North State Building Industry Association says his association feels the conservation plan is worth pursuing.
“At this point, we support moving forward with the work plan that the county has drafted,” Costa says. “The hybrid map is something that we’re willing to sit down and negotiate with.”
With respect to critical habitat, sometimes it’s suggested that an acre-to-acre ratio be used for mitigation. However, Costa is interested in a more flexible system that would allow substitution of mitigation habitat in territory close to Placer County, but beyond the county line. “Our suggestion is that habitat doesn’t stay entirely within those borders,” Costa says.
Supervisor Uhler seeks a somewhat related mitigation goal. “The single greatest hurdle,” he says, will be “getting the agencies to accept mitigation that is not necessarily ‘like kind,’ meaning that in order for this larger, more expansive conservation plan to be driven by market dynamics, the agencies are going to have to work with us to allow the development community to mitigate according to formulas that recognize that though they may be disturbing one type of habitat, they are able to offset that by conserving another type of habitat.
“For instance, you might be able to offset the disturbance of a wetland by preservation of oak woodlands on a different percentage ratio.” Uhler says if that kind of tradeoff is acceptable, “we’ll have a real chance of making this work.”
Terry Davis, conservation program coordinator with the Sierra Club’s Mother Lode Chapter, participated in the development of the proposed plan as well. Davis liked the concept at the outset, but says, “I’m only guardedly optimistic at this point.
“The conservation plan that was originally envisioned by a majority of the Placer County Board of Supervisors a number of years ago was really a plan to protect a substantial portion of the county from development,” Davis says. “We are concerned that the current board seems to be more oriented toward bringing regulatory relief to the building industry. We haven’t seen a real conservation vision.
“This is about trying to preserve part of what we have left in Placer County in terms of natural habitat and open space,” Davis continues. “Our biggest concern is that political pressure might be brought to bear on wildlife agencies to accept less than what they’ve indicated so far that they need.”
Wayne Vineyard grows rice on 400 acres close to the Bear River in Placer County. “I have kind of mixed feelings,” Vineyard says. “If it works out the way it’s supposed to work, it’s a good thing. But I kind of have concerns. They put all this property in the purple; a lot of people don’t like that. It restricts their possibilities down the road.
“But it doesn’t change anything, because a lot of that land is zoned for agriculture, from 20 acres to 180 acres,” Vineyard continues. “It doesn’t change the zoning. But it makes this a potential place for a [mitigation] easement to be bought. It might make the easements more grouped together, so it would make it better for agriculture because you won’t have the encroachment of new houses being built next to working ag land.”
To Vineyard, that might ultimately turn out to be better than the status quo. “Right now,” he says, “it’s up to the developer to buy [mitigation] ... they can buy it anywhere, and they may not buy it in the best spot.”
Vineyard isn’t worried about the land he farms. “We’re in the flood zone; the land wouldn’t be eligible for building rights. But it would actually be good for wetlands and habitat. We have a lot of ducks and geese. That would make it biddable if someone had to buy wetlands rights on it.”
