THE UNION Articles on
Planning -- August
Mine takes its case to the public, George Boardman, August 31, 2005
Planned mine may be golden opportunity, Jeff Ackerman, August, 30, 2005
Two workshops set on Idaho-Maryland Mine, The Union Staff, August 27, 2005
Planners rule on property split on Spenceville Road, Becky Trout, August 27, 2005
People protest project, Becky Trout, August 26, 2005
Deer Creek Park II impact discussed, Becky Trout, August 25, 2005
Nevada City to air ground floor real estate office debate, Becky Trout, August 23, 2005
This land is your land - or is it?, Becky Trout, August 23, 2005
Eminent domain amendment fails with Board of Supervisors, Becky Trout, August 24, 2005
Public meeting for Deer Creek Park II tomorrow, Becky Trout, August 24, 2005
More info needed for developments, Becky Trout, August 19, 2005
Hearts and mines: Company tries to bolster city's support, George Boardman, August 19, 2005
Project sparks debate - Traffic, affordable housing among top concerns,
Brittany Retherford, August 17, 2005
Housing plan raises reservations, Becky Trout, August 17, 2005
Penn Valley Oaks project gets planner's approval, Becky Trout, August 12, 2005
South Auburn Street plan has potential, August 8, 2005
Mine takes its case to the public
Idaho-Maryland hopes to open once again
By George Boardman
August 31, 2005
The Idaho-Maryland Mining Corp. brought its proposal to reopen the historic mine to the L.O.V.E. Building at Condon Park Tuesday, hoping to woo some members of the community with its plans.
Bill Witte, president of Idaho-Maryland's parent company, Emgold Mining Corp. of Canada, assembled a slide show, refreshments, and a platoon of consultants to answer questions and hear concerns at two public workshops.
"We want to communicate better with you and understand your concerns," Witte told about 75 area residents who gathered for the afternoon session. "This is a very large project, and that can be scary."
The company wants to resume operations at a mine that has been closed since 1956, hoping to extract at least one million ounces of gold across a 20-year period.
A three-volume application has been filed with the city of Grass Valley to begin a two-year review and permitting process. Mine officials hope to be removing 2,400 tons of rock a day by 2013-14.
Those attending the afternoon sessions were generally supportive of the proposal.
"I don't think it will be a blight on the landscape," said Dwight Phillips of Grass Valley, pointing out that the site bordered by Idaho-Maryland Road and East Bennett Road is largely brush and rock piles now.
Emgold reports first-half loss
Emgold Mining Corp. of Canada, the parent company of Idaho-Maryland Mining Corp., Tuesday reported a loss of $2,385,144 for the first half ended June 30.
The operating loss, equivalent to 5 cents a share, was an improvement over the company's loss of $2,790,384, or 6 cents a share, in the year-earlier period.
Emgold said the company's primary focus "has been and continues to be" exploration of the Idaho-Maryland Mine in Grass Valley."I'm very positive," he said. "I haven't seen or heard anything that would halt it."
"I'm 100 percent in favor of it," said Mike Pickering, a 42-year resident of Grass Valley. "I do believe they are approaching this project in a worthwhile manner."
Witte and other mine representatives continually reassured the audience that they want to hear the public's concerns so they can be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report and other documents that will be prepared.
"We want this to be a project we can be proud of," said Pat Nelson, director of environmental affairs for Idaho-Maryland.
Nine tables ringed the room and were staffed by consultants who could discuss such topics as traffic, dewatering and the geology of the mine. Those in attendance were invited to ask questions during a 45-minute breakout session.
A summation of those questions at the end of the two-hour workshop showed a concern over noise and vibration caused by work at the site, and what will happen to private wells and Wolf Creek when millions of gallons of water are pumped from the mine.
"There will be opposition, as there always is," said Priscilla Vanderpas of Grass Valley, a docent at the Empire Mine State Park. "The people who live in Grass Valley have a lot of concerns, especially those with wells."
To contact staff writer George Boardman, e-mail georgeb@the union.com or call 477-4236.
Planned mine may be golden opportunity
By Jeff Ackerman
August 30, 2005
If Ross Guenther and his colleagues at the Idaho-Maryland Mine have their way - and it's tough to get your way in a county where everyone wants things their way - Grass Valley could see a rebirth of its heritage within the next two years.
At one time, the Idaho-Maryland was one of the largest ore shoots in the world, producing more than a million ounces of gold from its primary vein.
There may be another million or so ounces where that came from, which is why Guenther and several others from Canada's Emgold Mining Corporation have been poking around the several-acre site that rests above thousands of water-filled tunnels between Idaho-Maryland and East Bennett roads for the past several years.
Armed with piles of research and environmental studies, mine officials have hit the road in an effort to educate the pubic and to hopefully gain support. There are two public opportunities today at the L.O.V.E Building in Grass Valley's Condon Park, as a matter of fact. Representatives will be on hand at 2:30 and 6:30 p.m. to answer any and all questions citizens may have regarding the ambitious mine project.I'm sure there will be no shortage of questions or concerns. Especially from those who won't want the mine reopened no matter what research or science has to say about it. We have more than our share of naysayers, the ones who never seem to know what they like, or want, but can certainly tell you what they don't.
From what I've read and heard, Idaho-Maryland officials have done a pretty good job of addressing most of the several issues related to reopening an underground mine that will be one of the most regulated businesses in the country.
I visited the Sixteen-To-One Mine out in Alleghany a couple of years ago, and the only reason there is a post office in that tiny town is because of the paperwork the government regulators generate and the responses required of the mine officials.
Aside from the historical element, there is one very cool and unique aspect of the Idaho-Maryland Mine. Plans include converting the tailings and rock pulled from the mine shafts into commercial ceramic tile. The kind of tile you can put on your floors, walls or countertops. It's supposed to be three to five times stronger than conventional ceramic building materials.
Water - specifically the disposal of it - will also be a major issue. As most of you know, the shafts have filled with water since the mine closed nearly 50 years ago, and that water will have to be pumped out in order to get at the gold. That creates concern among those whose own water comes from wells near the shafts. "(We) recognize that local citizens depend on their water wells, and any project likely to compromise these wells would not be acceptable," one mine brochure reads. The environmental studies have shown that the well water is above the existing mine water levels and should not be affected by pumping out the shafts. And the water that will eventually be pumped from the shafts into the South Fork of Wolf Creek will be treated and will actually be cleaner than the water flowing through that creek today, according to the mine officials.
"Iron and manganese levels, in particular, will be reduced, and these extracted metals may be used as coloring agents in the ceramic manufacturing process," reads the brochure. In other words, there won't be a lot of wasted material at the Idaho-Maryland Mine.
Skeptics must realize that by the time mine officials get the final approval to begin mining, they will have gone through some of the most rigorous and costly review processes on record. And they will be under a microscope of almost every federal, state and local agency imaginable every single operating day. In fact, the mine will probably keep several environmental-based companies in business.
If they make it through that process, this community, rich in mining tradition, should embrace the mine. Besides the economic advantages of the anticipated 400 jobs (200 in the mine and 200 in the ceramics plant), as many as 3,000 indirect jobs (from service industries), and $750 million per year in direct and indirect revenue for local businesses, the mine would be one of only a handful of gold mining operations in the world and would allow a rare opportunity for a community to turn the clock back.
I encourage anyone at all interested in this fascinating project to attend today's public sessions at the L.O.V.E. Building. Bring your questions and concerns, but also be prepared with an open mind. I think you will be impressed by the efforts and thoughts that have gone into this project thus far.
Jeff Ackerman is the publisher of The Union. His column appears on Tuesdays. Contact him at 477-4299, jeffa@theunion.com, or 464 Sutton Way, Grass Valley 95945.
Briefs
, August 27, 2005Two workshops set on Idaho-Maryland Mine
Two public workshops on the Idaho-Maryland Mining Corp.'s plan to re-open the historic mine will be held at 2:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Tuesday in the L.O.V.E. building at Condon Park in Grass Valley.
Representatives of the mine will outline their plan to resume working the mine and answer questions from the public. Additional information is available by phoning Patricia Nelson at 271-0679, or visiting www.idaho-maryland.com on the Web.
- The Union staff
Planners rule on property split on Spenceville Road
The Union staff
August 27, 2005
Without eliminating an obstacle to development for properties along Spenceville Road, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors made it possible for Len and Nancy Stevens to split their 62-acre property so their two daughters can build houses.
Although the Stevens' proposed subdivision still requires formal approval from the Board of Supervisors, the family is no longer saddled with the burden of changing the status of Spenceville Road in the county's governing document.
Currently, any development projects on Spenceville Road need to construct a second roadway for fire safety. Neighbors expressed concerns this week that changing that requirement would expose the rural neighborhood to a flood of traffic, possibly from Yuba County.
The Planning Commission ruled the Stevenses are welcome to split their property four ways without changing the status of the road, because access is already available and the property is irrigated.
- Becky Trout
Residents show to oppose Deer Creek Park II
By Becky Trout,
beckyt@theunion.com
August 26, 2005
Traffic topped the lengthy list of concerns Nevada City area residents aired Thursday about Deer Creek Park II and its environmental report.
County and city residents packed the chambers Thursday afternoon to show the Nevada County Planning Commission they aren't happy about Lance Amaral's plans to construct 193 houses on 158 acres east of Nevada City.
Amaral also owns the surrounding 422 acres, which he plans to log.
No decision was made at the nearly four-hour meeting, held in accordance with state law to allow time for interested folks to comment on proposed projects.
The subdivision, originally proposed in 2001, plans to construct 193 houses on about eight-tenths of an acre lots south of Red Dog Road. Each house would have its own septic system and leach field, a change from a previous iteration of the project, which proposed a community-wide leach field.
The nearest lot is 600 feet from Little Deer Creek, Nevada City's source of water.
The 1,619 trips per day brought on by the project would clog Boulder Street and Red Dog Road, the environmental report states. The potential fixes - including an added stoplight at the southbound freeway on-ramp on Boulder Street, a wider Red Dog Road and an improved Idaho-Maryland Road - are either unfeasible, unpopular, or unpredictable.
Therefore, to approve the development, the Planning Commission would need to decide that the projects' benefits outweigh its harm.
With no affordable housing, benefits of the project are hard to find, said Nevada City resident Jerry Bloom.
"Nowhere does it demonstrate a public good ... there's not a shortage of high-end homes (in Nevada County)," Bloom said.
Occasionally passions ran high, but only 22 people addressed the commission with their concerns about the project. No one, except the developer's representatives, spoke in favor of the subdivision as it is currently configured.
Several speakers protested the meeting's 1:30 p.m. start time, saying many workers weren't able to make it.
Earlier this summer, the Planning Commission switched from evening to afternoon meetings to prevent late-night hearings.
Following nearly three hours of public testimony, the four-member commission agreed to extend the deadline to receive comments on the project's environmental report from Sept. 9 to Sept. 23 at the request of Nevada City.
The preliminary environmental report is available at www.mynevadacounty.com/planning/ or at area libraries.
Comments may be directed to Tod Herman, senior planner, Rood Administrative Center, Community Development Department, 950 Maidu Ave., Nevada City, CA 95959.
They must be received by 5 p.m. Sept. 23.
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234
Deer Creek Park II impact discussed
By Becky Trout,
beckyt@theunion.com
August 25, 2005
The second environmental report for Deer Creek Park II, a 193-house development planned east of Nevada City, will be scrutinized today by neighbors and the Nevada County Planning Commission.
Originally proposed in 2001, the 580-acre development south of Red Dog Road has encountered strong resistance because of concerns about traffic, water quality, and potential impact on the region's rural character.
Issues with the development itself are not the focus of today's meeting. Rather, the commission will address the adequacy of the second environmental report, released in mid-July after the original 2003 report was found lacking.
The new study found several problems that cannot be resolved, such as increased traffic.
The 1,619 daily vehicle trips the development would add to the roadway would strain the already faulty Boulder Street, Union Street, southbound Highway 49/20 intersection, the report states.
It calls for additional stop signs, the elimination of parking, and a stoplight or a roundabout at that central Nevada City intersection. The pothole-riddled Boulder Street would also be affected.
Idaho-Maryland and Red Dog roads may need improvements if the development is completed, the report states.
In addition, according to the report, Deer Creek Park II would affect air quality and create noise.
The original Deer Creek Park development was initiated more than 40 years ago.
Nevada City officials intend to "put all of the City's resources toward a resolution addressing our concerns," Mayor Conley Weaver said Wednesday. The city is particularly bothered by traffic, safety concerns, and water quality, Weaver said.
The environmental report is available at http://new.mynevadacounty.com/planning/ by clicking on "Deer Creek Park 2 Project." It is also available at area libraries.
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.
Know and go
What: Discussion on the environmental report for the Deer Creek Park II development
Where: Rood Administrative Center, 950 Maidu Ave.
When: 1:30 p.m. todayooo
Nevada City to air ground floor real estate office debate
By Becky Trout,
beckyt@theunion.com
August 23, 2005
Strollers along Broad Street can stop to purchase coffee, books, clothes, paintings, ice cream cones, or houses.
Actually, before signing a mortgage, a Nevada City shopper could peruse through an extensive collection of pricey houses and lots offered by realty offices downtown.
Concerns about the number of ground floor real estate and insurance offices have boiled just under the surface in Nevada City for many months.
But now they're about to erupt into the open.
Critics feel the plethora of nonretail storefronts detracts from the vivacity of downtown and lowers sales tax receipts. Realtors and others counter their services are vital to the city and emphasize the importance of laissez faire policies.
At its brief Monday evening meeting, the city council unanimously agreed to give the issue a thorough airing at its Sept. 26 meeting.
The most recent impetus for action came from a letter from part-time resident Bill Ward. Ward entreated the council to "consider some action to stop the proliferation of businesses on Broad Street, which do not cater to shoppers."
The council has already considered it.
Previously, the city council had directed the planning commission to investigate the matter.
In late July, at the direction of the council, the city's planning commission discussed the issue and reported unanimous concern about the loss of vitality and sales tax from nonretail businesses downtown.
At least one commissioner, the newly appointed Sheila Stein, said she disagrees with proposals to require additional permits for ground floor businesses or to prohibit non-retail businesses from all or part of downtown.
The council postponed additional discussion on the contentious topic until Sept. 26 when all interested parties will have received notification.
"(We're planning) a healthy, open dialogue realizing that no one jumped to any conclusion and making sure that all voices are heard," Councilman David McKay said.
In other business, the council considered acquisition of a 30-foot wide Boulder Street lot that extends to Deer Creek that has back taxes due. The council will discuss the property, which could provide public access to the creek, next week.
ooo
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.
This land is your land - or is it?
State legislators hope to keep government from claiming private land for developers
Becky Trout
beckyt@theunion.com
Staff writer,
August 23, 2005
When the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled it is legal for governments to claim private land for developers to use, the decision was quickly condemned by community leaders and average joes from Connecticut to Nevada County.
“It strikes me as a thoroughly nutty decision that should be condemned by liberals — trying to protect the rights of the individual — and conservatives — looking for less governmental intrusion in our lives,” wrote Simi Lyss, chairman of the Grass Valley-based California Association of Business, Property, and Resource Owners.
That is exactly the response California Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, and Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, are hoping for.
Working together, the two have proposed an amendment to California’s constitution. The change would limit governments to using the eminent domain process solely for public purposes such as roads.
“Using that big hammer on basically the little guy is a misappropriate use of (power),” LaMalfa said on a recent visit to Nevada County.
LaMalfa will return to Nevada County this morning in an attempt to encourage the Board of Supervisors to issue a resolution of support for the proposed amendment.
With no blight-fighting plans involving eminent domain, the board will likely be receptive to LaMalfa’s pitch.
Supervisor Sue Horne invited the assemblyman to visit, and board Chairman Ted Owens said he generally agrees with the legislation.
Owens said he has a few concerns, however, regarding the effect of the amendment on the redevelopment agencies in Grass Valley and Truckee and on the potential loss of the tax incentives that accompany the process of eminent domain.
“On the face of it, I would agree with the legislation,” Owens said. “I think the (Supreme Court ruling) was a bad decision.”
County Supervisor John Spencer said he also has a few questions about the amendment.
“I think everybody was OK with the way it was to begin with,” he said.
How does eminent domain work?
So let’s say the government wants to build a road through your property. First, you will receive formal notification. The government will then contract with independent assessors to determine the value — based on the property’s worth before the eminent domain process began.
If an agreement on the sale price can’t be reached, the government issues a formal notice of condemnation, holds a public hearing, and rules that eminent domain is necessary.
Then, the case goes to court, where it is usually heard by a jury. If your property is taken, the government is required to help relocate your family or business.
Source: “Redevelopment in California” by David F. Beatty et al.Up to the voters?
The amendment, which could be up for voter approval on the November ballot, has the support of both Nevada County state representatives — Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, and Assemblyman Rick Keene, R-Chico.
Keene said he thinks the amendment will pass.
“I haven’t run across anybody that thinks the government ought to be able to prefer one person’s property over another’s property,” he said.
Opposition for the amendment primarily stems from redevelopment agencies and other community development organizations, which use eminent domain to spruce up failing neighborhoods.
Gerard Tassone, mayor of Grass Valley, which has a redevelopment agency, said he believes the amendment would affect larger cities more.
“The laws we have now for eminent domain are very sufficient. We use it very judiciously anyway,” Tassone said.
Several weeks ago, Nevada City City Councilman Steve Cottrell tried to pass a resolution restricting the city’s use of eminent domain.
He failed to gain support from any of his colleagues, although none rushed to support the Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London decision, which involved a Connecticut case.
“While I’m opposed to government taking for economic purposes like that, I just felt that a simple resolution by the City Council had no teeth,” said Councilman Kerry Arnett. “Three votes would pass it, but three votes would turn it over again. Laws need to be passed on a state level.”
Arnett said he was not familiar with LaMalfa’s effort but that he supports its intentions.
The top court’s decision, which has sparked a nationwide backlash, allowed the city of New London to take property owned by several individuals and transfer it to a private company to create jobs and improve a depressed neighborhood.
Abuse of eminent domain already occurs in California, LaMalfa said, and he fears it will become more widespread if the amendment is not passed.
If a city really wants to improve a neighborhood, it needs to offer property owners a price they can’t refuse, he said.
“More important than the revenue generated by (new development) are constitutional rights, basic liberties,” LaMalfa said.
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.
Eminent domain amendment fails with Board of Supervisors
By Becky Trout,
beckyt@theunion.com
August 24, 2005
Nevada County's top elected officials found themselves divided Tuesday on a proposed state constitutional amendment that would limit how governments can force the sale of private land.
Sue Horne had petitioned her fellow members of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to support the amendment, which is being discussed in the state's legislature.
Specifically, the amendment would require public agencies to retain property they acquire using the process of eminent domain, preventing situations similar to a conflict in New London, Conn., where the city obtained property to transfer to a developer.
In late June, the Supreme Court reviewed the New London case and approved that practice, a move that spawned nationwide backlash.
Several of the Nevada County supervisors said they disagree with the Kelo v. New London decision but retain reservations about the proposed California amendment.
The board heard presentations from amendment-backing Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, and Timothy Sandefur, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation.
But the supervisors opted not to support the amendment. Instead, supervisors Ted Owens and Robin Sutherland voted to support Supervisor Nate Beason's proposal to reserve the county's use of eminent domain only for acquisitions that clearly benefit the public.
That language won't stand legally, Sandefur said, because of the broad interpretation of the word "public." His clarification led Supervisor John Spencer to abstain from the vote.
Horne also abstained, expressing her disappointment the board failed to support the state constitution amendment.
The Placer County Board of Supervisors approved the constitutional amendment with a unanimous vote, Horne pointed out.
ooo
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.
Public meeting for Deer Creek Park II tomorrow
Becky Trout,
beckyt@theunion.com
August 24, 2005
Tomorrow, the chambers of the Rood Administrative Center will be packed with folks eager to share their views about the environmental report for Deer Creek Park II, a 193-house development proposed for 580 acres east of Nevada City south of Red Dog Road.
The environmental report is available at http://new.mynevadacounty.com/planning/ by clicking on the “Deer Creek Park 2 Project” link. It is also available at area libraries.
The meeting begins at 1:30 p.m. at 950 Maidu Avenue in Nevada City.
More info needed for developments
By Becky Trout,
beckyt@theunion.com
August 19, 2005
The Grass Valley Planning Commission asked to receive additional information on two housing projects Tuesday evening, Planning Director Tom Last said.
The 122 houses proposed for 10 acres as part of the Berg Heights development on Ridge Road may be too many, the commissioners said. They also expressed concerns about adequate access to the development and asked to see additional data on housing in Grass Valley before the project returns before the panel in September.
In addition, the commission postponed an in-depth discussion of a proposal to construct 51 houses on Brunswick Road just southeast of Town Talk Road on nine acres.
The commissioners said they did not have enough time to consider the project, which would require annexation to the city, Last said.
The Brunswick project, proposed by Jay Cuccia, will also be discussed by the commission in September.
Hearts and mines: Company tries to bolster city's support
By George Boardman,
georgeb@theunion.com
August 19, 2005
Idaho-Maryland Mining Corp. has launched an above-ground exploration project, searching out veins of support and pockets of opposition to its planned reopening of the historic mine.
The company, a subsidiary of Emgold Mining Corp. of Canada, has filed a formal application with the City of Grass Valley and hopes to have a conditional use permit within 18 to 24 months.
Meanwhile, the company is making a concerted effort to build community support for its plan to resume mining at a site that was California's second-largest hard rock gold mine until it closed in 1956.
An Idaho-Maryland exhibit, explaining the project with photographs and diagrams, has been set up at such events as Nevada City's Summer Nights and the Nevada County Fair. The company also signed up as a premier sponsor of the fair this year.
Ross Guenther, director of Idaho-Maryland, has been discussing the project with community groups and will address the Tuesday breakfast meeting of the Nevada County Economic Resource Council.
The mine is also sponsoring two community workshops Aug. 30 at Condon Park in Grass Valley to brief the public on its plans.
Guenther said the mine has been getting a lot of questions from area residents since its formal application to Grass Valley became part of the public record.
"We're just responding to the public's desire to know what the heck is going on, and also to get their input so we can integrate the public's needs into our application," he said.
At least two members of the five-person City Council, which will decide the project's fate, generally support the outreach effort.
"The worst thing that harms any type of proposed development or project is a lack of information, or incorrect information," said Grass Valley Mayor Gerard Tassone. "By doing these outreach programs ... you can clear a good portion of that out."
"I think it's helpful that they educate and inform the public on what their plans are," said City Councilman Mark Johnson. "The public also needs to understand that just because they're out there educating and informing them, it doesn't mean the project's going to move forward."
The company believes it can extract 1 million ounces of gold from the mine during a 20-year period. The rock waste produced in the mining process would be converted into ceramic tiles at an on-site facility.
Among other things, the company will have to pump millions of gallons of water from the mine into the south fork of Wolf Creek, an aspect of the project that is likely to raise concerns. The city has ordered two environmental studies.
Guenther doesn't downplay the concerns of area residents.
"They're concerned for very legitimate reasons: Traffic, visual and sound things, economic impact, water resources," he said. "They're very real concerns that need to be addressed."
Very few mines operate in developed areas like Grass Valley, a factor that further complicates the issue.
"It's a very different kind of project for this area, having a large mine being permitted with a ceramics facility," Guenther said. "It's not the standard case where you're building an apartment building. ... It helps to address people's concerns early." Meanwhile, the company has hired a chief geologist for the project and is looking for a vice president of operations/project manager.
ooo
KNOW & GO
The Idaho-Maryland Mining Corp. will hold two public workshops Aug. 30 to explain its plan to reopen the historic mine. The sessions are at 2:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. in the L.O.V.E building at Grass Valley's Condon Park.
To contact staff writer George Boardman, e-mail georgeb@theunion.com or call 477-4236.
Project sparks debate - Traffic, affordable housing among top concerns
Brittany Retherford
August 17, 2005
A standing-room only crowd of Nevada County residents voiced serious skepticism over a proposal to build a 193-home development just outside Nevada City during a meeting at the Rood Administrative Building Tuesday night.
The project - Deer Creek Park Two - would put homes above Red Dog Road, clustered on half-acre to acre-sized lots. It would leave more than 400 acres of open space to be used for trails and as a fire-safe buffer for the community, said Ken Baker of Nevada City Engineering, the project engineer.
Baker and others spoke during an informational session hosted by District One Supervisor Nate Beason.
Lance Amaral of Terra Alta Development Co. first proposed the project in the spring of 2001, but after many residents protested the initial draft of the required environmental impact report, it was decided to start afresh, said county planner Tod Herman at the meeting.
Residents on Tuesday night spoke of similar concerns about the new revision draft, which many said was still incomplete. Questions ranged from whether the school districts could the handle extra students to why affordable housing is not required to be part of the plan.
One of the major hang-ups from the start, however, has been how the county and Nevada City will deal with the additional traffic down Red Dog Road and onto the already decrepit Boulder Street.
John Rumsey, the county's senior transportation engineer, said that about 1,400 additional car trips would be made per day as a result of the project, estimating that most of the increase would be coming into Nevada City to merge onto Highway 49.
Baker said efforts would be made to entice residents to use the development's only other exit, which would take them out onto Idaho-Maryland Road and into the Brunswick Basin, closer to most places of employment.
The increased traffic perturbed many residents, including Supervisor Beason, who defended himself against charges that he had taken campaign money from Amaral and supported the campaign.
"I said during the political campaign that I had some concerns about this project," he said. "I'm not pushing this project, and for those who think (Amaral) bankrolled my campaign, I beg your pardon, you are just flat wrong."
Residents are urged to review the revised draft EIR and voice their concerns during a public hearing that will be held by the Nevada County Planning Commission on Aug. 25.
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Housing plan raises reservations
Becky Trout
August 17, 2005
Although many Ridge Road area residents - eager for access to sewer service - support plans to construct 122 houses in their neighborhood, the Grass Valley Planning Commission called for additional study of the proposed project.
The commission's actual vote on the Berg Heights development came after The Union's deadline. However all four commissioners present expressed reservations about aspects of the project.
As currently planned, Ridge Road Associates would like to construct 122 single family houses, a community building, and a trail on the nearly 10- acre property south of Ridge Road near Ryans Lane. The development, a mix of one and two story residences, would include 24 houses restricted to families who earn less than most other Grass Valley families.
Neighbors emphasized their support for the project that will pay for three-quarters of the cost of extending sewer service to the Ridge Road area.
"Residents in this area have had septic tank problems for many, many years. This system they would put in, it would help us," said Karsten Hansen, who lives on Ridge Road.
If the project is approved, the sewer system could start construction next summer, a city engineer said.
The project's main hold-ups are the number of houses and the traffic, Commissioners Dale White and David Emanuel said.
The property is one of several throughout the city with a conflict between the zoning map and the city's governing document.
The land is currently zoned for low density residential, however the city's governing document calls for dense residential development on the property. The city has not yet resolved the conflict in the Ridge Road area.
The project's traffic remains a problem, however.
The environmental study for the project was able to compensate for all adverse effects of the development except traffic. The project would add about 1,100 vehicle trips a day to the Ridge Road neighborhood.
Berg Heights will need to appear before the City Council before it is constructed.
ooo
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.
Penn Valley Oaks project gets planners' approval
By Becky Trout,
beckyt@theunion.com
August 12, 2005
After nearly a decade, Nevada County leaders approved plans for Penn Valley Oaks, the nine-acre lot between the post office, mobile home park, and storage units in Penn Valley.
In his most recent of several appearances before the Nevada County Planning Commission, Dale Creighton, representing developer Casilli Partners, finalized plans to construct six commercial buildings and 36 houses on the level land.
"I think this density is very, very good for Penn Valley. Everything about (the project) is a perfect fit," said Marguerite Leipzig, who represented Lake Wildwood at the hearing.
Nineteen of the houses, a mix of small and large, will be built first. Then, plans call for three of the commercial buildings to be developed.
The remainder of the project will be developed when additional sewage treatment capacity is obtained. The developer and others are currently supporting efforts to expand the capacity of the treatment plant.
Eventually, Casilli Partners, would also like to build as many as 80 residences on 20 acres it owns north of Squirrel Creek along Highway 20.
That development also depends on the expansion of sewage treatment efforts in Penn Valley.
A slew of neighbors and other concerned folks testified on the projects merits and drawbacks at previous meetings.
Thursday, however, only two people discussed the project: Leipzig and Janet Crain, representing the Penn Valley Community Association.
Although the project is the county's first development mixing commercial and residential development, Crain pointed out the two components are separated, perhaps not living up to the county's vision for "mixed" development.
That is true, Chairman Doug Donesky said, however the constraints of the property make the separated development suitable.
"People need to be careful using this as a precedent (for mixed development)," he said.
Before unanimously approving the project, the commissioners required the developer to ensure that piles of dirt will not be left on the property for very long.
ooo
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.
South Auburn Street plan has potential
August 8, 2005
The city of Grass Valley has grand plans for a stretch of South Auburn Street that, if successfully implemented, should enhance that area's beauty and eventually bring additional economic vitality to a thriving downtown.
A review of the master plan for a two-block stretch of the street shows this is a well-conceived plan that takes advantage of the new Holiday Inn Express and convention center, which will be built just east of South Auburn and a stone's throw from Highway 49.
The long-term plan calls for a narrower South Auburn Street, wider sidewalks with benches and trees, fewer driveways on the east side of the street, a shared parking lot, and buildings with a look that conforms with the historic image of other parts of downtown Grass Valley.
The timeline the city is looking at for phasing in these changes consists of a number of years.
The project, however, will eventually impact a half dozen businesses on the east side of the street. Those businesses include a couple of restaurants, a fitness center, a martial arts studio, a real estate and investment office, a title company and a mortgage company, according to the city's planning document. In addition, a single-family home and an apartment complex fall within the plan's development area.
Obviously, the businesses along South Auburn Street will be faced with making the greatest sacrifices for a project that has the potential to benefit many other businesses and the community at large. They may have to move or invest in making substantial improvements to their current buildings to conform to the plan's vision.
City planners say the plan does not compel any property owner to make any changes as the area develops into a more pedestrian-friendly location. Instead, city officials are pledging to work with property and business owners who have an interest in making changes as the plan evolves over the next two decades.
The city's vision for that section of South Auburn Street is a positive one, and its willingness to work with business owners, rather than require them to comply, makes it a plan the entire community should be willing to embrace.