Residents press Plumas County to act on Genesee Valley noise, fencing and alleged code violations; staff outlines enforcement path

Several residents of Genesee Valley told the Plumas County Planning Commission on Oct. 15 that a newly installed "no-climb" fence and ongoing noise from a neighboring property are harming wildlife movement, obstructing emergency access and flouting county land-use rules.

The meeting brought several written and oral submissions, including a multi-page packet from Elisa Adler and a multi-point letter from Leila Levi, both supplied to commissioners in advance. "We would like to know what the county council can or cannot do in regards to public nuisance, disturbing the peace," Levi said during public comment, urging a written response from county counsel and a formal staff reply to a list of seven items she submitted.

Planning staff and county counsel told the commission they will investigate and respond. Planning staff reported there are four code-enforcement complaints on file against the subject property and said they have identified alleged violations contained in existing correction notices. "If there are founded violations per the code," staff said, additional correction notices would be issued and the property owner given time to remedy them.

County counsel and staff outlined the criminal-enforcement pathway for allegations invoking the California Penal Code: the public should submit complaints to the Plumas County Sheriff's Office, which can investigate and forward potential criminal matters to the district attorney for determination on charges. County counsel emphasized that the county attorney's office provides legal advice to the board and departments, not direct legal counsel to members of the public.

Residents and commissioners also raised natural-resource concerns. Commenters said the new fencing parallels an older line but is much higher and may lie within the migratory corridor and winter range for a local deer herd referenced in the Genesee Valley Special Management Area appendix to the county general plan. Several speakers said the new fence would have impeded local efforts to reach a spot fire after the Dixie Fire and could obstruct firefighters or other emergency responders.

Staff said it will seek input from California Department of Fish and Wildlife and CAL FIRE as part of the investigation and will treat the strictest applicable regulations as controlling. Staff also noted the county currently lacks an on-call registered professional forester; procuring an RPF would require an RFQ, procurement steps and budget authority, though one resident named local forester Phil Noya as a possible resource.

Commissioners directed staff to prepare a memorandum responding to the submitted points and to provide the planning-commission minutes and staff responses to the commenters. Planning staff estimated a full response could come in the weeks after the November meetings, depending on the scope of outside-agency review.

Why it matters: The dispute raises overlapping issues of planning and land use (zoning and special-management-area policy), code enforcement, wildlife protection and emergency-access safety. Complainants asked the county both for code-enforcement follow-through and for clarification on what the county can enforce versus what requires state or criminal enforcement through other agencies.