Developer Scheming North of Lake Tahoe...
News from the High Sierra Rural Alliance
June 12, 2007
Much has happened since the last update.
The City of
The meeting was well attended. The Small Annexation Proposal was by far the most popular proposal. Based on the feedback from the meeting the Citizen’s Planning Advisory Committee has finalized a version of a General Plan and Annexation Proposal to present to the Loyalton City Council. The proposal will annex the trailer park and
The plan could result in a doubling of the Loyalton population, but will not change any land uses already anticipated by the Sierra County General Plan. The plan will provide Loyalton with more tax revenue, but not significantly increase the service burden on the City because the City currently provides services to the trailer park and
The plan will be presented to the City Council
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) also met in preparation for dealing with John Gullixson’s application to increase the City of
In more news about Loyalton, Mr. Gullixson still seems to be at the center. Mr. Gullixson and the Sierra Valley Development Company have sued the County and the Goichoechea family for entering into a Farmland Security Zone contract. In our opinion the suit is without legal merit. It constitutes a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and intends to deprive the Goichoechea’s of their right to enter into a Farmland Security Zone Contract with
The Plumas County Planning Department is experiencing a re-organization due to the sudden resignation of newly appointed Planning Director Jonathan Schnall. We continue to monitor the course of the General Plan Update and General Plan amendments.
We have heard the owners of the Sugar Loaf Ranch (old Bonta Ranch) are considering subdividing the ranch to create 57 three acre parcels. A year ago the County sent out an initial study asking for agency recommendations for information to be included in an Environmental Impact Report to amend the general plan designation and zoning of 240 acres of the ranch from Agricultural Preserve to Moderate Opportunity- Agricultural Buffer and Zone R-10. We strongly oppose conversion of agricultural lands to residential uses in
We will continue to represent the public’s interest in protecting agricultural interests in the Valley no matter what jurisdiction governs.Emails from Rose Comstock have been forwarded to us requesting the High Sierra Rural Alliance not interfere with
The Planning Commission is considering modifying the Timberland Production Zone (TPZ) ordinance to allow residences of indeterminate size to be built on TPZ lands. The
The TPA relies on tax incentives coupled with zoning mandates to harmonize landowner and public interests. The public contracts with landowners to limit the way their land may be used in exchange for a monetary benefit. The TPA restricts land in a timberland production zone (TPZ) to the growing and harvesting of timber and compatible uses. In exchange, the owner of TPZ land benefits by a lower property tax. “A residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production” is considered a compatible use. Allowing construction of a residence beyond what is necessary for the management of timberland will defeat the purpose of the legislation by encouraging large forest estates that receive unwarranted tax incentives.
Though the property tax the county collects on TPZ parcels with a residence is limited by statute, the sale price of the parcel is unlimited. Allowing unlimited residential uses on TPZ parcels will allow developers and speculators to recoup windfall profits subsidized by county taxpayers. Adding insult to injury county tax payers will have to extend police and fire protection, health and building, planning, and road services at great cost without like compensation. Wildfire danger will increase. Wildland values including water quality will decrease. Resource production capability will deteriorate.
In enacting TPA the legislature intended to curtail conversion of resource production lands. The proposed policy will stimulate conversion at the expense of the taxpayer. Let the Planning Commission know that your generosity is intended to protect timberlands as timber resources not to subsidize forest estates.
Post a Comment