Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Amicus Brief, Friends of The Gualala River and Forests Unlimited, 12-21-15

    Transféré par

    Coastal Hills Rural Preservation
    26 vues62 pages
    Brief of Amicus Curiae, Friends of the Gualala River and Forests Unlimited, in support of Appellate Court Case No. A145573; 9-25-15 Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One Coastal Hills Rural Preservation, Petitioner vs. County of Sonoma, Respondent

    Titre original

    Amicus Brief, Friends of the Gualala River and Forests Unlimited, 12-21-15

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Brief of Amicus Curiae, Friends of the Gualala River and Forests Unlimited, in support of Appellate Court Case No. A145573; 9-25-15 Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One Coastal Hills Rural Preservation, Petitioner vs. County of Sonoma, Respondent

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    26 vues62 pages

    Amicus Brief, Friends of The Gualala River and Forests Unlimited, 12-21-15

    Transféré par

    Coastal Hills Rural Preservation
    Brief of Amicus Curiae, Friends of the Gualala River and Forests Unlimited, in support of Appellate Court Case No. A145573; 9-25-15 Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One Coastal Hills Rural Preservation, Petitioner vs. County of Sonoma, Respondent

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 62
    APPELLATE COURT Case No. A145873 TRIAL COURT CASE No. SCV-255694 IN THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION 1 ‘COASTAL HILLS RURAL PRESERVATION, Petitioner and Appellant, COUNTY OF SONOMA, SONOMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SONOMA COUNTY PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, Respondents, and JACK PETRANKER and THE HEAD LAMA OF THE TIBETAN NYINGMA MEDIATION CENTER, Real Parties in Interest APPLICATION TO FILE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FRIENDS OF THE GUALALA RIVER AND FOREST UNLIMITED IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER/APPELLANT COASTAL HILLS RURAL PRESERVATION Appeal from Judgment of the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma (Honorable Elliot Lee Daum, Presiding) O'BRIEN WATTERS & DAVIS, LLP [NOREEN M. EVANS, ESQ. (CSB #102385) FOUNTAINGROVE CORPORATE CENTER I 3510 UNOCAL PLACE, SUITE 200 P.O. Box 3759 SANTA ROSA, CA 95402-3759 (707) 545-1010 NEVANS@OnRIENLAW.COM ATTORNEY FOR FRIENDS OF THE GUALALA RIVER AND FOREST UNLIMITED ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS Petition to File Amicus Brief, = Interests of Ami : oe wl Purpose of this amicus brief... 2 1 INTRODUCTION, ti — oe) IL. STATE AND LOCAL WILDFIRE POLICIES 6 ‘A. COUNTY POLICIES.. 7 B. ‘THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE cae) « 10 IIL ISSUES ADDRESSED u IV. FACTS . 2 V. LEGAL DISCUSSION... ns . 2 ‘A. INTRODUCTION. . ne 2 1. General CEQA requirements 2 2. What the County would ave found adit done the proper ans 3. Standard of review. B. ARGUMENT 1. The County should have examined the environmental impact from changing the existing use from “temporary” tents to “permanent” tents, 30 2. The SMND was contradictory and misleading. 31 3. Improper Baseline. 34 a. The County should have defined the tents as temporary for 34 purposes of its basin... , The County failed to provide a clear and complete description of Impacts. 38 c. The County improperly deferred study of fire impacts until after adoption of the SMND as 4. The County’s failure to enfore its permit requirements led to the improper baseline. . 40 «. The Project was Improperly Piecemealed. 41 4. Compliance with the Building Code is not a CEQA analysis....43 5, Approval of this Project sets a new precedent for industrial ‘development in violation of County policy. ‘ VI. CONCLUSION sinner nee CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT..sssssensnnnsnsoneononn 48 ‘TAMLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Apartment Assoe. of Greater Los Angeles v. Cty ofLos Angeles (2001) 90 cag 1162. 130,31 California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Ba, (2006) 143 CaAPPA 173 surnennsnon seomnnnnnns 23, 42, Chery alley Pass Ares and Neighbors. CtyofBeaumant (2010) 190 Cal App Ath 316 34 Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal" 310 euros 23, 27, 28, 36 Fat v. County of Sacramento (2002) 97 Cal.App.4 1270 36,37 Friends th Old Tres». Deparment of Fores and Fre (1997) $2 Ca ‘App 1383 snsonin A, 28, 33, 35, 44 Friends of Westwood, Inc, v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.34 oe 13 Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2008) 131 Cal Appa” 1170. 36, 37, 40, 41 Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Const, Authority (2013) 57 Cala 439 a Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4™ 252 31 Rivera v, Division of Industrial Welfare (1968) 265 Cal. App.24 $76 3 Woodward Park Homeowners’ Assoc., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4 683 23,38 Statutes Government Code §51175 se . 13 Government Code §51189.. 13 Public Resources Code §4201 .. 13 Public Resources Code §4204 wensnsnnneninmmnennnenenenennsnnnld Other Authorities California Environmental Quality Act. oT) Rules California Rules of Court, Rule 8.520()) .. 5 Regulations 14 California Code of Regulations §15126.4 ceceeenveneseeene 39) 14 California Code of Regulations §15126.6..... 31 14 California Code of Regulations §15162. 30 14 California Code of Regulations §15355. 2 14 California Code of Regulations §15125.. 34 24 California Code of Regulations §311...... al 24 California Code of Regulations §312.1 sal 24 California Code of Regulations § 705A.5.1 10 2007 California Building Code..6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 27, 29,33, 41, 43, 44 2010 California Building Code = 1-15, 16,17, 41 ‘Sonoma County Municipal Code §26C-350.. 4B Petition to File Amicus Brief Friends ofthe Gualala River and Forest Unlimited (hereinafter “Amici") respectfully request permission to file the accompanying amicus ‘curiae bret in support of Appellant Coastal Hills Rural Preservation pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.520(0). Amici are familiar with the content ofthe briefs fled by the parties herein Interests of Amici Amicus Friends ofthe Gualala River (“FoGR") is non-profit ‘watershed protection association formed in 1992. Its mission is to share ‘common concerns and research regarding the welfare of the Gualala River, its estuary and habitat. FoGR’s goal is to protect the Gualala River watershed and the species that rely on it. FoGR has an interest in the ‘outcome of this appeal because its mission is to protect the Gualala River ‘watershed in which the Project is located. FoGR provided testimony to the County of Sonoma in opposition to approval of the Project. (See, €-8. Administrative Record (“AR”) 4221, 8074, 12140) Amicus Forest Unlimited is a $01(c) (3) organization whose mission is to protect, enhance, and restore the forests and watersheds of Sonoma County. Forest Unlimited educates the public about logging plan review, forestry law, and regulation. Forest Unlimited monitors logging plans county wide, addresses illegal and unsound logging, works toward improving logging rules, and provides information regarding current forestry law. Forest Unlimited sponsors forest restoration projects and ‘coordinates « Mentor Program designed to educate and train the public. Forest Unlimited has an interest in the outcome of this appeal because its mission is protection of the forests and watersheds of Sonoma County, including the forest and watershed immediately impacted by the Project, ‘The Project is situated on a ridge top immediately above the South Fork of the Gualala iver, which is home to protected salmonids. Because of the missions of their respective organizations, both Amici hhave an interest in the outcome of this appeal because Respondent County ‘of Sonoma failed to properly analyze potential fire hazards and impacts to the surrounding residences and forest and the harmful impacts of soil erosion and runoff due to fire, before approving the Project. sel authorship or monetary contribution [No party or counsel for party authored this brief in any part. No party or counsel for party made any monetary contribution to fund preparation or submission ofthis brie. Purpose of this amicus brief ‘This appeal arises out of the approval, by the County of Sonoma, of 4 large expansion of an industrial printing operation at the Ratna Ling Retreat Center (“Project”), located in the remote rural, forested hills of ‘western Sonoma County. The area is identified by the County as high ‘wildfire hazard, This briefs fled in support of Appellant Coastal Hills Rural Protection and addresses specifically the County’s failure to adequately study the Project's impacts on wildfire hazards. Respectfully submitted, : s Wun M, Cue Noreen M. Evans, Esq. ATTORNEY FOR AMICI Friends of the Gualala River and Forest Unlimited 1. INTRODUCTION “Lam the Chief of the Timber Cove Fire Protection District, the public entity charged with protecting the people and natural resources within our district from fire. Ratna Ling's operations are in our district... appear to tell the Board plainly and simply that if you approve this use permit under its current conditions, the Timber Cove Fire Protection Distriet cannot protect the people and property ‘within its district from the threat of fire posed by Ratna Ling’s industrial operations... (Testimony of Michael Singer, Chief of the Timber Cove Fire Protection District (@TCFPD")) (AR 4367:4--4369:1) Beginning on September 12, 2015, a massive fire swept through the rural counties of Lake, Napa and Sonoma, The Valley Fire burned 40,000 in less than 12 hours. (Ex. 1, Governor Brown’s letter to the President dated 9/21/15.)' Ultimately, the Valley Fire consumed more than 76,000 acres ‘and destroyed 1958 structures, including 1280 homes and 27 apartment buildings. It killed four people and displaced thousands of others. (Ex. 2) Damage from the Valley Fire is estimated at $1.5 billion, (Ex. 2) More than 45,000 firefighters and 35 law enforcement agencies were deployed, including the California National Guard. (Ex. 1) ‘The Valley Fire is only the latest in a series of wildfires raging through California in the past few years. In 1991, the Oakland Hills fire destroyed more than 2,800 buildings and claimed 25 lives. Between 2003, and 2007, seven California wildfires destroyed 8,877 structures, resulting in 29 deaths and burned over 783,000 acres. (AR 12645) "eis not uncommon for an amicus rie to include itl mate, inthe mature of “Brandis ri" dmt reqs this cur to consider the stasial evidence a publi ecords et forth herein. Rivera v. Dison of eral Welfare (1968) 265 Cal App 24 56, 60 fh 2; The Rites (Group, Civil Appeals & Weis, $9210), The Project which isthe subject ofthis appeal is located at 35755 Hauser Bridge Road, Cazadero, CA. (AR 36) Photos of the Project are found at AR 7741-7777, Cazadero isa small, unincorporated community in western Sonoma County, with a population of 354 souls according tothe 2010 Census. (Ex. 4) The nearest city is Santa Rosa, 33 miles and a 1 % hour drive away. According to Ratna Ling’ traffic study, Hauser Bridge Road is a winding rural road 12 t0 20 feet wide, and too narrow for two vehicles to pass each other. (AR 6268) Sight distances are restricted and at some curves sight distances are limited even for drivers going 15 mph, Access for emergency vehicles, which might need to drive in excess of 15 mph, was not analyzed. (AR 6265-6269) The nearest highway is State Route 1, a ling two-lane road hugging the western edge of the continent. (AR, 5920) All roads serving the Project are narrow, winding and steep. (AR 804) The Project is zoned Resources and Rural Development (“RRD"). ‘The purpose of the RRD zoning includes protecting natural resources including, but not limited to, watersheds, protect against intensive development of lands, and protect county residents from proliferation of srowth in areas with inadequate public services and infrastructure. (A 159-160) The area in which the Project is located consists of mixed evergreen forest, with open meadows and other grasslands. (AR 71, 9861-9862) ‘Common tee species include Douglas fir, California bay, and coast live ‘oak. (AR 9861) Photos of the property are found at AR 13589-13602. The Project is located uphill from the south fork of the Gualaa River and seasonal streams from the property flow directly into the Gualala River. (AR 71) The Project sit is served by the Timber Cove Fire Protection District, an all-volunteer fre district (AR 134), who's Chief vigorously 4 ‘opposed the Project. The Chief testified his local fre personnel are not ‘rained to deal with the type of industrial fire thatthe Project could cause or be involved in. (AR 976) According to the County's own study of the region in which the Project is located, dry offshore winds oecur each fal, creating an extreme fire hazard, (AR 4333) Inits environmental review of the Project, the ‘County described the Project site as in an area which “may contain substantial forest fire risk.” (AR 136, 12674) ‘As the County acknowledges, the region in which Ratna Ling is located has been subject to 1978 Creighton Ridge Fire in Cazadero which burned over 11,000 acres (AR12648) and other fires in Guerneville and in the Dry Creek and Mill Creek watersheds. (AR 12024, 12234, 12641, 12647-12648) us wildland fires in the past, including the Beginning 2004, the County of Sonoma approved a small printing operation accessory tothe religious activities of Ratna Ling. Over the next 10 years, Ratna Ling applied for 145 permits (AR 3806:1), ultimately seeking to allow unlimited printing, expanding its retreat center, and ‘constructing four massive tents for book and sacred tent storage. The Ratna Ling operations have been controversial with the surrounding community nd drawn numerous complaints from the public. In 2008, Ratna Ling sought approval to excavate caves forthe purposes of storage of sacred texts, This proposal proved highly controversial with the neighbors. So instead, County staff approved, without public notification, two temporary small storage tents (the tents are also called “membranes” or “membrane structures”) ‘Three weeks later, County staff approved two additional large storage tents, quadrupling the square footage ofthe tent, again without public notice. The permits characterized the tents as “temporary.” ‘The tents are treated with flame-retardant which is warranted for 10 years. ‘The County approved a single extension of the permits forthe tens, then allowed the permits to lapse andthe tents to become an illegal use, but ‘ook no enforcement action despite public complaints. Ratna Ling dropped its application to build the caves In 2011, Ratna ‘expand its operations and make the temporary tents permanent. The County ing applied for a Master Use Permit (“MUP”) to

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi