HISTORY OF OCCUPANCY ISSUES related to the JH Ranch.
This is an important topic to understand because it is one of the areas that the Siskiyou County and JH Corporation is in disagreement, and it is fundamental to all other issues.
1973 Use permit for the JH Ranch limited occupancy to 136 persons.
1993 After receiving complaints and having concerns that the JH Ranch was no longer in compliance with their 1973 use permit the County required a new PDA (planned use amendment) in order to bring the JH Corporation's current activities into compliance. At that time the JH Ranch admitted to typically having 200 guests and 50 staff members at the resort, plus an additional 200 guests plus 30 staff off premises (in the mountains or on the rivers). They said there is one overlap day when all 480 people are on the premises.
On October 26 the County Supervisors approved the new PDP stating among other things that it would have a beneficial effect, would not overload the road network, is justified economically, and "conforms with the Siskiyou County General Plan and Scott Valley Plan." Attached to this same document is the Staff Report dated October 6 on page 4 under III. ANALYSIS stating: "This Planned Development Amendment does not include any expansion of facilities resulting in any increase in Guest Ranch occupancy. Rather, this Planned Development Amendment simply clarifies all existing uses occurring on the ranch."
Attached to the same document is a document describing current uses and activities of the JH Ranch. On page 3 under PLANNED FUTURE ACTIVITIES it says "Tentative plans for additional facilities, (to enhance operations, not to increase occupancy) include a chapel, a maintenance building and improvements...."
It seems quite clear to us that the 1993 planned amendment that was approved by the Supervisors was based on an occupancy limit of 250 people, with a one day exception of 480 on the overlap day. It also is worth noting that the approval was based on almost no input from government agencies and local citizens.
2006
On November 30, Terry Barber, the acting director of the Planning Department wrote a lengthy letter to the Johnston Family Partnership detailing her findings from a comprehensive file and on-site review to determine compliance with the 1993 Planned Development approvals. In the letter she specified nine items that were out of compliance and needed to be corrected before issuance of any more building permits.
One of the nine areas out of compliance was occupancy and in her letter she wrote: "Ranch occupancy is restricted. The total number of guests and staff is restricted to 250 on-site and 230 off-site. The PD does provide for an overlap allowing all 480 on-site for one night. Immediately cease and desist occupancy of the Ranch which exceeds established limits."
Near the end of her letter she wrote: "Occupancy violations during the 2007 summer season must be returned to the limits established in the 1993 PD. I am very hopeful that returning to the permitted occupancy will significantly minimize traffic and noise concerns that the neighboring community has expressed for many years."
2007-2008
After receiving several complaints about the JH Ranch the Grand Jury conducted an investigation and determined that the JH Ranch was not complying with conditions of their 1993 PD. Some of the concerns were excessive number of people, environmental issues, excessive noise levels, reduced property values, and traffic safety. Their recommendations were: "The Board of Supervisors should issue a cease and desist order that occupancy shall not exceed the 136 occupancy level at the JH Ranch until a full review of environmental, noise, traffic, safety, and all other issues noted in the County Planning Director's letter dated November 30, 2006 are resolved."
2011 As part of the process for obtaining a new PD (once again, as in 1993 trying to change the law to accommodate their noncompliance) the JH Corporation held a public meeting in Etna on April 13 to elicit comments regarding their planned expansion. The public was not informed about the contents of the proposal. From the meeting a document was produced listing sixty-nine items of concern.
Occupancy levels was an item of concern. Interestingly some concern was expressed about the operations of their recently acquired resort Scott River Lodge. One item expressed was concern that this seemed like a "stealth operation" of acquiring more and more property similar to when Disneyland moved into Florida. 2012 The JH Corporation submitted a revised PDPA that is quite a lengthy document wanting a zone change to increase commercially zoned property from 79 acres to 202 acres. They also state that occupancy levels should be based on the capacity of infrastructure to accommodate the number of people rather than some arbitrary number defined by the County. They state that since their infrastructure can easily handle 1600 people they should be allowed to have that many people coming to their resort.
Also accompanying the PDPA was a April 4 letter from the corporate law firm representing them stating that the County had no right to limit the occupancy numbers based on some nebulous concept of rural life style, and that they had no stated occupancy limits in the 1993 PDA, and in fact that for Terry Barber to tell them in 2006 that there were limits caused them to be in a state of "lawful nonconforming use." The lawyers further argue that because the resort has invested a lot of money for improvements (regardless of whether legally approved) this gives them a right to be allowed to expand. Additionally they say that it doesn't violate the Scott Valley Plan limiting growth to concentrated areas of population because they are only a summer camp. And they say a lot of other things as well in the document.
2014
The County is trying to determine whether to approve the JH Corporation's plan for expansion before the summer season begins. The planning director, Gregg Plucker, will make a recommendation to the planning commission. The planning commission will then make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, and then the elected Board of Supervisors, representing the citizens of Siskiyou County will make a decision. It is hoped that unlike 1993, this time the Supervisors will get adequate input from government agencies and citizens of the County.