posted Jan 20, 2014, 1:51 PM by Stevee Duber
HSRA claims TPZ policy on residences conflicts with state law and County
failed to evaluate the potential for development on resource production lands
High Sierra Rural
Alliance petitioned Superior Court on Thursday, January 16, 2014 requesting the
Court order Plumas County to set aside and revise portions of the recently
adopted General Plan Update ( GPU ) which are
contrary to the Timber Production Act; and, revise the Environmental Impact
Report ( EIR ) to consider
the environmental impacts of allowing development to occur on resource
production lands without any discretionary review process.
HSRA CEO, Stevee
Duber stated, "We made the decision to challenge the Plumas County General
Plan Update after very careful consideration. Many people worked hard on the
Plan for a long time; and, the County invested a lot of money on it. But
ultimately, we feel allowing over 87,000 square feet of construction per parcel
on timber, agricultural and mining lands without environmental and
discretionary review threatens the rural values of the County. The
potential for unregulated development on resource production lands without
any setbacks from streams or other water resources is too important to
ignore."
The petition
alleges the County removed the requirement for discretionary review on
residences in the Timber Production Zone. In state law parcels of land in TPZ's
are restricted to the growing and harvesting of timber and compatible uses. A
residence or other structure may be allowed on TPZ lands, but under state law
the County would have to find that the residence or other structure was both
necessary for and compatible with the management of lands zoned TPZ. In
exchange for these enforceable restrictions, owners of TPZ land benefit by
receiving substantially lower property tax valuations.
The GPU is inconsistent
with the state law requirement because it allows a residence and structure, on
a TPZ parcel of 160 acres without any assessment of whether such development is
necessary for, or compatible with the management of TPZ land. Providing
services for residential development far from established communities is
expensive for the County. Because the taxes paid on TPZ land do not cover
the cost, taxpayers living within established communities would have to foot
the bill to provide police and fire protection, among other services, to
residences on TPZ land.
Additionally,
building intensity standards identifying the size of buildings allowable on
resource production lands were not disclosed to the public until after the
opportunity for review had passed. The GPU allows
residences and accompanying structures up to 43,560 square feet each on
Agricultural, Timber and Mining lands without any discretionary review. Nor,
does the GPU make any
provisions to protect streams and other water resources from encroaching
development. The GPU does not provide
any regulations to buffer streams from the construction of structures which
require a building permit, but not a discretionary permit such as a conditional
use permit or variance. Throughout the General Plan update process, the HSRA has made extensive comments detailing these issues. Our comments can be read by clicking on the links below. We need your financial help to support this challenge
Please donate 
or send a check to:
HSRA
P.O. Box 65 Sierra City, CA 96125
|
 Updating...
Ċ Stevee Duber, Jan 20, 2014, 1:51 PM
Ċ Stevee Duber, Jan 20, 2014, 1:51 PM
Ċ Stevee Duber, Jan 20, 2014, 1:51 PM
|