A CONFLICTED MEADOW ON DONNER SUMMIT?

Summit Valley, aka Van Norden Meadow, aka the headwaters of the South Yuba River- what does the future hold for it? 

A quick recap:  In three meetings held for the Donner Summit community in March of 2007, Royal Gorge repeatedly made assurances that they'd protect Van Norden Meadow as a nature preserve, with a history and nature interpretive center, and natural open space.  They also said that they would work to improve the headwaters of the South Yuba River. 

A collective sigh of relief emanated from Donner Summit denizens, as Van Norden Meadow had been threatened with development by Royal Gorge's predecessor. However, giving with one hand, and taking with the other, the new owners paradoxically indicated that they were still pursuing the former owner's EIR in Nevada County involving 18 homesites, employee lodging, a new cross country ski day lodge, parking lots, and an ice rink.  When Royal Gorge was questioned as to why they continued to seek the Van Norden development, and why they were adopting the EIR in process as their own, they basically shrugged their shoulders, and acted as if they had no other choice. 

At the very same time, Royal Gorge was cynically telling potential investors in, "Introducing The Vision- Royal Gorge- A Wilderness Edge Community"  the following: "Summit Valley Property- About 475 acres of Royal Gorge land is in the Summit Valley, on which 18 1-acre residential lots are being subdivided. Foregoing development on this property is being considered as a possible mitigation or community good will measure." 

To further confuse matters,  a few months later, in Royal Gorge's initial project description submitted to Placer County in June 2007,  "Summit Camp", their name for the proposed Van Norden Meadow development, and "Summit Station, the existing "real" Summit Station, were shuffled in an amazingly ambidextrous manner, presaging further residential pressure on the Van Norden Meadow site (now up to 50 homesites and a fishing cabin on the Placer County side), or maybe not. 

That "maybe not" is big.  Because, also in the very same  planning document to Placer County, Royal Gorge suggested,  " Lake Van Norden could also serve as a water storage location.  This alternative would involve reconstruction of a water supply reservoir at Lake Van Norden by building a new dam structure."  

Now, Van Norden Meadow has a large group of people concerned with its welfare.  It is one of the largest montane meadows outside of Yosemite, and it supports a wide variety of wildlife, including the endangered willow flycatcher.  South Yuba River Citizens League is very concerned about its future, as it is an essential component of the headwaters of the South Yuba River.  Serene Lakes Property Owners Association (SLPOA) has been monitoring development plans on the meadow for a long time, and even had an attorney advise them and submit comments on the Nevada County EIR, an EIR still being pursued by Royal Gorge.

Ready for another complication?  Royal Gorge, as well as painting several conflicting scenarios of the future of Van Norden Meadow for the public and Placer County,  has also jumped in feet first to a full fledged conflict of interest swamp. Either knowingly, or by pure dumb luck, they have hired the very same law firm, Remy, Thomas, Moose, and Manley, that had represented SLPOA on the Nevada County EIR. 

Oops!  Or is it?  Did Royal Gorge seek out the Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley firm, knowing they had represented SLPOA, the homeowner's group who was objecting to the proposed home site development on Van Norden Meadow, hoping to gain the inside track on the group? That would indeed be dirty pool. Or did Remy, Thomas, Moose, and Manley fail to inform Royal Gorge of the tricky situation? That would be murky too. And how can Remy, Thomas et al justify jettisoning a former pro bono client, and accepting work involving the very same meadow, and a piece of the very same project? 

Well, it's certainly not Van Norden Meadow that's conflicted here- it may have an identity crises, being described as an open space preserve, a mitigation bargaining piece, maybe a homesite, and,oh, how about a reservoir?  You want conflicts, then look at the developer who doesn't deliver a consistent story about their plans for the historic meadow,  and look at the law firm who has represented both sides- sides who will be very much in conflict if the future of Van Norden Meadow is threatened. 

Kathryn Gray, a Serene Lakes homeowner, believes Van Norden Meadow should be preserved from ruinous development.