THE UNION Articles on
Planning -- November
Council misses affordable housing opportunity, Pat Butler, November 26, 2005
City Council lacks vision on housing, Union Editorial Board, Nov. 24, 2005
Berg Heights project denied, Brittany Retherford, November 23, 2005
Mobile home park task force organized, David Mirhadi, November 22, 2005
Berg Heights' future up to council, Brittany Retherford, November 22, 2005
Faith-based Tentmakers hopes to build subdivision, B. Retherford, November 22, 2005
Horne's efforts should benefit park's residents, Union Editorial Board, Nov. 19, 2005
Rent hikes delayed, David Mirhadi, November 17, 2005
Wildwood debt vote a good call, Union Editorial Board, November 17, 2005
Debt decision delayed, Brittany Retherford, November 16, 2005
Berg Heights should be OK'd by city, Union Editorial Board, November 15, 2005
Office ban extended to March 25, Brittany Retherford, November 15, 2005
County may defer decision on $1M debt, Brittany Retherford, November 15, 2005
Wildwood deal requires public input, Union Editorial Board, November 14, 2005
County could forgive developer debt of $1 million, B. Retherford, November 12, 2005
Do we really want affordable housing?, Pat Butler, November 12, 2005
SDAs a done deal?, Susan C. Lund, November 9, 2005
Consultant hired for mine project, Brittany Retherford, November 9, 2005
Residents of mobile park plan to lobby, David Mirhadi, November 8, 2005
Office freeze may remain, Brittany Retherford, November 8, 2005
Council heeds public, Brittany Retherford, November 2, 2005
Council wants citizen input on Grass Valley developments, B. Retherford, Nov. 1, 2005
Council misses affordable housing opportunity
By Pat Butler, patb@theunion.com
November 26, 2005
It's a good thing that the majority of the Grass Valley City Council didn't get hoodwinked by the "11th-hour antics" of an organization that proposed to build 122 affordable houses in the city.
I wouldn't want a developer to try to pull a fast one on those three ever-vigilant councilors even if the goal is to bring badly needed workforce housing to Grass Valley.
I'm pretty sure the county superintendent and others who voiced their support for the project weren't that serious when they told the council that they consider it a problem when middle-class professionals can't afford to buy houses here.
Of course, though, we're wondering what Councilors Dean Williams, Mark Johnson and Lisa Swarthout are protecting us from? We do know that they were not representing the interests of residents who can't buy a home in the town they work in, send their children to school in and spend their money in.
Tentmakers, the faith-based non-profit organization that proposed the Berg Heights project, should have been lauded on Tuesday night rather than be treated like a scam artist by those who opposed the project.
Its plans called for building 122 homes on nine acres off Ridge Road. The proposal was cast as an affordable housing project that included creative financing aspects for firefighters, police officers, teachers and other middle-class professionals.
Certainly questions about how affordable these homes would really be still needed to be addressed. But those questions and others should have been part of a continuing discussion with the goal of making this project succeed.
Why didn't these councilors extend a hand to the developer and say they supported the concept but had concerns? Instead, they pulled out the traffic card once again and then questioned the integrity of the developer.
It's actions like the one on Tuesday night that helps drive up the price of projects. By discarding these expensive plans like they were candy wrappers, the council has added to the cost of the next proposal while the price of construction supplies and energy rises. In the long run, an action like this only encourages the construction of expensive homes that will attract new residents to the area.
New residents, of course, will add to these so-called traffic problems. If you build homes for people who already live here, you don't put more vehicles on the streets.
While Johnson and Swarthout appeared flabbergasted by a developer who was trying to save a project that many in the community supported, it was Williams who contributed perhaps the most disingenious statement.
Williams said the issue of affordable housing will be addressed in future projects such as the four Special Development Areas now inching through the city's bureaucratic labyrinth.
These would be the same proposed projects, with perhaps the exception of one, that Williams has shown little interest in approving. When he ran for the council, he said he would only approve one of these projects. As a city councilor, he has proposed an exception to the rules that would have required a supermajority to approve these projects.
It's extremely unfortunate that the majority of the council did not put the needs of the working class ahead of the inflated concerns about traffic, which has become the politically correct way to throw up roadblocks to creative solutions to our housing crisis.
Maybe Mayor Gerard Tassone and Councilor Patti Ingram didn't see a fast one coming, but I applaud them for voting for affordable housing. They demonstrated that they are willing to support solutions for a problem that will change the very fabric of this community if not addressed.
Now, it's time for the naysayers to tell the community what their solutions are to this problem. If they have none or continue to harp about traffic, then we can only assume that they are indifferent to the needs of many of their constituents.
For it is the lack of affordable housing, not traffic, which is our number one problem.
ooo
Pat Butler is the editor of The Union. He can be reached by e-mail at patb@theunion.com or by phone at 477-4235.
City Council lacks vision on housing
The Union Editorial Board
November 24, 2005
Now that Grass Valley City Council members Lisa Swarthout, Mark Johnson and Dean Williams have saved us from additional traffic problems by denying an appeal for an affordable housing project off of Ridge Road, perhaps they can finally go about the business of actually addressing those few troubled intersections they are so concerned about.
Unfortunately, it seems the city has officially adopted a don't-fix-it-and-they-won't-come plan of inaction, encouraged by no-growthers who will continue to use traffic as their shield to keep outsiders at bay and the city polarized.
They are good about pointing out the troubled traffic areas, but not too good when it comes to solutions. They frequently stand "against" and rarely stand "for" anything, except an ill-defined "quality of life" that suggests their own vehicles ought to be the only ones on the roads and their own homes the only ones on the block. They have theirs and to heck with others.
Police officers, heath-care providers, school officials, firefighters and others paraded to the podium Tuesday night pleading for the City Council to overturn an earlier Planning Commission ruling and approve a housing project that promised to provide 122 affordable homes in a city where home prices have skyrocketed beyond the reach of most working families.
The project admittedly had some kinks to work out, but the council could have given developers more time to address them, especially after hearing city employees plead for them to do so.
Police officers and firefighters who protect and serve Grass Valley must commute down the hill to do so. One firefighter said he lives in Yuba County and works a second job, yet is still unable to afford to live in a city where the average home price is $450,000 or more.
Later this month, the city will conduct another traffic roundtable of sorts. We suspect they'll show us all where the troubled intersections are located, just in case some of us have been out of town for the last 10 years and don't already know.
Perhaps they might even solicit another study, just to make sure we all know how serious they are about fixing the traffic problems.
We wonder what kind of legacy councilors hope to leave behind when their days on the council are ended. Will it be a legacy of studies? "When I was on the council we studied that issue."
Will it be a legacy of endless meetings to discuss the endless string of studies? "When I was on the council we met to discuss those studies."
Or will it be a legacy of action, a legacy of problem-solving, a legacy of measurable results?
The first step would be to create a vision. It sometimes appears that the city doesn't even know what it wants to be and, as a result, has created a moving target for those who come with their own visions or projects.
Some council members say, for example, that they want affordable housing, but not "high-density" affordable housing. Where, then, would those affordable homes be built? And where are they going to find developers willing to build low-density affordable homes?
What we're essentially looking for is leadership and clarity of vision; two elements that were sorely missing Tuesday night.
In the meantime, the gap between the haves and have-nots widens.
'11th hour antics' rub some councilmembers the wrong way
By Brittany Retherford, Staff writer
November 23, 2005
A Grass Valley housing subdivision that promised 100 percent affordability was denied by the City Council Tuesday evening, raising the ire of the many Nevada County residents who packed City Hall to hear the decision.
The project, Berg Heights, was appealed after a Planning Commission refusal over concerns about traffic along Ridge Road. That decision was upheld by the City Council in a 3-2 vote Tuesday.
Councilmembers Mark Johnson, Dean Williams, and Lisa Swarthout supported the denial, saying they were concerned about the high density of the project, which would increase the daily number of vehicle trips in the area by 1,100. Swarthout and Johnson were also clearly irritated over what Johnson referred to as "11th-hour antics" by the developer.
"I've seen a lot (as an elected official in Nevada County), but I haven't ever quite seen the 11th-hour antics brought forward by the applicants and it is very disturbing. I am not sure what is actually being proposed by this project," Johnson said.
Johnson was referring in large part to a surprise move made Tuesday by developer Richard Kerr and his partner, the faith-based nonprofit, Tentmakers. Initially, the project was proposed by Kerr as being 50 percent affordable, but in a letter received that day by City Hall, two additional options were given. The first, either approve the project on the condition that it would have to be 100 percent affordable, which the nonprofit group said it was planning on anyway. Or secondly, approve just 50 homes, with 10 being affordable, which would likely be sold to recoup the half-million dollars already invested by Tentmakers, said Paul Fitzgerald, the nonprofit's CEO.
Swarthout agreed with Johnson.
"I find this whole process completely disingenuous and somewhat reprehensible ... to change mid-stream because you perhaps heard your project (might be denied). What you have given us and what we have here is completely different. If it was your intention to make your project 100 percent affordable from the very beginning, (you should have), but that is not the process Mr. Kerr went through with the Planning Commission," she said.
Swarthout also said she was bothered by the position the applicants put the City Council in by making them appear as if they were against affordable housing.
Councilwoman Patti Ingram supported project, however, saying "I think it is disingenuous to punish families, because of traffic."
Many residents took the time during public comment to speak on the need for affordable housing.
More than a dozen residents who represented the county's nurses, teachers, firefighters, and police officers said they saw this as hope that they might be able to afford to purchase a home.
"There are a number of us who have had to move out of Nevada County (because housing prices are too high). Whether it is this project or another one I think affordable housing has to be a top priority so we can stay here in the community," said Chris Armstrong, a full-time firefighter and part-time teacher in the county.
Terry McAteer, the county's superintendent of schools, also spoke in favor of projects such as these that help address the issue of affordable housing to keep schools stocked with teachers and the community with a balanced mix of elderly and young.
"In the county, over the next five years, 50 percent of our teachers will retire. We need to focus in (on affordable housing), that is absolutely essential," he said.
Councilman Williams said the city may have the opportunity to address the issue of affordable housing with other proposed developments in the area - including the four special development areas.
Mayor Gerard Tassone said he would have supported the Kerr and Tentmakers coming back with a revised down-sized plan.
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Mobile home park task force organized
David Mirhadi, davidm@theunion.com
November 22, 2005
The owner of Grass Valley Mobile Home Park met with dozens of residents of the 104-space facility Monday, pledging to find solutions that could ease a proposed $50 monthly spike in rents due in seven weeks.
While Ken Waterhouse said he would work with residents to direct them to low-cost energy programs offered by PG&E and Nevada County, he most likely won't be able to slice any more from the proposed rent hikes that take effect Jan. 10.
Waterhouse met with representatives of the county's Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Monday and agreed to assist a new mobile home park task force comprised of owners, residents and members of the existing advisory committee to concentrate specifically on issues at the county's 29 mobile home parks.
Waterhouse last week agreed to slash rent hikes from $100 to $50 after District 2 Supervisor Sue Horne, prodded by the park's residents, agreed to meet with Waterhouse and tour the 45-year-old park.
Rents at Grass Valley Mobile Home Park are due to jump from $350 to $400 a month on Jan. 10. The rents are then scheduled to increase by another $50 in 2007, with no increases in 2008.
Residents continued to ask for some form of rent stabilization or rent control, which Waterhouse said would probably end up costing the residents more in the long run.
Communities that have rent control, Waterhouse said, face constant legal challenges over the practice.
"Rent control, honestly, has made me a rich person," said Waterhouse, the principal owner of a company that owns and manages more than 50 mobile home parks in California.
In Sonoma County, where there are rent controls, park owners have been able to pass along property tax increases and improvements to the park's infrastructure directly to the residents, Waterhouse said.
Jeri McLees, co-owner of the Wagon Ho Grass Valley mobile home park, said a handful of rent-control agreements made have been met immediately with legal challenges.
"Please don't pass an ordinance unless you understand the issues around rent control," she said. "Mr. Waterhouse is at the table. Let's give him a chance."
McLees said she's traditionally charged her residents an increase equal to the consumer price index increase, plus 1 percent.
Waterhouse said he was forced to increase the rents at the 45-year-old Grass Valley Mobile Home Park to help pay for $560,000 in improvements made by the park's previous owner and to pay a hefty property tax bill. Waterhouse purchased the park just two months ago from former owner Patrice Cole for $5.4 million.
Many residents were used to paying an additional $9 per month increase each year from the park's previous owners.
"I shouldn't be punished because Mr. Waterhouse owns the ground my mobile home sits on," said Donna Day, who has lived in the park since 1978.
Norma Ingalls, a park resident and president of the newly formed Grass Valley Mobilehome Owners Association, lobbied the committee for a long-term rent stabilization solution.
She proposed an interim ordinance limiting rent increases to the annual inflation rate - about 4 percent annually.
"We have to be in a situation that guarantees us that in a year, two years or five years from now, we're not put back in the same situation we're in now," Ingalls told the committee.
"Does $50 a month sound good to you guys?" she asked the audience, to a chorus of boos.
Ingalls' husband, Skip, conducted a poll of residents and noted that 90 percent of the park's owners who returned questionnaires made less than $25,000 annually.
Former Grass Valley council members Dee Mautino and Linda Stevens, who both live in different mobile home parks, came to the defense of residents, as well.
"Most of us don't have the income to go to assisted living facilities," said Mautino, who pays $475 monthly at the Sierra Pines Mobile Home Park. "It's not like we don't want owners to make a profit. We're a very willing customer to allow that to happen," she said. "I think the owners have to have a little compassion for us, too."
ooo
To contact staff writer David Mirhadi, e-mail davidm@theunion.com or call 477-4229.
Berg Heights' future up to council
Grass Valley considers project at meeting tonight
By Brittany Retherford, Staff writer
November 22, 2005
The fate of the beleaguered Berg Heights housing project on Ridge Road could be determined tonight by Grass Valley's elected officials - the governing body with the ultimate say on whether a potential traffic nightmare in the area should limit the number of houses to be built.
The Planning Commission denied the project during an Oct. 18 meeting, saying the City Council should make the final decision because of its controversial nature.
Developer Rick Kerr, along with financial backer, the faith-based nonprofit Tentmakers Missionary Fellowship, proposes to build a 122-home project with a 3,000-square-foot community center. Half of the homes would be available for purchase by low- to moderate-income residents, a niche that many agree often gets left out in Nevada County's real estate market.
For supporters of the project, it's a creative step in helping to solve the growing affordable housing crisis that outweighs potential traffic issues.
"In 1997, I had spoken with Doris Berg for using her property for (an affordable housing project) and so when Berg Heights came into inception, I was ecstatic about it," said Linda Stevens, a former councilwoman.
"I feel like if we don't start providing work-force housing, then we will lose the community. I am seeing this council is not pro-work-force housing, and it concerns me," she said.
However, Mayor Gerard Tassone said that besides zoning issues and other details that need to be worked out, he would also like to see what the group considers "affordable," such as a range of housing prices, before making his decision.
"Not enough information is known. I think it very important (to know a range), otherwise if you come in touting affordability and it's not, that is kind of misleading," he said.
So far, the developer has skirted citing costs, saying it is a complicated matter.
"It's impossible to give a range," said Paul Fitzgerald, CEO of Tentmakers. To determine the cost, he said he would first need to know things that are not in the organization's control, such as the price for the city's required land entitlements or how much they will have to pay in fees to manage increased traffic.
As a nonprofit, he says these details are important.
Besides, "people don't understand affordability," Fitzgerald said. "Affordability is whether you can afford to make a monthly payment."
This is why the nonprofit will help future homeowners by offering a "silent second" loan and will help them find a manageable monthly payment, explained Kerr.
It would work a bit like this:
Say a house could sell for $350,000, but someone could only afford $200,000. A "silent second" loan with no interest would be given for the remaining $150,000 for five years. Payments could be made in various nontraditional ways, such as a teacher giving tutoring lessons at the community center or a police officer parking her squad car out front of her house as a crime deterrent.
"We look at the income category and how much money we have to raise to be able to assist that buyer to make that affordable," Fitzgerald.
After five years, however, payments would need to be made on that loan.Nina Bigley, housing program manager of the county's development agency, said she'd be skeptical of this kind of loan because it would result in a sudden "balloon payment" after five years, which can be difficult to pay.
Fitzgerald said, however, that with the right planning, troubles could be avoided.
"There has to be a reasonable expectation on their part. We are helping them to help themselves get into the housing market," he said.
Their goal, he said, is to aid people who are hardworking, dedicated members of the Nevada County community, especially those in service industries, such as nurses, firefighters, teachers and the police.
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Faith-based Tentmakers hopes to build subdivision
By Brittany Retherford, Staff writer
November 22, 2005
Since being founded 10 years ago, Tentmakers Missionary Fellowship has renovated at least 450 homes for low-income Californian families and sold more than $70 million worth of property around the state.
Now, the Christian nonprofit organization has its sights set on a nine-acre parcel of land off Grass Valley's Ridge Road. They hope to develop the land into their first affordable subdivision, said Paul Fitzgerald, the nonprofit's founding CEO. If approved by the City Council tonight, the project could serve as a model for others the group is hoping to build around the state.
Tentmakers has come a long way since its first days in 1995 when it began as a personal mission that Fitzgerald embarked upon with his wife, Carolyn. At the time, he was working as a school teacher in the Vacaville area alongside other teachers who were struggling to just pay rent, he said.
By taking a second mortgage out on their own home, the Fitzgeralds purchased a home, renovated it, and sold it to a low-income family. They repeated this a second time, then a third, and then a fourth. Eventually, they learned that what they were doing fell into the realm of charitable work and organized the nonprofit, Tentmakers.
The name "Tentmakers" is a biblical reference to Paul the Apostle's practice of making tents for the unsheltered to support his missionary work, which is similar to the way this nonprofit works.
For Tentmakers, the goal is to provide affordable homes to community-minded, upstanding citizens of any faith and to promote good homeownership practices. Another is to raise money for missionary work around the world, Fitzgerald said.
"If there is any money left over (from projects), we use it for whatever charitable work we support," he said. This includes Christian youth outreach programs, such as the Colorado-based Youth For Christ, and other missionary work across the globe.
The organization currently has about 12 employees and is run by Fitzgerald out of an office in Dixon - a town of about 16,000 residents along Interstate 80.
Fitzgerald said his faith in God plays an important inspirational role.
"It is just the motivation for us to be involved, to be a good neighbor and have a longtime presence in the community. It gives roots to families. As Christians, we want to give back to our community - what we do is a result of who we are," he said.
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Horne's efforts should benefit park's residents
The Union Editorial Board
November 19, 2005
It's refreshing to watch an elected official go beyond what is normally expected to help constituents.
Sue Horne, a Nevada County supervisor, didn't have to jump into the fray when asked for help by the residents of the Grass Valley Mobile Home Park.
After all, there's very little an elected official can realistically do when a property owner decides to raise the rent. That's usually considered a private matter between landlord and tenant.
But in her characteristic fashion, Horne threw herself into this dicey matter and is making a real difference.
In a pleasantly suprising development, the new owner of this mobile home park tentatively agreed this week to implement more modest rent hikes than orginally proposed.
Waterhouse Management Corp. of Roseville had informed the park's 104 residents it was going to hike lot rent from $350 to $450 month on Jan. 1 with further steep hikes planned over the next several years.
Many of those residents are on fixed incomes or don't earn much money. Yet, they've been able buy a home and survive in this increasingly costly area. The proposed rent increases terrified some of these people who had legitimate concerns about their futures.
Horne said the negotiations that now call for a $50 rent increase in 2006 and again in 2007 have not yet been completed, but she's "encouraged that we're moving in the right direction."
Ken Waterhouse, the president of the company that bears his name, has said that he's interested in a solution "that will hopefully benefit everyone."
Let's hope that the tentative agreement will in fact become the actual agreement and that Horne's efforts will enable the residents of this mobile home park to continue calling Grass Valley their home.
Tentative accord reached on mobile home park increases
By David Mirhadi
Staff writer, davidm@theunion.com
November 17, 2005
Residents at the Grass Valley Mobile Home Park may receive a break on next year's proposed rent increases after all.
Nevada County Supervisor Sue Horne said she and park owner Waterhouse Management Corp. agreed Wednesday to suspend plans to implement a $100 hike in monthly rents beginning in January.
Horne and park owner Ken Waterhouse also agreed to suspend a Dec. 1 deadline for residents to sign new leases at the park.
Waterhouse has also tentatively agreed to raise rents by $50, to $400 a month beginning in 2006 and an additional $50 a month in 2007, with no increases in 2008, Horne said.
In addition, Horne said Waterhouse plans to attend an affordable housing task force meeting at the Rood Center next week and meet with residents of the park to discuss their concerns.
Mobile home park rents: A comparison
Forest Springs Mobile Home Park: $350-$550 monthly, includes sewer.
Mountain Aire Mobile Home Park: $345 monthly, includes sewer
Tall Pines Mobile Home Park: $525 monthly, sewer is $10 monthly, includes payment of government fees.
Olympia Glade: $495 monthly; water is $18.53 monthly, sewer is $13.10 monthly.
Sierra Pines: $456 monthly; water, sewer fees included.
Grass Valley Mobile Home Park: Up to $350 monthly, $368.97 includes fire and government fees, $13 monthly sewer fee and $27 garbage fee.
- Information provided by Laura Mantei of the Grass Valley Mobile Home Park"We're working together as a team to look at options that will hopefully benefit everyone," Waterhouse said.
Waterhouse purchased the park from former owner Patrice Cole for $5.4 million. Cole sold the 45-year-old park and moved to Idaho this summer.
Waterhouse proposed the rent increases to pay for the park's large property tax bill and to pay for $560,000 in improvements made by Cole before she sold the park, Waterhouse said. The park's new owner based his increases on a survey of rents at area parks.
Horne said more negotiations on the park's rent structure are likely before the end of the year.
"We're still moving forward for even more negotiations on the terms of the rent increases," Horne said Wednesday. "I'm encouraged that we're moving in the right direction."
Norma Ingalls, who formed the Grass Valley Mobilehome Owners Association to help fight the original rent hikes, said she's remaining cautiously optimistic.
"We have no guarantee after (2008)," she said. "This is a start, but not a solution."
Many of the park's tenants are retirees or those living on a fixed income, which makes large increases impossible for many residents, said Ingalls, who has lived at the park a year and a half. Many tenants are used to paying a $9 monthly increase in their rents.
Nevertheless, Ingalls was glad to hear that Waterhouse came to the bargaining table.
"I think they're more willing to work with the county than they are with us, but they seem very cognizant of our situation," said Ingalls, who earns $1,962 monthly from Social Security and her husband's retirement savings. "The question is, what kinds of protection are they willing to give us for the future?"
Park resident Janet Voshell, who lives on $1,189 a month from Social Security benefits, said she can't afford anything more than a $35 monthly increase in rent. Anything more, and the three-year park resident said she'd have to seek a full-time position against her doctor's wishes.
"Working full time is not an option for me," said Voshell, who suffers from chronic depression. "I can't afford an apartment, so (any relief) would help me. I feel more hopeful and not quite as panicked now."
To contact staff writer David Mirhadi, e-mail davidm@theunion.com or call 477-4229.
Wildwood debt vote a good call
The Union Editorial Board
November 17, 2005
The Board of Supervisors took an appropriate step when it removed an item from a consent agenda that would have forgiven nearly $1 million in penalties and interest for a Los Angeles development firm that hopes to build 352 homes near Lake Wildwood.
It's obvious as more information about this deal sees the light of day that additional discussion and explaination is needed.
According to a packet of information that accompanied the agenda, the deal to forgive the debt would have enabled the county to collect $566,000 in back property taxes. We are now beginning to learn, however, that much more money might be at stake for the county.
This added burden has to do with two previous bond defaults that are costing the county "hundreds of thousands of dollars," according to Christina Dabis, the county tax collector.
It's important that taxpayers understand the magnitude of the debt as well as the mistakes that were made that created a situation where the county feels it has to sacrifice this land to a developer that wants to build mostly "high-end" homes on large lots.
It would also be nice to learn the logic behind the county's declaration that the past taxes on this property are considered "uncollectible," an option that is usually not afforded to property owners.
It's clear that this 207-acre parcel has become a financial albatross for the county, but that doesn't mean we should take what we perceive as the best deal available without considering the future implications of this deal. We also need to better understand the relationship between the developer, the county, the bondholders and the millions of dollars in debt on this property.
The county should insist that the developer build a substantial number of affordable homes that will be made available to people who already live and work in this area. Now, the plan only calls for 10 affordable homes and 26 rental units. Then this development firm can determine if it can make enough money on the project to satisfy its narrow economic interests.
If the development firm walks away from the project, it should be treated like any other party that does not pay its property taxes.
Supervisors wait on canceling $1 million debt
By Brittany Retherford, Staff writer
November 16, 2005
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday to defer canceling a developer's $1 million debt to a later meeting, saying that it's a good time to refresh the public on a problem that stretches back to the late 1960s.
Supervisor Ted Owens pulled the item from the consent calendar - a section of the agenda that is typically passed without discussion. All supervisors then listened to a short presentation by Michael Castelli, an attorney who has been contracted by the county since 1997 to specifically deal with this issue.
While Castelli referred to the $1 million debt as "an accounting entry basically" in a phone call later that afternoon, he also said that in retrospect, it was probably best to pull the item so the public can ask questions and be updated on the entire issue during two presentations slated for some time in the next few months.
"Perhaps we are just a little too close to it," he said. "This is just a little piece. (We thought) 'let's just get this taken care of because we have so much to work on for these two big presentations.'"
Christina Dabis, who has been the county tax collector for more than 30 years, said she doesn't quite understand why the item was on the consent calendar, but supports forgiving the debt.
"Since the late '60s when it started until now is a heck of a long time. It needs to be resolved and we are taking the proper steps to take care of it," she said.
During the meeting, Castelli reminded the board how long staff has been working on resolving this issue, which began in earnest with a multimillion dollar bond default in 1993 by a property owner, Michael Montross. Montross has since been imprisoned for fraud because of this issue and others.
The property has been a nightmare for the county and investors around the country, who lost out with that initial default.
The bonds then defaulted for a second time in 1995, Castelli explained after the board meeting.
Dabis said she couldn't say exactly how much the problem has cost the county.
"You know, I don't want to know. It would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars," she said.
"Recent efforts began seven years ago and we have always attempted to keep the public informed; we had always planned extensive presentations," he said.
The recent efforts Castelli is referring to is the purchase of the property by the Southern California municipal bond firm, Stone and Youngberg, LLC, in 1999. At the time, it was already heavily-laden with a debt totaling about $10 million and nobody wanted to touch it, not even when it was offered at a tax auction for $1, Castelli said.
The debt itself is a result penalties and interest accrued over almost 15 years of failed property tax payments on a 207-acre piece of land, which is known as "Wildwood Ridge Phase II." It has long been considered to be "uncollectable" by the county, Castelli said.
If approved, Stone and Youngberg, LLC, would still be responsible for the back taxes - approximately $600,000 - but the penalties and interest would be forgiven to facilitate development.
The developer is now also going through the county's planning process to get his project approved, which includes 352 single-family homes. Thirty-six units fall into the "affordable housing category," most of them rentals.
The first lengthy presentation by Castelli and others working on finding a solution to this problem property is anticipated for some time in December. They also hope to know the estimated value of the property - both with and without the development entitlements - prior to the second meeting from two independently-hired appraisal companies.
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Our View: Berg Heights should be OK'd by city
The Union editorial board
November 15, 2005
The Grass Valley City Council has an opportunity to help make our community more affordable to younger working families and to demonstrate that its much-discussed "affordable housing" mission is more than just lip service.
It also has an opportunity to let those who seem to be using traffic as a way to stop all growth know that the lack of affordable housing is an even greater community issue, except perhaps to those who complain about traffic while driving their own vehicles around town. "Damned traffic!" they mutter behind the wheel of an SUV. "Where are all these cars coming from?"
At its last meeting, the Grass Valley Planning Commission went against the advice of its own planning staff and killed a project called Berg Heights, a work-force housing project located on a nearly 10-acre site south of Ridge Road, between Hughes and Upper Slate Creek roads.
Developers, in partnership with a nonprofit affordable housing group called Tentmakers Affordable Homeownership, have appealed that decision to the City Council, which will hear that appeal Nov. 22.
In its appeal, developers argue that their plan fits within the city's General Plan and addresses the city's stated need for work-force housing.
"Providing affordable housing is not only a statewide goal, but a City General Plan overarching principle, which provides the basis for an overriding consideration for the single unmitigatable traffic impact from the project," reads the appeal.
Of the 122 single-family homes outlined in the project, 24 of them would be sold to those making 80 percent or less than the area's median home income. Another 37 units would be sold to moderate-income families (81 to 120 percent) of the median home income. It would be a perfect opportunity for teachers, police officers, nurses, or other professionals who have been priced out of the housing market.
In the appeal, developers called the Planning Commission decision a "major setback" for work-force housing and a "direct impact on current residents and employees who are renters and priced out of any type of housing in Grass Valley."
It also warns that the decision made an impact on the "perceived" commitment by the City Council to provide affordable housing to its lower-income residents, as well as to remain in compliance with city and state laws with respect to its housing element.
Planning Commissioner Gloria Hyde, the sole supporter of the project during last month's hearing, said "we are throwing affordable housing out the window and I'm very upset about that." Former councilwoman Linda Stevens echoed her, saying it's time for the city to finish its commitment to take care of its citizens. "We are discriminating against a whole group of people," she said.
Traffic will always be a problem, and the city should continue to look for ways to solve our few high-impact intersections. Using traffic as a way to stop growth and effectively increase the value of existing homes seems to us to be a ploy wielded by elitists.
Office ban extended to March 25
- copy of draft ordinance included
Nevada City council to work out permanent ordinance
By Brittany Retherford
Staff writer
November 15, 2005
Nevada City's downtown temporary ground floor office ban was extended until March 25, during a Monday evening City Council meeting.
The 4-1 vote should give the council enough time to hammer out the details of a permanent ordinance, which requires an environmental review, public hearings, and approval by the Planning Commission.
"If there is smooth sailing, the ordinance would go into effect on March 14," said Councilman Kerry Arnett. The new ordinance, while not finalized, would require people wishing to open a first-floor office to apply for a conditional use permit to do so.
Yet it was Mayor Conley Weaver's two-man committee process that was most heartily chastised by several community members, including merchants, real estate agents and residents, during the Monday meeting.
The committee, which met three times, was created and was comprised of Weaver and Councilman Kerry Arnett after an Oct. 11 council decision to adopt a temporary urgency ordinance banning new offices from opening on the ground floor in the historic downtown area.
"I have to say I was a little disappointed in the process when there is a committee of two of you and some of us get to come in the room," said Lowell Robinson, a resident who was appointed to an initial committee made up of citizens, but which was later replaced with the two-man committee.
"This may be a small town, but the citizens of Nevada City are not country bumpkins. The mayor ... created an appearance of impropriety by creating a committee and then disbanding it," said Yolanda Bachtell, a Nevada City attorney.
"We want the job done right," she said.
Councilman Arnett defended the process, saying "we were working under a time constraint. It was a 45-day moratorium. We had 45 days to craft something and bring it back to the council. It can be unwieldy when you have large committees. But we took input from everyone; no one was denied the opportunity to speak."
Besides, no laws were violated in the process, and all meetings were duly noticed, said Councilman David McKay.
"I don't like misinformation to be out there and not be corrected. We went above and beyond what (we were required to do) under the Brown Act," he said. "I think you were able to have more meetings that way and allow it to be a lot more fluid."
Mayor Weaver agreed, saying "we tried that format and we tried to hold some meetings, and we were immediately confronted with being nullified because we weren't giving proper notice." He said he felt the easiest way to involve everyone was through the process they chose.
Councilwoman Sally Harris, chose to uphold her previous vote Monday.
"If we continued going in committees, it would go on and on. I do think that if we lifted it, it would cause things to occur in the market that it otherwise wouldn't have. At least four of us think something should be done.
It worries me to have that go on and on and on because I don't think there is a perfect answer here," she said.
Councilman Steve Cottrell was again the lone dissenting vote, saying "the market will determine what's viable for downtown. We don't need this kind of economic engineering," he said.
"It is a freeze. You can spin it any way you want, it is a freeze," he said.Nevada City draft zoning ordinance
County may defer decision on $1M debt
Supervisors will seek additional input on Wildwood Ridge finances
By Brittany Retherford
November 15, 2005
The decision on whether to forgive a developer's $1 million debt to Nevada County will likely be deferred to a later date during a Board of Supervisors meeting today, county officials said Monday.
At issue is whether the county will forgive the debt without public input. The Wildwood Ridge II project - which has been controversial - is not being discussed, just the debt attached to it. It was scheduled to be on the consent calendar of the Board of Supervisors today. Items on the consent calendar are routinely passed without discussion.
"It appears that some people have questions and it is of concern to some. I think that it might be a good thing to do to take it off consent. I will if no one else does," said Supervisor John Spencer. A similar sentiment was shared by all five supervisors Monday.
"The county counsel will pull it from consent," said Supervisor Sue Horne. "We will have just a short discussion on it, but basically it is to request that there be no action taken (today) and that special counsel will come back Dec. 6 and do a full presentation and explanation before the board."
The debt is comprised of penalties accrued over the course of 10 years by a previous property owner who not only never paid property taxes, but also defaulted on county-issued bonds. The current property owner, who has been represented by Brian Masterman, would still pay the back taxes and bonds, Masterman said.
The 207-acre property, known as "Wildwood Ridge Phase II," has been a problem property for several years, costing the county and its residents money.
"A lot of people took out those bonds and paid a lot of money," said Supervisor Robin Sutherland.
"It was a disaster. It certainly is going to be beneficial (to find a solution); the whole idea is to get this on the tax roles again," Horne said.
This is not the first time the bond repayment and debt issue has appeared before the board, but Supervisor Ted Owens said, "sometimes you have to realize that the public doesn't necessarily have the capability (of being at every meeting)." Also, the issue has typically not been a part of the consent calendar, which is reserved for items considered "routine and uncontroversial."
Supervisor Nate Beason said that the minute he saw the item on the consent calendar, he knew it would need to be pulled, but he also said this is just one small part of a much more complex issue.
"This one part of it is one element. The whole thing needs to be discussed in a broader sense," he said.
Sutherland said she will recommend that the item be brought back for a public hearing, saying that this development has been a hot-button issue in her district for at least the past three years.
She also explained that the development plan itself, which is slated for 352 homes, is undergoing a separate process. That will be the appropriate time to address concerns about affordable housing needs, open space and traffic, among other concerns.
Merrill Hall, president of the Wildwood Ridge Homeowners Association, said he did not wish to share an opinion about whether the developer should have to pay the $1 million debt, saying he needed more information.
"It's not fair since I am in negotiation with Masterman. I really don't know what he has done; I don't know what he has given so far. It would be easy to say 'they've got deep pockets,'" he said.
Hall said his biggest concern is with the development itself and whether Masterman will agree to homeowners association requests to ensure safety along Gold Country Drive.
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Our View: Wildwood deal requires public input
The Union Editorial Board
November 14, 2005
The county should not forgive $928,507 in penalties and interest unless it gets a better deal from the Los Angeles developer that wants to build 352 homes near Lake Wildwood.
Rather than just forgive this debt in order to collect $566,619 in delinquent property taxes, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors should require the developer to build considerably more work-force housing than the paltry 10 units the plan now calls for.
The development firm, Tone and Youngberg LLC, wants to build a significant number of "very high-end" homes on one-acre lots. This, combined with the project's lack of affordable housing, adds up to the type of subdivision that does nothing to address our housing problems while at the same time inviting more people to the area.
The county has some leverage in this case to bring the kind of housing we need here, and it needs to use it. This Los Angeles firm bought the 207-acre Wildwood Ridge Phase II property for $10 in 1999, but inherited several million dollars in debt, which includes property taxes owed to the county.
The debt has evidently become an impediment to the developer's plans, so the firm entered into negotiations with the county. The county has now reached a deal with the developer and placed this matter on the consent agenda for Tuesday's Board of Supervisors' meeting.
The consent agenda is normally reserved for noncontroversial items and often is approved without any discussion. Since this tentative agreement involves a housing project of considerable magnitude and concerns a core issue in this county, it needs to be removed from the consent agenda and opened to public discussion before a vote is taken at a later meeting.
The discussion should also help determine what is truly affordable housing. This process should include an analysis of wages in the area. After the median family income is agreed upon, the county should look at how much a middle-class family can afford. Then the county can decide how many of our current residents deserve a chance to buy one of these homes.
If the developer finds all of that unacceptable, then nothing really changes except the county has to wait longer to collect those old property taxes. That seems to be a small price if one takes the long-term perspective.
This proposed project does not address any of our housing needs. Fortunately, the county has a golden opportunity to improve this project and send a message to all developers that it is committed to bringing affordable housing to Nevada County.
On Tuesday, the supervisors can start the process by pulling this agreement off the consent agenda.
County could forgive developer debt of $1 million - copy of EIR and letter included
Brittany Retherford, Staff writer
November 12, 2005
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors is expected Tuesday to forgive a nearly $1 million debt owed by a Los Angeles-based firm planning to build more than 300 homes adjacent Lake Wildwood.
The penalties and interest owed by a previous owner on the 207-acre Wildwood Ridge Phase II property was transferred to the new owners, Stone and Youngberg LLC, when the property was purchased in 1999, said developer representative Brian Masterman.
It is also about one-tenth of what the firm will likely end up paying in bonds and delinquent property taxes. Masterman said there are hopes a $10 million bond will be restructured to just $8 or $9 million by the supervisors at a later date.
A letter from attorney Michael Castelli, who represents Nevada County, recommends the Board of Supervisors forgive payment of the debt while requiring the new developer to pay $600,000 in back taxes.
“The penalties and costs to be eliminated are an impediment to the workout effort and land development, and have long been considered uncollectable,” Castelli wrote. And while it is rare for the county to do this, it is provided for in special circumstances, Castelli’s letter states.
In 1998, Masterman said his company was approached by a county staff person after the property failed to garner interest during a tax auction to help relieve Nevada County of its burden.
“The county contacted us because we are experts at working out these problem properties, especially with bonds,” Masterman said.
The asking price during that auction? Just $1. Instead, Masterman said his firm purchased the property for $10.
“(The property) had a mountain of tax delinquency... and was way under water. (The former owner) is still in prison over this project,” he said.
The issue has also been placed on the meeting’s “consent calendar,” which is designated for items considered routine and controversial. Unless a supervisor has a particular interest in one of the items on this calendar, all the items are passed without discussion.
The development plan itself is also undergoing the county’s planning process and is expected to be heard by the county Planning Commission during a Dec. 8 meeting. Wildwood Ridge’s environmental review was released on Thursday.
The proposal calls for 352 homes, 10 of which would be affordable units. In addition, 26 studio or one-bedroom rental units will be proposed, Masterman said. Several units will be built specifically with the idea of seniors in mind, with smaller yards and less need for maintenance. The others will be “very high-end” on one-acre lots, he said.
Tennis courts, a club house, swimming pool, and a sizable exercise facility are also planned. Nearly half of the development has been allocated for open space, along with trails.
Neighbors in the first phase of Wildwood Ridge have long protested the plan for this second development, citing concerns about heightened traffic.
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.Lake Wildwood Environmental Impact Report (217 pages)
Letter from Nevada County Counsel to Lake Wildwood residents
Do we really want affordable housing?
By Pat Butler, patb@theunion.com
November 12, 2005To the editor:
Davis voters recently rejected a ballot initiative that would have amended the city's general plan to allow a 1,900-unit development on farmland on the edges of the city. The development was marketed as a model of smart planning and innovative neighborhood designs that would provide some affordable housing. Those opposing the development said it would result in traffic, unaffordable housing, fiscal instability and the loss of agricultural land.
Sound familiar?
I was encouraged that voters in one community had the power to say no. Many of us in this community feel powerless. It seems that public concerns about growth are ignored. It seems that city staff and officials are mostly concerned about the interests of business. It is time to look at the effects of growth on the quality of life in our community and consider the increased costs to us in the long term for fire and police protection, education, water and waste disposal. Who pays? Ultimately it is us, the residents.
Shouldn't we get to decide what we need in our community and if it is worth the price? Maybe we need a similar measure on our ballot for any large land developments proposed in the county?
Shirley Benedick,
Grass Valley
oooYes, this does sound familiar. Shirley raises the question that hangs over this gorgeous area like a mushroom cloud. It is truely an explosive and divisive issue.
How will we grow? How do we provide truly affordable housing? Do we really want affordable housing? At what point do we cease to become a traditional community with young families and middle-class professionals that live where they work? Are the traffic concerns legitimate or just the best tool to put the brakes on growth without having to address the housing inequities in this area? Do we want to live someplace that is essentially divided into two camps - the tenants and the wealthy property owners?
I am one of those relative newcomers who can't even think about buying a house here. I also work with a number of solid citizens who will ooze out one of those uncomfortable laughs when you ask them if they are a homeowner.
I've personally considered getting a doublewide in a nice park. But after seeing the cold and cruel reality of what Waterhouse Management Corp. of Roseville is doing to the good folks of the Grass Valley Mobile Home Park, I don't see that as a viable option either.
If you own a house with a double or triple garage, this is not an issue at all. Even if you want to move, it's doable with equity gains that nearly rival oil company profits. And if no further building occurs, the nestegg might begin to rival the property values of a small town in the Midwest.
If you don't own a house, it's starting to get downright scary. But eventually this problem will impact even those folks who are lucky enough to call themselves homeowners.
School administrators have told us that it is getting more difficult to attract the best-caliber teachers who can now earn more money and pay less for a home in the Rocklin area, for example. But then with the way it's going around here, we might not need too many teachers as more families flee the area, a trend that has led to declining enrollment in the Grass Valley School District for 13 of the past 14 years.
It's not a stretch to assume that these same free-market forces make it more difficult to find police officers, firefighters, nurses and others who can work and live in this area but have not benefitted from the largesse of the housing boom.
The most common argument posed to oppose practically any project is the impact on traffic. For example, there's the two-second rule that figures into the geometry of proposed projects along busy thoroughfares. While I agree a wait of four seconds versus two seconds is vaguely reminiscint of pioneer times when people depended on real horsepower, I don't think it makes any difference when you're sitting there drinking coffee, chatting on your cell phone, listening to music or playing video games in the back seat.
If traffic is a concern, let's look at traffic solutions. Are those who say they are worried about the impact of traffic on the quality of their lives considering car pooling or limiting the number of trips they take on any given day? Are they helping the city build bicycle paths? Would they accept a small increase in their property taxes to fund a more effective public transportation system? Would they even consider taking the bus? And, really, what difference does it make if it takes 10 or 15 minutes to drive across town? Maybe our solutions lie in better designed interesections. Besides, we all should probably drive slower anyway.
Not let's compare that inconvenience to the situation of working family that needs food stamps and other aid to help them afford to live in an apartment, much less a house.
What is the greater problem? I'm going to submit that our need for affordable housing supercedes the so-called traffic problem. I would like to see planning commission and city council meetings focus on how we can require developers to make truly affordable housing, which, of course, means higher-density projects, much like we see in the heart of Grass Valley.
On the other hand, developers shouldn't be given a free ride to do whatever they please. We should establish standards that allow the middle class, especially those who now live here, the opportunity to buy a home where they work and contribute to the community. A project that features trophy homes on large lots will not address the housing crisis and should be opposed until we have a better ratio of affordable homes in this area.
I agree with Shirley. We all need to participate in this discussion and that includes the people who live here and want to realize the dream of home ownership. We also need to seek and demand some creative solutions for this epic problem.
ooo
Pat Butler is the editor of The Union. He can be reached by e-mail at patb@theunion.com or by phone at 477-4235.
By Susan C. Lund
November 9, 2005
I am concerned that, despite an agreement to consider public opinion, the decision to go ahead with the large land development areas in Grass Valley has already been made. The silent majority, in the form of millions of dollars, has once again obtained its wishes. However, I would caution those who have made this decision that, like the Hetch, Hetchy valley, once Grass Valley is "filled" with developments and the essence of what it is has been lost, we will never get it back.
Susan C. Lund, Grass ValleyNote from Herb:
This Letter to the Editor is added to our archives as an example of the possibly wrong impression being picked up by many average citizens.
Consultant hired for mine project
By Brittany Retherford
November 9, 2005
Supporters of re-opening the Idaho-Maryland Mine flocked to Grass Valley City Hall Tuesday night to merely listen to the City Council grant its approval for the selection of a consultant to do a required environmental review.
That endeavor will likely take at least 19 months to complete and is just one step in the process that could bring the mine to reality. The project has garnered considerable interest at this early stage, with most of the two dozen people in the audience supportive of the mine project.
Contracting with a consultant signals that all permit applications are in and complete for the project. But given magnitude of the project - the first of its size and kind in Grass Valley - the city will follow a unique three-step process that includes several public workshops and meetings. It is estimated the cost of the review process will be at least $400,000, to be paid to the consulting firm, Environmental Science Associates. The owners of the mine, Emgold Mining Corp., will foot the bill.
Councilman Dean Williams not only voted "no" on moving forward with signing a contract with the consulting firm, but said that he'll likely vote "no" in the future as well.
"I am going to vote 'no' on this and it is not because it has anything to do with the consultant," he said. "I expect I am going to vote 'no' in moving this forward all along until we appreciate the idea that we could pause and consider whether we want to change the zoning of this thing. I think it better to make the decision now."
Councilwoman Patti Ingram said she'd need the information gathered by the consultant to be able to make any type of decision about the project.
"I look forward to the gathering of information so I can make an informed decision. I'd rather have that before I give an answer," she said. "It is going to be a long process and possibly there will be other people here (on the City Council), but that doesn't mean I won't be out there in the audience."
Councilman Mark Johnson said he would like to see a link on the city's Web site that would allow residents to stay up-to-date on the project.
Joe Heckel, the city's community development director, said this would be a good idea, adding that another goal is to provide regular monthly updates to the City Council.
During the Tuesday night meeting, the City Council also:• Voted unanimously to schedule a Town Hall meeting for 6 p.m. Nov. 29. The subject of the meeting will be traffic and residents should take the opportunity to come ask questions and learn about current upcoming projects in the city. It will be held in City Hall.
• Approved a 51-unit housing project, Maciah Woods, on the 10600 block of Brunswick Road. The project, which was submitted to the city by Jay Cuccia of Brunswick One LLc, required the rezoning of a 14 acre area. Approval for annexation to the city must now be granted by Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCo.ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Residents of mobile park plan to lobby
By David Mirhadi, davidm@theunion.com
November 8, 2005
Residents of the Grass Valley Mobile Home Village plan to attend today's Board of Supervisors meeting to lobby for rent control at local mobile home parks.
The park's 104 residents are facing $100 hikes in their rents, to $450 beginning in January and as much as a $450 increase by 2007, for those who sign 10-year leases.
The park's owner, Roseville-based Waterhouse Management Corp., which bought the park in September, has said the increases will go toward paying off the park's property tax bill. Residents will not be charged for planned park improvements or infrastructure, owner Ken Waterhouse has said.
Several residents have urged District 1 Supervisor Sue Horne to call for some form of rent control or "rent stabilization." Horne said she would like tenants and the park's owner to come to some form of mediation to solve the disputes.
Resident Shiloh McNabb, one of many at the park on a fixed income, said her neighbors plan to be "out in force" at the supervisors' affordable housing workshop scheduled for this afternoon.
"I'm going to try and remain hopeful," she said, "and I'm just praying that somebody will listen to us."
The workshop will examine the disparity between median housing prices and household incomes; the barriers to building affordable housing and ways to create more affordable housing in Nevada County.
The meeting is for informational purposes only, according to a staff report.
ooo
To contact staff writer David Mirhadi, e-mail davidm@theunion.com or call 477-4229.
copy of zoning ordinance includedNevada City to look at semi-permanent 1st-floor office ban
Brittany Retherford, Staff writer
November 8, 2005
Mayor Conley Weaver and City Councilman Kerry Arnett have revealed a draft of an ordinance that would make semi-permanent a freeze on new offices opening on the ground floor in the downtown Nevada City area.
The proposal, which was distributed to attendees of a Nov. 4 committee meeting with Weaver and Arnett, would require all offices to apply for a “conditional use” permit — similar to the process employed by the city of Lafayette in Contra Costa County. The freeze would expire in 2011.
While the ordinance might be tweaked a bit for things such as spelling or grammar, it is basically the same as the one that will be presented to the entire council during the Nov. 14 meeting, the final meeting before the 45-day moratorium expires.
“Essentially, that will be it. There are a few things that we have to clean up,” Weaver said.
But some are doubting whether Weaver and Arnett included feedback from residents in drafting the ordinance, particularly because it has become such a controversial issue throughout the small town.
Yolanda Bachtell, an attorney in Nevada City, has called the process a “farce.”
She said she plans to speak during public comment on Nov. 14 at City Hall.
“I'm going to tell them that that whole committee process was an absolute joke,” she said. “That they should send it back to create a legitimate committee that will actually do an investigation.”
Bachtell said she believes the only way for a solution to be reached is with a committee that has members from a cross-section of backgrounds, including business owners, land owners, residents and government officials. She was also hoping for a closer look at the city’s reliance on sales tax revenue.
But the mayor was pleased with the draft, saying, “I think it is something we worked out as a solution with all the input from the three (committee) meetings.”
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.Nevada City draft zoning ordinance735 KB download:
Decision to accept SDA study reversed
Brittany Retherford
November 2, 2005
Grass Valley's elected officials decided Tuesday it would be better to wait
for residents' feedback before accepting a weighty study on proposed area
developments, essentially reversing their Oct. 27 vote.
Only Councilwoman Patti Ingram disagreed, saying it was time to move forward
and have real numbers to talk about for a change.
"By not passing that step, we have no benchmark. We have no numbers. I'm
all for moving something forward so we are not a gyroscope spinning around
frantically," she said.
Mayor Gerard Tassone called the special meeting following complaints that
public comments weren't taken into consideration during the council's Oct. 27
meeting.
The study takes a detailed glance at the economic impact of just what the
proposed special development areas - SDAs - could mean for the city. It
compares the number of homes needed in the city against the number that could
potentially be built by the SDAs. The discrepancy - almost 1,500 homes -
concerns officials, developers, and residents alike because it means a
decision must be made about the city's template for growth, or General Plan.
It also compares the number of jobs against the number of homes, using
historical trends and future projections as the base.
The document is indeed numbers-heavy and the implication's great if one number
is slightly tweaked. But whether this means the study should not be accepted
is difficult to say.
Councilwoman Lisa Swarthout said it was not necessary to accept the study to
have a conversation about what the city wants for its future. She proposed
that an initial public workshop be held to discuss what the City Council wants
to do about keeping or altering its General Plan.
"We should start with that question," she said. Then, "if we do
want to make changes, where would they be?"
Councilman Dean Williams said it would be wise to hire an outside facilitator
for any upcoming workshops.
The exact process for public involvement in these kinds of discussions will be
decided at the City Council's next meeting Tuesday. It could include a myriad
of ideas, including joint meetings with the Planning Commission, public
workshops on the individual SDAs, or forums to discuss the General Plan,
explained Joe Heckel, the city's director of planning.
Residents will have 30 days for public comment specifically on the SDA study.
Following approval from the City Council, these comments will then be
incorporated into the study. Final acceptance of the study is anticipated to
happen in March 2006.
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com
or call 477-4247.
Council wants citizen input on Grass Valley developments
Special meeting called tonight to hear comments
Brittany Retherford
Staff writer
November 1, 2005
Less than 24 hours after the Grass Valley City Council voted to accept a
weighty and somewhat controversial study on proposed area developments, the
mayor called a second special meeting to talk about what that decision really
means for residents who want to give feedback.
“I was talking to a few people, I think they kind of felt that maybe Council
didn't hear everything that they were saying (during the Oct. 27 meeting),”
said Mayor Gerard Tassone. “I just want to be sure that everybody is heard.”
And while Tassone said he doesn’t regret giving his OK to formally accept
the economic study, he does believe residents deserve some clarity on the
topic — particularly when it concerns their chance to give input.
As a result, a special meeting of the City Council has been scheduled for 5:30
p.m. today in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
Residents are welcome to speak, but mostly, the “the goal is for each
council member to give their perspective on what they think the (public)
process should be,” the mayor said Monday. The City Council could also opt
to reverse its Oct. 27 decision, instead of waiting for comments from the
public, he said.
The study, called the “Economic and Feasibility Study,” takes a look at
the viability of adding four new developments to the city, which could total
2,500 homes. It has been heavily-anticipated by residents, officials, and
developers alike for almost two years. Some have seen the release of the study
as a pivotal moment for these developments. For others, it has been viewed as
merely a tool in the decision-making process.
During the Oct. 27 City Council meeting, two council members — Dean Williams
and Mark Johnson — voted down the idea of accepting the study that evening.
Both said they wanted to wait to give themselves and the public time digest
the weighty document.
Study is available at: http://www.theunion.com/assets/pdf/TU32851031.PDF
(Right click, chose "Save Target as.." and then navigate to a folder
of your choice).
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com
or call 477-4247.