July Articles:
Don't displace locals, Melanie Wellner, July 7, 2005
Pushed Out, Lori Smith, July 7, 2005
Master Plan - North Star Development, Becky Trout, July 8, 2005
Suggestions to improve traffic woes, Terry Lamphier, July 11, 2005
City Council OKs plan for 11 houses, Becky Trout, July 13, 2005
30 new houses OK'd, Becky Trout, July 15, 2005
Approval delayed for Rattlesnake project, Becky Trout, July 20, 2005
Eminent domain ruling crosses line, Jeff Ackerman, July 26, 2005
Penn Valley housing project faces review, George Boardman, July 27, 2005
The deception of public perception, Joey Jordan, July 28, 2005
It's time for us to review our priorities, Terry Lamphier, July 29, 2005
Decision on Penn Valley Oaks development delayed, Becky Trout, July 30, 2005
Special Development Areas and how to get involved, Gerard Tassone, July 30, 2005
By Melanie Wellner
Redoing South Auburn Street has merit. However the wholesale displacement of current businesses smacks too much of the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing governments' land grab to benefit private development. Is this a way of providing parking spaces for the hotel that was approved without sufficient parking? It would be very unfair to disrupt the real businesses that have supported Grass Valley for decades.
When I first moved to this area in 1972, I walked the streets of Nevada City and knew I that this was the type of small town in which I wanted to live. There were all the functioning businesses one needs in life - a pharmacy, an auto parts store, a health food store, a fabric store, etc. Now I rarely go to Nevada City. I am not a tourist.
Grass Valley is on the verge of making the same mistake. The town needs to be mindful of its residents' needs. We need a cleaners and restaurants that are reasonably priced and meeting places for locals, such as Charlies' Angels and the Chinese restaurant, and not just a lot of touristy shops and cafes. The plan sounds nice, but please don't displace our locals.
Melanie Wellner, Grass Valley
Lori Smith
I have lived in Nevada Co. for the past twenty years. Before that I lived here on and off for another 15 years. I have loved living in Grass Valley and took immense pride in the fact that as a single parent, I could raise my family in such a wonderful place. Now, I'm at a place in my life where I want to purchase my own home. For the past seven months, I have searched and searched for something that I could afford but have been unable to find a home in my price range. I have given in and given up my dream of owning a home in Nevada County and have purchased a home in Sutter County. I feel pushed out of my own community by my own community. Please do something for the working class population in this county so that we too can purchase homes and continue enjoying life in Grass Valley.
Lori Smith, Grass Valley
Some have doubts, but the North Star developer says his plan isn't sprawl
By Becky Trout,
beckyt@theunion.comJuly 8, 2005
Sprawl it's not, says Sandy Sanderson, head of the Oregon-based Sanderson Company and developer of North Star, a 760-acre, 2,000-plus house development slated for the former mine site south of Grass Valley.
Sure, the s-word has come up before, Sanderson admits, but it's a misguided slight.
North Star, far from embodying sprawl, will actually help to eliminate it, he says.
Sprawl would result if the property was subdivided and developed by different owners, Sanderson said. These "subdividers" - unworthy of the title "developer" - would fill the entire acreage with large-lot houses, lacking the incentive or the ability to include amenities like trails, parks, and ball fields, he added.
North Star, in contrast, would be a "master planned community," Sanderson says. It would cluster houses to make them affordable and leave space for a golf course, a public amphitheater, an arts center and more.
In addition, the project's size gives Sanderson the leverage to donate 17 acres surrounding the historic Julia Morgan House to the Nevada County Land Trust and the ability to lease office space to the Nevada County Arts Council for a mere $1 a month, he said.
"Without the master planned community, all amenities go away," he said.
Not everyone agrees.
Critics charge that North Star is a monstrosity, the very embodiment of sprawl that will mar the landscape and clog traffic on an already crowded Highway 49.
"It doesn't look like Grass Valley. It doesn't feel like Grass Valley. It just doesn't have any character. It just isn't how we live here," said Joey Jordan, who briefly served on a North Star steering committee.
Even if North Star is not awful, Grass Valley residents could opt to pay for portions of the amenities - the parks, golf course, and others - themselves.
"That's something we'll have to look at," said Mayor Gerard Tassone.
Sanderson recognizes that the project's size and traffic concerns are the biggest challenges he faces.
Nonetheless, he believes he has solutions - educate the public and decision-makers on the benefits of large developments and replace the land now slated for businesses, a total of 52 acres, with an equal acreage closer to Highway 49.
The developer
Developing is a role the fifth-generation Californian relishes. After graduating from the University of Southern California, the young Sanderson began selling land insurance.
Then he met some "old guys" - who he now admits must have been in their thirties - who were developers.
"I loved what they did," Sanderson said.
So he saved some money and launched his first project - a 30-unit luxury apartment complex.
Since then, he's worked along the West Coast, developing new communities, most recently in Emmett, Idaho, and in Anderson in Shasta County.
"What I enjoy today is building master planned communities instead of subdivisions. There's a sense of neighborhood and a sense of community," Sanderson said.
There really is no other mechanism to provide parks and other land for the public use in today's tight economy, he said. "As a developer, you're an orchestrator."
His two passions are work and family.
Sanderson lives in Bend, Ore., with his wife, Tammy, and some of his six children - Stephanie, Sandy, Ashley, Lark, Brooke and Mike - who range in age from 9 to 28.
He enjoys traveling - they just returned from Belize - and loves salmon fishing in Alaska and skiing.
Sanderson Company, Inc. is small and needs to profit only for Sanderson to support his family, not to satisfy stockholders, a situation that Sanderson says allows him up to donate land to nonprofits and build fully-equipped community ballparks.
The project
Sanderson acquired the North Star property in 2001 from the Robinson and Amaral families, who had tried since the 1980s to develop the property.
Soon after the purchase, Sanderson formed a "steering committee" composed of project neighbors, environmentalists, nonprofit leaders, and other to help design the project.
He also enlisted SWA Group, a landscape architecture and planning firm that designed the headquarters for Google and other major companies, as well as new neighborhoods like North Star in numerous communities worldwide.
Together, they created a design that incorporates several aspects of "New Urbanism," including broad front porches, alleys and the reuse of water, without many of the concepts Sanderson believes won't sell - mixing businesses and residences and emphasizing attached housing.
As now planned, the project includes 180 income-restricted affordable houses that would be attractive, Sanderson pledges.
"You're not going to walk down the street and say, 'Look where the poor folks are,'" he said.
And even the 600 custom-built golf course houses - intended for middle-class Grass Valley residents - aren't going to be mansions, he says.
"You will not see estates here," Sanderson said. "It wasn't intended for that."
Unlike the Loma Rica development, which includes nearly half attached housing, Sanderson plans for only 27 acres of condominiums and apartments.
People who want to live in close quarters, above shops or with shared open space can move to San Francisco or other major cities, Sanderson said.
"I don't think the (mixed-use) units are going to go very well. I don't think the market's here for it," he said.
Loma Rica developer Phil Carville disagrees.
"We've done market studies and had scores and scores of inquiries," Carville said, many from local residents. "I think the wave of the future is walkable, pedestrian-oriented, compact neighborhoods."
Most houses in North Star are within walking distance of a bus stop, Sanderson points out.
In addition, North Star includes a commercial center, which would have businesses that are restricted to coffee shops, dry cleaners, beauty salons, legal offices and the like.
"We don't want to compete with downtown," Sanderson said.
In fact, Sanderson would like even less commercial space than the 52 acres now proposed.
There's a huge demand for houses, not stores, in Grass Valley, Sanderson says. And moving the stores closer to Highway 49 would slash the amount of traffic - and costly road improvements - needed for the project, he said.
"In some respects, it may be more appropriate ... (for) all the retail to be in one spot," Tassone said.
The mayor's not racing to endorse Sanderson's plan, however, just noting it as one of the many issues that demand further investigation.
Not according to plan
Sanderson's plan to build more than 2,000 houses is far from the 363 residences proposed in the city's 1999 governing document, called a General Plan.
In that year, the city transferred the land use divisions - 312 acres of residential, 123 for business parks, 117 acres of industrial, 20 acres commercial, 13 acres for a school, and 175 acres of open space - that had been adopted in a 1997 agreement between the city and the former land owners into its General Plan, making the divisions law.
Sanderson upped the number of residences to meet demand, he says.
"Everybody's bursting at the seams. Until we stop having babies, or get down to that Chinese one-baby policy ... we'll need more housing," Sanderson said.
The General Plan also recommends annexing the northern portion of the North Star property into the city's limits between 2000 and 2005 and adding the southern part after 2016.
Again, Sanderson doesn't think that would be best.
He's likely to start the entire project at once, using the more-expensive
southern houses to finance the affordable housing at the north.
Councilman Dean Williams, for one, isn't thrilled with that idea.
"I think the (annexation schedule) is too aggressive as it is. I am not
for changing that schedule for any of the annexations," Williams said.
The differences between Sanderson's plans and the city's - the three other
major developments also propose projects quite removed from the General Plan's
forecasts - are the subject of a developer-funded study.
Now, all four of the major developments are on hold, pending the August
release of the study.
Then, Sanderson plans to launch an environmental study of the development and
submit a formal application with the city.
And in September, armed with the study's results, the council plans to
kick-off discussions on the fate of the four major developments.
"Then the fun starts," Tassone said.
What's the plan for North Star?
A large residential neighborhood with a shopping center, elementary school, public amphitheater, ball fields, soccer fields, trail system, golf course, fire station, parks, swimming pool, and tennis courts.
• Site - 760 acres
• 284 acres of houses, 27 acres of attached residences, including 180 income-restricted affordable, 600 workforce, 700 midsize, and 600 custom built houses along the golf course. (Approximately 2,080 housing units proposed)
• 350 acres of parks, open space and other community use.
• 52 acres of business/commercial, although developer Sandy Sanderson is hoping to substitute land along Highway 49 and reserve the North Star property for residences.
• 46 acres of roadways and other right-of-ways.
Source: Sandy Sanderson
ooo
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail
Suggestions
to improve traffic woes
By Terry Lamphier
July 11, 2005
As Grass Valley and
regional planners struggle with ever more complex traffic problems associated
with growth, it is time for some creative thinking. The traditional approaches
— adding freeway connections, traffic lights, new/expanded roads, etc. —
have their place, but there are alternatives that deserve consideration that
may be more cost effective and less disrupting. Herein are three ideas:
A) Planners need to take a serious look at public
transportation. Specifically, public transportation needs to be made free,
expanded and pleasurable. Roofed waiting areas to hold off sun and rain are a
minimum.
Have a problem with “free”? How many free bus trips
could be made for the cost of one traffic light/intersection improvement? The
post office intersection in
We also need to push making our community more bike and
foot friendly.
B) Rethink the impact of the
Consider a three part program:
1) Create parking lots outside of town, with free parking
for students, well served by express buses to school;
2) ban off-site parking around the school;
3) use fee parking on campus (waived for students with
special needs or after-school activities).
While one generation of high school students will be very
upset, in four years it would be the norm. Students get to school without long
commutes; neighbors reclaim their neighborhoods; revenue from parking at
school would contribute to the parking lot program; existing buses/drivers
could be utilized — and traffic pressures at critical intersections could
ease dramatically, perhaps even improving the “levels of service” at some
intersections to the point of delaying expensive alterations. This could
conceivably make it easier for new businesses that are currently faced with
daunting traffic mitigation issues. Such potential savings to the public and
private sector should be factored in when acquiring land for off-site parking.
C) Help the private sector to become pro-active. This,
admittedly, is the most complicated and radical. The business community has a
lot to gain by improving the traffic situation — less development
restrictions, better access for customers, a more pleasant community in which
to live. I have often felt that the business community could do more than the
minimum required to meet the rules, as onerous and expensive as they may
appear at times.
I think it is worth exploring the idea that the business
community form some sort of traffic improvement organization
(district/corporation/fund?), which would pool money and resources, work with
local government and proactively fund traffic improvement measures
collectively, with perhaps some matching funds from government. There may even
be grant money for such a concept.
How could the idea be made to work? Those in the private
sector could receive some sort of government recognized “traffic impact
credits” for their contributions, which they could allocate/barter between
themselves to be used when applying for development rights, building permits
and the like. The concept is based on corporations who exchange pollution
credits. For example,
There are foreseeable complications. As an untested idea,
it would require time and money to see if it can be done. It would require
businesses to establish an internal structure they could live with and, more
importantly, to put money up front; it would require government to provide
clear parameters; it would have to include a mechanism to assure a practical
relationship between community traffic mitigation needs and business
development needs.
I mentioned this idea to owners of one longtime large
local business and they thought it was worth looking into, so at first glance,
it would appear to have potential.
Personally, I would love to see alternatives to traffic
lights and widened streets popping up all over our community.
Terry Lamphier is a
Becky Trout, Staff writer,
beckyt@theunion.comJuly 13, 2005
Plans for 11 houses — with four above-the-garage rental units — received the unanimous blessing of the Grass Valley City Council Tuesday evening.
The houses will be constructed on 1.4 acres west of Town Talk Road, and two will be reserved for families earning a moderate income and will cost about $235,000, said developer Jim Pack.
“I think it’s a neat little project,” said Councilman Mark Johnson. The longtime leader protested, however, plans to connect two driveways directly with Town Talk Road.
Forcing vehicles to back out onto Town Talk Road creates “too much of a safety issue,” Johnson said. Town Talk Road may see only a car every seven minutes now, but in 20 years or so, it could be a bustling drive, he pointed out.
To secure the council’s support, project representative Kevin Nelson agreed to reconfigure the driveways to provide turnaround space.
Another moderately sticky point was a trail connecting the property with the abutting shopping center, which faces Brunswick Road. The shopping center owner, who wasn’t present Tuesday, doesn’t want the trail, Nelson said, and it would make little sense to build a trail that dead-ends at a fence.
To resolve the issue, the council decided to reserve the space for a future trail if the homeowners decide to construct one.
The residences will be close to the Nevada County Horsemen’s club, and homeowners will be warned about exposure to noise, dirt and odors, Nelson said.
In other business, the council learned that Johnson and Councilman Dean Williams are continuing to work with Sierra Terrace developer Philip Zeiter.
A revised design of the project that proposes 28 residences — a blend of duplexes and fourplexes — off Berryhill Drive, is expected within a month, said Community Development Director Joe Heckel.
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.
Development near Nevada City in works
By Becky Trout,
beckyt@theunion.comJuly 15, 2005
A 30-house development near Nevada City was approved Thursday, largely thanks to months of behind-the-scenes cooperation among the developer, neighbors and city officials.
Now known as Indian Trails, the project would add 30 large-lot houses on 122 acres northeast of Nevada City off Indian Flat Road.
In a rare twist, the neighbors began the meeting largely in accord with the developer, Erickson Realty, Ltd, and its representative Ken Baker, a retired partner with Nevada City Engineering.
"The amount of cooperation is exemplary, better than any project I've seen here in over two years," said Chairman Doug Donesky.
Working with Baker, Nevada City secured 49 acres of open space on the property, parts of which will be used for trails linking to the newly acquired Hirschman's Pond park and with Old Downieville Road. The developer also donated money to construct the trails.
Nevada City Recreation Director Jim Wheeler said he plans to start on the trails "pretty quickly."
Indian Flat Road now doubles as a recreational trail, many neighbors pointed out at the meeting, a rural condition they are eager preserve.
"Roads like these define Nevada County," said Indian Flat Road resident Brian Breiling. "(They're) what makes it so special."
Well-prepared neighbors even showed a video Thursday that was filmed driving along Indian Flat Road, to illustrate the road's beauty and its steep hills and sharp turns.
To please the neighbors, the new project's mailboxes will be located to the west, near Highway 49, and all construction traffic will be funneled that way.
But, heeding the advice of fire officials, the commission refused to allow a gate or rope to block the development's eastern juncture with Indian Flat Road.
The commission also stuck to the safety advice offered by Vern Canon, fire marshal with Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, who recommended cleaning up brush all the way to Highway 49.
"To leave that unmitigated fuel along the road is certainly an invitation for disaster," Canon said.
The city of Nevada City would prefer the Highway 49 corridor remains as is, said Laurie Oberholtzer, chairwoman of the city's Planning Commission.
At the advice of a representative local Native American, the commission and developer also agreed to shrink one lot in order to include a historic mound in an open space area.
"(Native Americans) are tired of seeing their cultural sites preserved with blacktop," said Don Ryberg, spokesman for the Tsi-Akim Maidus.
Oberholtzer made several requests - including setting a maximum house size of 3,300 square feet and ensuring homes replicated historic farmhouses - that Baker said he would be unable to comply with.
A size limit would be appropriate on smaller lots, Baker said, but with lots ranging from 1.5 to 4.7 acres, a maximum size wasn't needed.
ooo
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.
Approval delayed for Rattlesnake project
Becky Trout, Staff writer,
beckyt@theunion.comJuly 20, 2005
The road is out and baby trees are in.
Nonetheless, Rattlesnake Ridge Estates doesn’t deserve special treatment, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors said Tuesday. Just before they were apparently ready to refuse developer Phil Lester’s request to formally approve the 17-lot project before it is completed, Lester withdrew the request.
“I build houses and when I’m not ready, I don’t get a final (approval),” said Board Chairman Ted Owens.
“I wouldn’t even try to get in front of the Board of Supervisors without having completed,” said Supervisor John Spencer, a land surveyor. “I commend you guys for your tenacity, but you’re not done yet.”
At an inspection Monday morning, county engineers learned a curb is missing, 19 mature trees haven’t been planted yet, and construction debris and vegetation piles remain on site.
Located southeast of Grass Valley and straddling Rattlesnake Road, the upper-end development ran into trouble earlier this year when Lester and partner Steve Elders constructed an unapproved road and failed to prevent significant erosion caused by winter rains.
Since then, the developers were reprimanded by the Board of Supervisors in May and ordered to remove the road, replacing it with trees.
The developers have been “working diligently” to meet the requirements, representative Brian Bisnett said Tuesday.
Although they aren’t quite done, the developers asked late last week to be included on the board’s Tuesday meeting agenda to avoid accruing maintenance costs of $10,000 a week and to secure contracts with more than a dozen potential lot owners, Bisnett said.
Anticipating the board would reject the request, Lester offered to withdraw it, a move that was the honorable thing to do, Owens said.
Minutes before, Lester had addressed the board publicly for the first time since the hullabaloo.
“I’d like to acknowledge publicly we clearly made a mistake in putting this road in,” Lester said. “It was not just a total disregard for the system itself … It’s important to me that you know that we get the lesson, and we’ve taken steps to ensure this type of thing doesn’t happen again.”
The road was built to connect with a landlocked 20-acre property where the developers intend to create seven lots, Bisnett said. The unapproved-road-turned-restoration-site is still probably the best link to the property, Bisnett said Tuesday.
Rattlesnake Ridge Estates is now expected to receive final approval at the supervisor’s Aug. 14 meeting. Its 17 two-acre lots will sell from $290,000 to $340,000.
Lester, Elders, and Bisnett also hope to develop Kenny Ranch, one of the four major developments proposed for the outskirts of Grass Valley.
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion .com or call 477-4234.
Eminent domain ruling crosses line
By Jeff Ackerman,
jeffa@theunion.comJuly 26, 2005
The Grass Valley City Council last week voted unanimously to take most of the homes in a two-block area of South Auburn Street in order to allow construction of a giant Wal-Mart store that will come complete with a gas station and fast-food restaurant. City officials said they need the sales tax revenues and jobs the giant retailer will bring. They promised to try to pay the homeowners the fair market price and wished them all the luck in the world in finding new digs.
"But it's not every day that you get a chance to land a Wal-Mart and 100 jobs," said one councilman. "We have bills to pay and payroll to meet."
The homeowners said they plan to fight the taking of their homes but wonder how far that effort can go, given the fact that the highest court in the land says it's OK for the city to take someone's home for the good of the local economy.
None of this has happened, of course.
But it could.
If you were sleeping, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled 5-4 that cities may, as an Associated Press story on the decision points out, "bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, giving local government broad powers to seize private property to generate tax revenue."
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property" and "nothing is to prevent the state (or county, or city) from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or farm with a factory."
The Supreme Court's decision was based on a case out of New London, Conn., where almost an entire neighborhood will be involuntarily uprooted by the city to make way for a private development that will generate more taxes than the older homes did.
The process is called eminent domain, which has generally been used by the government to take someone's land with or without the property owner's permission. Traditionally, that process (which pretty much leaves fair compensation up to a judge or arbitrator) has only been used for social good, such as schools or parks, or to eliminate blight. In fact, several states (not California) have laws against using eminent domain solely for economic reasons.
Following the high court ruling, Nevada City Councilman Steve Cottrell tried to introduce a resolution "assuring citizens of Nevada City that eminent domain proceedings shall not be used for purposes of economic development."
Cottrell said his motion was met with "absolute silence" from his fellow council members, which is not an unusual response for anything the renegade council member proposes. Cottrell is often at the wrong end of a 4-1 vote because ... well ... because the other council members think he talks too much and rarely goes along with the program. Group speak works much better when you're trying to keep the meetings brief.
It's not that the council doesn't enjoy resolutions, mind you. Especially when it comes to the Patriot Act, nuclear weapons, or an assortment of other national or global feel-good issues that the city has pretty much zero control over.
Perhaps they are simply afraid the resolution will keep them from taking someone's property for the economic good of the people.
Fortunately, the United States Congress has not been as silent as our local municipalities. The House recently adopted, by a 365-33 vote, a resolution deploring the court's ruling. The House also voted 231-189 for a bill that would prohibit expenditure of any federal housing, transportation or treasury funds to "enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court" in the New London case. In other words, the city of New London had better not use key federal funds in any way, directly, or indirectly, to move that project forward.
According to a Newsday article, one group is organizing an effort to persuade the town council of Weare, N.H., where Supreme Court Justice David Souter owns property, to condemn his land in order to give it to developers who promised to build a hotel on the site. The name of the proposed project: The Lost Liberty Hotel, which will also feature a restaurant called Just Desserts Café.
As funny as that is, the high court's ruling is no joke. Not for anyone who owns land, or a home, it isn't. Most of us assumed that our forefathers protected us from such things when they got together to draft the Constitution, which we thought the U.S. Supreme Court was designed to uphold.
Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who reportedly endorsed a moratorium on eminent domain seizures, called the issue "the 21st century equivalent of the Boston Tea Party: the government taking away the rights and liberties of property owners without giving them a voice. But this time it is not a monarch wearing robes in England we are fighting - it is five robed justices at the Supreme Court in Washington."
Jeff Ackerman is the publisher of The Union. His column appears on Tuesdays. Contact him at 477-4299, jeffa@theunion.com, or at 464 Sutton Way, Grass Valley 95945.
Penn Valley housing project faces review
By George Boardman,
georgeb@theunion.comJuly 27, 2005
A scaled-down version of a housing development in the middle of Penn Valley's village center will go before the Nevada County Planning Commission for review Thursday.
When the Village at Penn Valley Oaks was first proposed last June, developer Casilli Partners LLC envisioned 66 two-story, single-family homes, seven lower-cost attached units, and two commercial buildings fronting Penn Valley Drive.
But the project would have required amending the county's General Plan and expanding the community's wastewater treatment plant. Several area residents objected, and the commissioners sent the proposal back for more work.
Casilli is now proposing construction of 36 single-family houses and six commercial buildings in two phases. Phase two would be built when additional sewer capacity becomes available.
The redesigned project eliminates the need to amend the General Plan and change zoning in the area, according to a report prepared by county Associate Planner Stephanie Wagner.
The planning commission will also take up two applications from south county schools on Thursday:
• Forest Lake Christian School wants to build a 13,386-square-foot structure to house five classrooms, an administrative office, and a gymnasium at its campus on West Hacienda Drive.
• The organizers of the Sierra Montessori Academy want to establish a K-8 charter school for 220 students at 10911 Wolf Road.
The deception of public perception
Other Voices
By Joey Jordan
Several years ago I was invited by Sandy Sanderson, developer of the proposed North Star project, to attend a Steering Committee meeting. He indicated that he was putting together a group of local movers and shakers - those he felt could sway public opinion - to consult him on the master planned community he intends to build on the south end of Grass Valley. His invitation was very cordial and the stated intent was that he wanted to craft a community that we, the community, could be proud of.
Several years have passed. The project is shaping up to be the exact replica of Roseville-style development that I "steered" against in his Steering Committee meetings. The North Star project looks and feels nothing like the downtown of Grass Valley or Nevada City. In our existing towns, small homes are next to larger homes, streets are walkable and there is a destination to achieve by walking. Alleys exist, garages are back loaded, and homes are charming and quaint.
In Sandy Sanderson's master-planned perfect world, the poor people live in the designated poor people area, the working class lives in the working class neighborhood, the wealthy live along the golf course, and the golf course is considered open space. Oh, and the rich people never have to drive past the designated poor people section unless they are dropping their children off at the ballpark - something they need to drive to because we're not really talking about a walkable community here. Mixed use isn't really mixed. There are no apartments above stores, like in our existing towns. Live/work space isn't considered. Large greenbelts line the suburbia streets, but only in the wealthier neighborhoods.
I initially attended the Steering Committee meetings with my do-gooder sense of wanting to help. I felt it was important to provide a voice in thoughtful planning. After all, this is my home and I will be living with the consequences for the rest of my life - unlike Sandy Sanderson, who is an out-of-state developer intending only to get the project approved and then sell it off piecemeal to out-of-county builders.
I walked into the first meeting at the Holbrooke Hotel and was greeted by many of my peers. There were representatives of the Land Trust, Parks and Recreation, The Senior Center, Rural Quality Coalition, The Arts Council, the Contractors Association, a former elected official or two, others representing local nonprofits and land-use groups - basically it was the who's who of who might have vocally opposed the project.
We were offered fried calamari, cheese, out-of-season berries, beverages. We were presented with beautiful renderings of the proposed project. We were told why it was wonderful "smart growth" planning. We were offered land and office space for the nonprofits we represented. We were given land. The gifts were retracted. We asked questions and made suggestions. We were ignored.
We were taken to cocktails, lunch and dinner. We were stacked into Sandy Sanderson's social calendar; a meeting with this one in the bar at the Holbrooke at 5 p.m. At 5:30, move to the next table for a meeting with him. At 6 p.m., move into the dining room for dinner with these two and at 7:30, back to the bar for a meeting with that one.
We were gifted at Christmas; tickets and sponsorships were bought to support our causes. We were offered percentages of the sales price of every home built and sold in North Star; we were offered buildings; we were offered ballparks and land.
One by one, we were bought. One by one, the heads in the room that began by shaking no had started to shake yes. All initial opposition the group had presented was quieted with gifts and promises.
Now the voices that should be screaming to stop this inappropriate project are quietly counting their proceeds. I don't feel the community can be very proud of that. The gifts and promises will disappear as the project gets approved but the traffic congestion and sprawl will not.
Joey Jordan lives in Rough and Ready
It's time for us to review our priorities
Other
Voices,
the proposed new Highway 49
access just south of
(Crestview) was an eye-opener.
The proposal to build a new interface
reflects the larger issue of the di-
rection of
sociated city and
Many, if not most in attendance, stated
in various ways that the new connection
would do little to benefit existing residents
of our area and a lot to enable two
large developments proposed for land
immediately adjoining
asking hard questions about impacts to
the area and the community at large.
Based on the sentiments expressed
by the audience, the general view
seemed to reflect a major concern as to
the appropriateness and the necessity of
projects that vastly increase regional
population, urban expansion and com-
mercial growth.
There may have been some in the
audience who confused the presentation
as endorsement of the concept and
while that may or may not have been
the wish of some of the attendees, the
hearing represented government doing
its job of engaging the public in debate
over planning issues that are legitimate
under existing General. Plan and zoning
parameters.
With that said, it is a credit to Mayor
Gerard Tassone that he recognized
the difficult and often contentious issues
raised by the audience, maintained
his "cool" and outlined options that the
citizenry have available to them in a
very professional and respectful manner.
As I recall the evening, the mayor
made a number of important points, in-
cluding that the study session is to aid
planners in finding direction and that,
as far as the
is concerned, citizens' voices are taken
very seriously.
The mayor brought up a number of
scenarios that could be pursued beyond
acceptance of the inevitability of large
developments, new traffic issues, etc.
For instance, he discussed (as I recall--
please offer your alternate perspectives)
the possibilities of:
nexing additional land; doing a General
Plan amendment, or even putting in
place, via initiative or governing body
action, a moratorium on growth. As an
aside, a city staffer mentioned to me .
another possible option, which is that
the city could put an annual cap on
growth, as opposed to the existing 2020
General Plan format, which is less re-
strictive.
Mayor Tassone clearly expressed the
belief that should new large developments
occur they should be managed by
the City of Grass Valley in order that
the city may impose conditions that op-
timize benefits and minimize impacts
to existing residents and businesses.
I personally appreciated the difficult
role that the mayor had to fill at the
meeting and came away with respect for
his willingness to mention the options
that the citizenry have open to them.
Now it is up to you and me and our
neighbors. The Grass Valley 2020 Gen-
eral Plan has been around for five years.
Is it serving. the best interests of the
community at this time? Does it need
review and possibly an update? What
about the county's plan?
Do we need discussions and/or public
forums weighing the pros and cons
of the current plans? What are the pros
and cons specifically of, for instance,
new development occurring under
county control versus city control?
What benefits versus what impacts?
Density? Traffic? Tax revenues? Jobs?
And last, but not least, quality of life?
I sense a growing movement of ac-
tivism on the part of the community,
manifested currently through such
groups as Citizens Concerned About
Traffic (CCAT), the
Neighborhood Association, the Wolf
Creek Alliance, and longer established
groups such as the Rural Quality Orga-
nization and California Association of
Business Property and Resource Own-
ers (CAB PRO) -- apologies if
missed some. Some may disparage these
groups but they are democracy at its
finest. Generally, they are volunteers
working with little or no funds, spend-
ing countless hours trying to create
what they consider a better community.
As the SDAs (Special Development
Areas such as South Hill, North Star,
Loma Rica and Kenny Ranch) and a
few other less visible large develop-
ments are now working their way
through the system, there is a unique
and timely opportunity to the community
to determine its future.
000
Terry Lamphier is a
Commissioner speaking strictly as a private
citizen and not as a representative of the
City of
