Paradise Ranch: Owner says South Fork offers attractive off-grid lifestyle

The appeals of the approval of a special use permit for Sunshine Paradise Ranch LLC are on the Tuesday, Dec. 17, Board of Supervisors agenda. According to Lilith Reese, co-owner and operator of the proposed four-acre guest ranch, her intended use of the property is not incompatible with what opponents would believe is an appropriate use for their properties. Owner says South Fork

Reese, 30, of Los Angeles, admits that her Paradise Ranch, located nine miles up canyon from where South Fork Drive intersects with Highway 198, is remote but says she wouldn’t have it any other way. In fact, Reese envisions Paradise Ranch as the ideal place to live and raise her daughter far away from the urban environment. Owner says South Fork

To make ends meet and to share with others, Reese plans to conduct small classes in animism, healing, meditation, organic foods, and to teach others how to live alternative lifestyles. With her partner Kenneth Willardt, Lilith is also working on the development of a social media app.

“I think there has been a lot of miscommunication as to who we are and what our project is,” Reese said. “I want to live in this place we call Paradise… where I just have this vision to serve and give back.”Owner says South Fork

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IParadise Ranch appeal is Dec. 17

12 thoughts on “Paradise Ranch: Owner says South Fork offers attractive off-grid lifestyle

  • December 6, 2019 at 10:41 am
    Permalink

    I am totally against any any developement of properties for a guest ranch on South Fork. We are so short of water and you will be escalating this shortage!!!! The road is incompatable for future development that you invision. The Fire Department needs an eighteen foot road access . I cannot believe that the TC Supervisor would even consider this development as appropriate..

    Reply
    • December 6, 2019 at 2:09 pm
      Permalink

      How does a guest Ranch differ from other homes in the area? How does it differ from other vacation rentals – which many of her neighbors run – wish everyone in 3R had a vision of “off the grid” and “conservation” as a mission statement – truly I don’t know that much about the project so I’m asking those in the know so to speak –

      Reply
      • December 7, 2019 at 9:43 am
        Permalink

        Developing a social media app to promote a commercial endeavor sounds anything but “alternative lifestyle.” Presumably “animism, healing and meditation” might somehow intersect with “good vibrations.” Disparaging “miscommunication as to who we are and what our project is” sounds like a failure to harmonize, which might require efforts to collaborate with neighbors. The fact that presumed compromise agreed upon at Planning Commission already has been appealed by these developers leads me to suspect just how prosocial this version of Paradise might be. Sunshine on planning flaws is rather glaring.

        Reply
  • December 6, 2019 at 10:52 am
    Permalink

    There’s a lot of intentional miscommunication happening here. Why not bring up any of the dozen or so environmental and cultural impacts listed within the oppositions 19 page appeal letter? Not a single listed concern is ‘competition’. There’s absolutely nothing against Lilith’s dreams and visions. We share a lot in common. Just move commercial activities out of the riparian zone, out of Very High Fire Severity Zones, and into growth areas designated for such uses. If the legal guidelines and plans were adhered to, these conflicts would be completely avoided. If you don’t believe in adhering to democratically agreed-upon legal frameworks, then dont bother voting or participating in civics. We can’t have it both ways: stick to the community plans and work together towards a common vision, or give up, subdivide, and sell-out for someone else’s tax base.

    Reply
    • December 6, 2019 at 5:12 pm
      Permalink

      Perhaps what Three Rivers needs is a CEQA primer (California Environmental Quality Act). There are statutes, i.e. laws, that govern our land. There are zoning laws set forth by the County and there is a Three Rivers Community Plan that was signed off on in 2018. We are not lawless, but we need enforcement. We, as a town, decided what went into the Community Plan, which was a publicly viewed and commented on document. There should not be Categorical Exceptions, and exemptions to the exemptions unless we, as a community agree. Perhaps the Three Rivers Community Plan 2018 should be amended to include items such as large venues that exceed the numbers of guests we previously agreed on, 4 story hotels that exceed heights above 35 ft, a Town Center that benefits a developer rather than the “civic and cultural heart for the Three Rivers Community”, zoning ordinances that can be viewed with discretion. The Three Rivers Community Plan should benefit the citizens of Three Rivers and the County and County Supervisor should follow this plan or put it back on the table.

      Reply
  • December 6, 2019 at 12:00 pm
    Permalink

    I haven’t been able to investigate the numbers that she is interested in accommodating on this project but it sounds like an amazing, elevated, well-thought-out endeavor …and inspirational as well…sounds like a dream project ….off the grid ! At least we can rule out faulty electrical lines !!

    Reply
  • December 6, 2019 at 3:50 pm
    Permalink

    Why are “fire danger, evacuation gridlock, sewage contamination, inadequate water supply, emergency access” not adequate subjects to address the conflict?
    I have yet to see solutions to these problems. Unless all can be resolved, it makes no sense to contemplate a special use permit.
    I expect better of elected officials on our Tulare County Board of Supervisors. Don’t kill your Three Rivers goose that lays golden eggs for the County Treasury.

    Reply
  • December 7, 2019 at 9:05 am
    Permalink

    if the argument “just want to give back” is true then immediate neighbors might be considered first. these are longtime residents whose concerns are based on knowledge.

    Reply
  • December 8, 2019 at 8:23 am
    Permalink

    Apparently the permit has been given a categorical exemption from CEQA from the County. It needs to go through a complete CEQA process with an EIR. Projects like this can often bypass the CEQA process unless neighbors and/or concerned citizens step up and legally force government agencies to follow it.

    Reply
  • December 8, 2019 at 9:05 am
    Permalink

    Lilith!
    I live on upper South Fork, Welcome to the neighborhood! Three Rivers is a great place to raise kids.

    Reply
  • December 8, 2019 at 3:09 pm
    Permalink

    I live 5 miles up South Fork and ever since Cal-Fire’s last evaluation when we were upgraded to fire protection class ten (the highest fire classification) we have been cancelled from homeowners insurance three times, with zero claims, and that’s just within the past 5 years.

    Nobody I know is concerned about this project being competition for anything, what neighbors including me are worried about is the impact this project will undoubtedly have on our own homes given that this special use permit is like adding a match to the flame in an already dangerous place.

    We are already paying more than double what we were paying for fire insurance here before all the state’s latest two years of wildfires, you add this seemingly derelict plan which does not offer anything to mitigate the congestion and increase in traffic on the one lane dirt road that will only hamper fire fighting efforts and evacuations for the rest of us on the only route in and out and the other points made previously and it’s a recipe for disaster.

    This property owner appears to me to be trying to find a way around zoning to make money from a property that is too remote to get fire protection service too in a timely manner and as such it will only endanger those of us in its path.

    Rather than trying to get the county board to vacate and ignore its own laws and to circumvent state fire code why doesn’t this property owner spend the money and do the work to get their project up to code for the zoning they want? If it’s all about peace and love make the financial investment to make your dreams happen without endangering the rest of our properties and lives.

    Reply
  • December 8, 2019 at 4:06 pm
    Permalink

    The issues surrounding this type of resort development have nothing to do with lifestyle choices or if anyone likes you or not.
    This geographical restraints of this canyon speaks volumes. Read the above comments.
    Fire, water, poor road issues, etc …#1 no county code enforcement . EIR and CEQA compliance need to be required.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.