Comments on: Group plans to fight Three Rivers guest ranches

By: Chad draxler

Chad draxler — Sat, 07 Dec 2019 14:28:53 +0000

In reply to Just Another Local.

I would like see to see the general plan they are claiming.

By: Chad draxler

Chad draxler — Sat, 07 Dec 2019 14:27:23 +0000

In reply to Former Resident.

You can if you aren’t a coward and make strong laws. Democrats kept national parks prestine for decades

By: Chad draxler

Chad draxler — Sat, 07 Dec 2019 14:26:11 +0000

Good sue the shit out them for not following the plan. People move their for peace and nature. These people that want one magical wedding can go to the beach!!! Three Rivers isn’t made for this! I worked for a septic company. Numerous large trucks will be needed for more septic. And supply delivery

By: Local Yokel

Local Yokel — Sat, 07 Dec 2019 03:05:29 +0000

In reply to Just Another Local.

If there were an EIR the project likely wouldn’t pass. Up until now, the RMA has refused to conduct one, citing a CatEx from CEQA. The updated project info (check the complete 580 page agenda at the Planning Commission website) lists up to 200+ trips generated per event (up from the just ‘2’ listed on original application). The South Fork Bridge near the NPS entrance has an average of just 25 trips generated during 4th of July weekend, one of the busiest of the year. According to NPS campground info less than 1% of visitation is seen at South Fork and North Fork entrances combined. That comes out to about 150 overnight stays per year. Which is about as many as the maximum allowed guests camping at Redwood Ranch in just two weddings. Roads are less than 14’ wide for several miles, with many places less than 12 and even 10’. Fire response is way over 15 minutes during the best conditions. The noise and light generated at this venue is totally incompatible with the existing area’s community and land use. There’s dozens of additional and well-cited ‘facts’ listed in the opposition’s letters of concern…

By: Just Another Local

Just Another Local — Fri, 06 Dec 2019 18:05:04 +0000

This sure is one-sided! Interviewing one person and zero fact checking…? There isn’t even an existing EIR but somehow it keeps getting quoted here? roads are paved there, an entrance to the park is up there so there’s going to be traffic, and the 11th hearing is for a SUP so how can you say these guys already have one – I knew this from already-published info! Come on VV

By: Current Resident

Current Resident — Fri, 06 Dec 2019 03:09:58 +0000

In reply to Former Resident.

There is no win-win in an area that wasn’t designated as safe or suitable to development in the general plan… the planning criteria has been comprehensively reviewed… focus growth into designated areas instead of leap-frogging into extreme fire zones… after every single catastrophic fire, every year… it comes back down to local agencies pushing developments further into unserviced Wildland areas… It has nothing to do with “progress”… are we really still regurgitating Reaganomics in the year 2020??

By: Former Resident

Former Resident — Thu, 05 Dec 2019 23:52:35 +0000

Too bad the coalition doesn’t try for a win-win situation. No matter how hard you try sooner or later you won’t be able to stop progress coming to Three Rivers. Pandora’s Box has been opened and it is near impossible to put progress back into the box. Why not work together instead of against each other?