[{"_1":2,"_94":-5,"_95":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,84],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6134952,"mediaKeyId","5677702-c6072860b78475c5992cd4266253efd7","parentId",5677702,"title","Planning staff to publish draft general plan elements and zoning code together; floodplain ordinance due in September","audioSeconds",233,"startMs",2508000,"endMs",2741000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5677702-c6072860b78475c5992cd4266253efd7&start=2508&end=2741","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6134952/Siskiyou-County/California/Planning-staff-to-publish-draft-general-plan-elements-and-zoning-code-together-floodplain-ordinance-due-in-September","mediaUrl","author","Siskiyou County, CA","date","2025-08-20T00:00:00Z","article","Planning staff told the Planning Commission they are shifting their outreach approach for the general plan update and will publish draft elements and the zoning code together for public review, and that a floodplain ordinance will be brought to the commission for the Sept. 17 meeting to preserve flood insurance eligibility.

Haley Lane, planning director, reported that the safety element is complete and that the noise and circulation elements are also finished. Staff said they are working through comments on the land use and open space and conservation elements and have received a draft table of contents for a reformatted zoning code. Staff said it may be better to present the elements and code concurrently so the public can see how policy language in the general plan would map into zoning regulations.

Lane said the consultant team also identified underutilized sites in unincorporated communities as possible rezoning candidates; staff will review those internally before public hearings. The commission was told that the floodplain ordinance — a portion of the safety element — must move forward in September, or the county risks losing National Flood Insurance Program eligibility.

The commission also discussed technology and public access: staff noted turnout has dropped since meetings moved from Zoom to Teams and that IT must be present to support the hybrid meeting room setup. The chair asked county counsel to research whether the commission may discontinue virtual meeting access and to return with a resolution recommendation for the Sept. 17 meeting if appropriate.

Other items raised by commissioners included status updates on a zoning change request for the Deer Mountain Lodge property (staff said the parcel sold and the new owner received the staff packet but has not yet advanced the application) and a request that staff continue outreach with local economic development partners on public engagement.

Staff said the next meeting is scheduled for Sept. 17 and confirmed work priorities leading up to that date.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","08/20/2025 - 9:00am\tPlanning Commission Meeting Part 2","oneSentenceSummary","Planning staff told the Planning Commission they are shifting outreach for the general plan update and will publish draft elements and zoning code together for public review; a floodplain ordinance will be brought to the Sept. 17 meeting.","taxTitle","Siskiyou County, California","taxId",26840,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":50,"_51":81,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":82,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":83,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6134957,"Planning commission presses for clearer fees, enforcement steps for mine reclamation",2463,0,2463000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5677702-c6072860b78475c5992cd4266253efd7&start=0&end=2463","/articles/6134957/Siskiyou-County/California/Planning-commission-presses-for-clearer-fees-enforcement-steps-for-mine-reclamation","Planning staff told the county Planning Commission that they expect to issue more notices of violation for mining reclamation plans that are not realistic and that the department will seek clearer fee and penalty guidance from the board of supervisors.

The discussion opened with staff asking the commission for guidance after a presentation about current reclamation issues and whether existing county code and the adopted general plan address enforcement and fees under SMARA. Commissioners and counsel discussed how enforcement, appeals and penalties flow between planning staff, the commission and the board of supervisors.

Commissioners emphasized that operators should receive clearer upfront information. A commissioner asked that the annual fee and the possibility of billing for staff time after an NOV be included in the operator application packet so new operators cannot say they were unaware. Planning staff confirmed a cover letter is currently sent with annual fees and agreed to add NOV and potential fee details to the application package.

Staff described practical problems with legacy reclamation plans that use boilerplate language (for example, a blanket requirement for “80% vegetation cover”) that may be impossible on rocky sites. Staff said older plans often require amendments and that operators sometimes copy past boilerplate without consulting botanists or nurseries, producing unrealistic seed lists and cost estimates. Commissioners urged flexibility in approved reclamation approaches that account for site-specific conditions and available seed stock.

On penalties, planning staff and counsel said county code allows administrative fines up to $5,000 but that the board of supervisors is the body that ultimately sets and adopts fee schedules. Planning staff asked the commission for input on a fee/penalty matrix; commissioners recommended staff prepare a proposed matrix for the commission to review and forward as a recommendation to the board. Counsel noted SMARA requires consideration of factors such as gravity of the violation, prior history, culpability and economic savings when imposing fines and cautioned against a rigid flat schedule that could conflict with state law.

Commissioners and staff agreed on a practical enforcement workflow: planning staff will attempt to resolve violations administratively when reasonable; if penalties are assessed and appealed, state law and the county code require appeals of administrative penalties to go to the board of supervisors. The commission also said it should continue to hear land-use appeals and be given an opportunity to resolve matters before those appeals reach the supervisors when staff believes the matter can be fixed without penalties.

Staff confirmed the county already bills actual staff time and costs (for example, certified mailing) to operator accounts and that those amounts are reflected in the county’s planning fee schedule and annual invoicing. Commissioners suggested any matrix should make fines large enough to deter noncompliance but leave room to account for the site- and operator-specific factors SMARA requires.

The conversation also covered operational details: applicants must include reclamation cost estimates when they apply; staff will push for realism in those estimates by encouraging consultation with botanists and nurseries; existing single-language, cookie‑cutter plans will require amendments. Staff said, where operators repeatedly refuse to amend unrealistic plans, enforcement and penalties are more likely.

Commissioners asked staff to provide clearer front‑end guidance to operators, to draft a penalty/fine matrix for commission review, and to continue coordinating with county counsel on appeals procedures. Staff said they will return with proposed materials and will issue NOVs more often where plans are demonstrably unrealistic.","Planning staff told the commission they will issue more notices of violation (NOVs) for mines with unrealistic reclamation plans; commissioners asked staff to add NOV and fee information to operator application packets and recommended a staff-developed penalty matrix be presented to the board of supervisors for adoption.",{"_33":85,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":86,"_41":87,"_43":88,"_45":89,"_47":90,"_49":50,"_51":91,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":92,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":93,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6134946,"Commissioners warn Williamson Act technicalities could trigger contract cancellations; ask supervisors for flexibility",740,3152000,3892000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5677702-c6072860b78475c5992cd4266253efd7&start=3152&end=3892","/articles/6134946/Siskiyou-County/California/Commissioners-warn-Williamson-Act-technicalities-could-trigger-contract-cancellations-ask-supervisors-for-flexibility","Several commissioners warned that strict, literal application of Williamson Act rules and related soil and irrigation tests could force cancellations of long‑standing agricultural contracts and sharply reduce property values for affected landowners.

Commissioner comments described two contracts under review: one parcel that is about an acre and a half under the 40‑acre minimum and another parcel that meets acreage but does not meet class 1 or class 2 soil thresholds. Commissioners said both parcels have historical agricultural use and that rigid application of current contract language could trigger cancellations.

Commissioners urged supervisors to allow flexibility in interpreting eligibility — for example, by recognizing historically important agricultural use rather than narrowly applying animal‑unit carrying‑capacity or soil‑class thresholds — so that long‑term agricultural operations are not exposed to sudden loss of Williamson Act benefits. One commissioner said he is working with two supervisors to draft more general, less prescriptive language so historically active agricultural properties remain protected.

Staff said the supervisors are the Williamson Act committee and that changes likely must start with the board. Commissioners discussed combining parcels or using contract cleanup mechanisms to preserve benefits for neighbors and family members and noted that state changes to funding for the Williamson Act have already reduced state-level support. Several commissioners asked counsel and staff to consider methods to avoid mass cancellations as general plan and land‑use decisions proceed.

A commissioner also asked county counsel to prepare a briefing on public‑trust doctrine and how it applies to CEQA and county decision‑making; the commissioner said that ongoing state water board studies and instream flow modeling could affect agricultural water rights and the county’s land‑use decisions in the future.

No formal action was taken; commissioners asked staff and supervisors to pursue policy options and to return with potential contract cleanup approaches and legal guidance.","Commissioners raised concerns that strict application of Williamson Act criteria (acreage, soil class, irrigation/carrying capacity) could require cancellations of historically agricultural contracts; they asked supervisors to consider broader, more flexible criteria and signaled staff will work with supervisors on contract-cleanup options.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning staff to publish draft general plan elements and zoning code together; floodplain ordinance due in September

Planning commission presses for clearer fees, enforcement steps for mine reclamation

Commissioners warn Williamson Act technicalities could trigger contract cancellations; ask supervisors for flexibility