The High Sierra Rural Alliance is a non-profit grassroots organization committed to the preservation and enhancement of the rural Sierra experience. Our goal is to promote good local and regional land use planning that will balance economic growth with the preservation of the area's unique natural and scenic resources.
|
posted Apr 18, 2009 7:53 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Apr 23, 2009 5:12 PM
]
Since the announcement of the HSRA settlement with Sierra Pacific Industries and Sierra County, there have been a spate of letters-to-the-editor and an opinion piece in local newspapers implying that the closing of the SPI mill in Quincy was caused by the litigation settlement between the parties. This is not true. The agreement which SPI proposed and was agreed to by HSRA and the County of Sierra resulted in:
- 7000 acres of land zoned as Timber Production remaining in Timber Production Zone, and
- Reimbursement of HSRA costs and attorney fees by SPI, $15,640.
Making sure productive timberland within reasonable distances of timber mills is not converted into other uses protects mill jobs. The monetary settlement consists of less than four months wages for one mill worker. SPI receives generous property tax deductions by having the land in Timber Production Zone rather than General Forest. This case did not cause the loss of 150 jobs at the SPI mill in Quincy or anywhere else.
For more information, please see:
What are your thoughts about this issue?
|
posted Feb 27, 2009 12:12 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Feb 27, 2009 12:16 PM
]
Settlement Protects Forest Lands from Premature Development posted
10 minutes ago by Stevee Duber [ updated
4 minutes ago ]
February 27, 2009, Sierra City--The High Sierra Rural Alliance announced the successful settlement of a lawsuit the group brought against the County of Sierra and Sierra Pacific Industries. HSRA had challenged the County’s approval to rezone over 7000 acres of forested lands from a zone which limited development to a zone which would encourage development. Under the agreement the property owned by SPI in a remote and environmentally sensitive area within the checkerboard of the Tahoe National Forest will remain protected from premature development.
Under the settlement the County has agreed to rescind the disputed approval. Sierra Pacific Industries has agreed to cover all of HSRA’s attorney’s fees and court costs, and HSRA has agreed not to pursue the litigation in court. more....
|
|
posted Feb 6, 2009 1:47 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Apr 22, 2009 3:37 PM
]
After hearing and reviewing testimony from the applicant and the public, the Zoning Administrator continued the February 11, 2009 hearing on the Thran Subdivision until May 21, 2009 at 10:00 am in order to give the Plumas-Sierra Ag Commissioner and Farm Advisor an opportunity to testify. Thank you to everyone who sent a letter to the Zoning Administrator voicing concern about the subdivision of land in the Sierra Valley. , If you didn't have time to send a letter before today, don't despair. The public hearing is still open through May 21, 2009. Your opinion counts.
The Thran project proposes subdivision of 250 acres into three parcels of about 80 acres each. The property is located about 5 miles north of Loyalton. Its southern and eastern borders are Dotta Lane and Highway 49. For years ranchers have told the County that the General Plan policy permitting 80 acre homesite parcels on the Sierra Valley floor would be detrimental to the overall integrity of agriculture in Sierra Valley. Now, as the County is poised to reconsider these policies in its update of the General Plan, the Zoning Administrator will be considering allowing just such a split. The subdivision is remote from existing services, surrounded by range land and enrolled in a Williamson Act Contract.
Please write to the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Supervisors. Request, that they complete the General Plan Update before entertaining requests for subdivisions or land use changes on agricultural land. Making changes now will frustrate the planning process. A Sample letter is included below.
Here are links to the documents HSRA submitted:
Feel free to use the information in your own letter. Or, use this sample letter below. It can be emailed to:
Randy Wilson, Zoning Administrator
555 Main Street
Quincy, CA 95971
date
Re: Thran Tentative Parcel Map
Dear Mr. Wilson,
To date the Sierra Valley is a functioning ecosystem supporting sensitive wetlands in delicate conjunction with working ranchlands. The Sierra Valley is the headwaters of the Feather River, the largest alpine valley in North America and a well recognized migratory bird sanctuary. It contains an unusually rich flora and sensitive endemic specides. It is one of the highest elevation sites where vernal pools are found. Agricultural uses have historically sustained large areas of open space, but the Valley is under increasing pressure for development from many directions. The future of Sierra Valley is at a critical juncture.
Ranchers, ag experts and the public have all voiced overwhelming support for the protection of agricultural lands from premature development. Experts are on record saying 80 acre minimum parcel sizes are too small to sustain commercial agriculture in Sierra Valley. Sierra County which shares jurisdiction of the Valley with Plumas County determined that 640 acre minimum parcel sizes are required.
Plumas County is beginning to update its General Plan. In the General Plan Update process consideration of minimum parcel sizes and other policies to protect the Valley from premature development will be addressed. Subdividing parcels now within the Valley floor threatens to undermine a candid and credible public process.
The proposed subdivision is on land designated Farmland of Local Importance by the California Department of Conservation. It is in a Williamson Act Contract. If subdivided, undoubtedly, the only things that will be grown are McMansions and ranchettes. Please, deny approval of this project.
Sincerely,
Your Name
|
posted Jan 22, 2009 10:42 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Jan 22, 2009 10:50 PM
]
As reported earlier, the High Sierra Rural Alliance has appealed the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Feather River Inn Master Plan. The appeal hearing should be in early February. There is a lot of political pressure on the Board of Supervisors to move this project forward. For your review the HSRA has posted the staff recommendations and environmental documents for the Feather River Inn Master Plan here along with information about land use law in general. You can help the Plumas Board of Supervisors make the right decision by writing and requesting that they uphold the HSRA appeal, deny the Planned Development Permit and find the Environmental Impact Report inadequate. The Supervisors need to know the community supports them in voting against the Feather River Inn Master Plan project.
Write to the Plumas County Board of Supervisors
It is best to write your own letter expressing your concerns about the project, but we know there isn't always time to compose a letter. Feel free to copy and paste the text below and edit it any manner you see fit. Plumas County board members email addresses can be found here. If you prefer to send the letter to the whole Board, send it to pcbs@countyofplumas.com
Sample letter:
Dear Supervisor [name], or Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:
I am concerned about negative impacts the Feather River Inn Master Plan may have in our region, community and environment. The project will change an historic landmark surrounded by open space into a residential subdivision with a potential population larger than most of the nearby towns.
In justifying the legality of the Planned Development Permit the Schomac Group is requesting for the Master Plan, the Environmental Impact Report and Staff Recomendation contort legal definitions beyond recognizability. Approval of the project will further endorse an unacceptable level of uncertainty in the standards and laws regulating land use in Plumas County.
The regulatory process is designed to guide developers toward a solution which is compatible with the opportunities and constraints presented by the law and the facts on the ground. This project, however, began with a Master Plan Map designed without benefit of environmental analysis or recognition of the regulatory framework. Clearly, from the beginning the developer's plan has been to trample land use regulations to achieve the vision of the developer rather than use the regulatory process to find a responsible solution. The project proponents, facilitated by the County, have spent the past three years squeezing the project through deceitfully created loopholes. Codified definitions have been disregarded. The clear intentions of policies have been reduced to nonsense. Subterfuge has been substituted for clarity.
Please, don't let a poorly planned development spoil a unique historic and aesthetic icon of Plumas County. Please, insist the County develop and maintain clear standards that are consistently enforced. Require the removal of all the “golf cottages” because they are “dwelling units” not “lodging facilities”. Require restoration of any sensitive habitat disturbed by activities permitted for the purposes of constructing "lodging facilities" which are actually residential condominiums. Require the restocking of the timber which was removed under false pretenses. Please, protect the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law of the constituencies which you were elected to serve.
Sincerely,
[ Your Name ]
Your Support Matters
If you believe Sierra and Plumas Counties are under pressure to alter their rural character, your membership donation can make a difference. Please, Donate Now through the Just Give organization's secure server.
or
send a check to: High Sierra Rural Alliance, P.O. Box 65, Sierra City, CA 96125
The High Sierra Rural Alliance is a non-profit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. All donations are tax-deductible.
|
posted Jan 14, 2009 3:18 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Jun 6, 2009 1:09 AM
]
The project has been approved. The HSRA is considering options.
|
The 2009 Appeal Hearing and General Plan Amendment Hearing Documents:
|
posted Jan 5, 2009 5:50 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Jan 14, 2009 2:55 PM
]
To see a summary of HSRA actions in 2008 click on this link: 2008 in Review
|
posted Dec 30, 2008 8:02 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Jan 14, 2009 3:19 PM
]
Although we would whole-heartedly support renovation of the Feather River Inn and replacement of historic lodging facilities, the density of the project approved by the Zoning Administrator on December 23, 2008 is just way too much. The project proposes the construction of 176 dwelling units in 62 new buildings (24 Golf Cottages in 12 buildings; 56 Resort Chalets in 7 buildings;8 Resort Bungalows in 4 buildings; 88 Condominiums in 29 buildings) approximately 13 more buildings housing shops, maintenance facilities and a spa, 101 guest rooms in the Inn, as well as, extensive parking facilities and a substantilly enlarged Inn on 58 acres. Further, the process that the County has used to approve the project stretches definitions and regulations beyond the breaking point. The project also highlights the inadequacy of the General Plan's Open Space Element. The parcel is designated as Prime Recreation which is a component of the Open Space Element, however, the County has chosen to interpret its code to mean that the construction of unlimited numbers and sizes of lodging facilities in Recreation Zones is a right of the property developer. How does this policy protect Open Space? Want to know more? Check out HSRA's testimony at the hearing. See the map of the planned project. Read HSRA's evaluation of the General Plan. If you agree that the proposed density is inappropriate, write to your Supervisor and/or come to the appeal hearing. Have questions? Contact Us
|
posted Dec 30, 2008 4:50 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Jan 14, 2009 3:21 PM
]
The Plumas County General Plan adopted in 1982 is by far the oldest County General Plan in the Sierra Nevada Range. The next oldest is Mono County with a plan from 1993. The recent request for proposals and qualifications for a firm to update the Plan is hopeful after the shenanigans of 2008.
Rather than presenting the technical review of the Plan for which consultants, Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) were hired, the company presented a proposal for a General Plan update which would go beyond the completed "technical update". The "technical update", completed and paid for with tax payer dollars was not available to the public. After repeated requests for documents under the state sunshine laws, HSRA was able to obtain these documents (posted here).
We can only deduce that PMC's attempts at evaluating the General Plan led them to a conclusion which they and the Board of Supervisors were loath to commit to paper. Namely, that the current Plumas County General Plan is inadequate and inconsistent. A conclusion which could invalidate any land use entitlements the Board might confer. To sidestep the issue the Board was considering giving a $600,000 contract to PMC without going out to bid.
By bringing this caper to light the County was forced to reconsider its direction and put the contract for the General Plan Update out to bid. The deadline for the request for proposals and qualifications was December 19, 2008. The proposals are to be reviewed by a committee and the Board will select the contractor. HSRA will closely monitor the process to assure transparency. Check back for updates or subscribe to have the updates emailed to you.
Want to know more? Read HSRA's June 2008 newsletter . Want to know even more? Check out these files.
|
posted Dec 30, 2008 4:48 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Dec 30, 2008 4:57 PM
]
In April Sierra Pacific Industries' rezone of over 7000 acres of timberland from a protected zone to a zone which would allow development was recommended for approval by the Sierra County Planning Commission. The rezone was ultimately approved by the Board of Supervisors and appealed to Superior Court by the HSRA. Currently, negotiations are proceeding well and we hope to be able report a successful settlement soon. Want to know more? Read HSRA's June newsletter, more info and the filed petition.
|
posted Dec 30, 2008 4:47 PM by Stevee Duber
[
updated Dec 30, 2008 4:59 PM
]
With a grant from the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, the HSRA has been working with UC Davis to create a geographical information system for the Sierra Valley to aid local jurisdictions with land use decision-making. As of December 17, 2008 funding for the project as well as funding for countless public works projects in California was suspended. As soon as the governor and the legislature work out a budget, we'll be able to finish the project and present the mapping. Want to know more? Click here.
|
|
If you believe Sierra and Plumas Counties are under pressure to alter their rural character, your membership can make a difference.