Loss of Agricultural Lands in Nevada County – "Faux Clustering"

The Rural Quality Coalition is very concerned about loss of agricultural lands on a local level. During the General Plan update, much agricultural land in the Penn Valley area received smaller parcel size designations. We argued against this, but did not prevail. We did manage to get a Planned Development overlay on some of these lands so that new parcels would be clustered off of important agricultural lands. However, the clustering proposals that are now coming in are what we call "faux clustering" and are not preserving agricultural land in a meaningful way.

May, 2007: Pine Ridge Estates - "Faux Clustering"

One of the larger examples of this problem so far is a subdivision being proposed near Indian Springs Rd and Spenceville Rds.... 43 lots on 200 acres, clustered mainly on the portion that is mapped Farmland of Local Importance. Only ribbons of open space between homes are being preserved and a hillside of no agricultural value. It is called Pineridge Estates.

We have commented on this project to the Agricultural Advisory Board and to the Planning Department. We recommend that all parcels be located out of the important agricultural land which should remain in one parcel and sold to an agricultural buyer with a conservation easement to ensure agricultural use in perpetuity.

February 2008: Pendagio Estates - "Faux Clustering"

Yet another example of this problem, Pendagio Estates, has come for review by Nevada County. In February 2008 it entered the Early Consultation Period (part of the Environmental Review process). RQC has provided a comment letter (or PDF) to the Planning Department, enumerating our concerns on the project's consequences for Agricultural Protection in Nevada County.