Ridgeline protection

Interesting but I think useful for those who appreciate our Auburn hillsides. Some towns are now acting to protect their sightlines, hills and ridges from grading away to development. Just a further example of the ability of towns to protect what they hold dear as "character" if you value it.

In Precinct 2 significant grading occurred last year across the way on Upper Stoneville Res for instance as well as the so-called "Auburn Hills" development. It'd be a shame to lose our character as a whole and sell out for the profit of a few.

Here's a good doc from 2005 with an overview of various regs from around the country and their effectiveness.

One example is the town of Wilbraham, although not a particularly effective one. Stowe Vt is also mentioned as an ineffective version. Telluride Co is a better example as well as Lyme and Newbury NH.

In some places in California they have been done very well in terms of preserving ridgelines, although there is also the issue of mudslides out there so there's a very real safety impact as well. The two in NH are closer to our situation so it demonstrates a good model for a town like Auburn.

Here's an example where such laws were upheld in California:

The “Ridgeline Ordinance,” as it is sometimes known, imposes special permit requirements on grading projects in the Santa Monica Mountains. It was adopted to provide additional protection to the Santa Monica Mountains after a spate of unregulated grading projects caused significant environmental damage.

The Court of Appeal decision, Land Use Preservation Defense Fund v. County of Los Angeles, No. B190846, puts an end to efforts by objecting landowners to overturn the ordinance on legal grounds. The plaintiffs specifically contended that the Ridgeline Ordinance conflicts with a so-called “Grandfather Clause” in the County’s Santa Monica Mountains North Area Plan, a section of the County’s general plan. According to the plaintiffs, the “Grandfather Clause” exempted all existing legal lots in the mountains from new regulations such as the Ridgeline Ordinance. The Court of Appeal found the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Grandfather Clause “unreasonable,” noting that plaintiffs’ interpretation would effectively nullify many policies in the North Area Plan calling for more stringent regulation of grading and ridgeline development. The Court of Appeal also rejected arguments that the intent of the Grandfather Clause could be distilled from an ambiguous conversation between several supervisors at the time of enactment, rather than by reading the clause in the overall context of the Plan.

The Court of Appeal also rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that the County should have prepared a new or supplemental environmental impact report rather than rely on a previous EIR certified at the time the North Area Plan was adopted. The Court found that substantial evidence supported the County’s conclusion that the Ridgeline Ordinance would not have any environmental impacts that had not already been fully evaluated in the previous EIR.