Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Plumas County to enforce general plan after multiple complaints in Genesee Valley
Summary
Several Genesee Valley residents told the Plumas County Board of Supervisors they have filed complaints about alleged violations of the county general plan, citing noise, water quality, wildlife impacts and retroactive permitting; speakers asked what citizens can do to ensure enforcement.
Residents of Genesee Valley pressed the Plumas County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 8 to enforce the county general plan, saying multiple complaints filed with the planning department have not been adequately addressed.
“ There have been at least 4 official complaints filed with the planning department about violations of the county general plan in Genesee Valley,” said Elisa Adler, who identified herself as one of the general plan’s longtime original authors. “I have emailed you directly, mister Goss, 3 or 4 times. I've never received a response from you, which in general is the problem that we're all facing here in the county.”
Adler told the board she believes development activity on a property owned by Leila Levy violates protections for the Feather River watershed and other elements of the general plan. She also said the general plan contains a prohibition on airports in Genesee Valley and warned that structures originally described as barns or storage have been upgraded in ways she says circumvent the plan’s protections.
Other speakers echoed enforcement concerns. Daniel Kentius, who said he is from Genesee, said noise from the project “is well above admissible levels of noise in the plan,” and urged the board to act. A veterinarian who identified herself as Dr. Sanahio raised concerns about wildlife safety, water quality, toxins near a creek and a nine-foot fence that she said impedes deer migration.
Board members acknowledged the comments and indicated staff would follow up. A supervisor told Adler they would be reaching out and meeting with her in the coming week; Adler said she plans to return on a future agenda with materials including PowerPoint presentations.
Commenters requested clarity on how the planning department enforces the general plan and how citizens can escalate unresolved violations. The speakers urged the board to ensure retroactive permitting is not used to validate actions that conflict with state‑mandated general plan protections for water, wildlife and scenic values.
No new ordinance or enforcement action was recorded on the board’s public agenda during the meeting; the matter was raised in public comment and residents said they will pursue a formal agenda appearance at a future meeting.
