THE UNION Articles on
Planning -- October
Council accepts SDA study, Brittany Retherford, October 28, 2005
'Red tag' threatens new real estate office, Brittany Retherford, October 22, 2005
Meeting on real estate offices calm, Brittany Retherford, October 22, 2005
Fighting for a town's heart and soul, Pat Butler, October 22, 2005
Berg Heights proposal derailed by dogma, Paul Sieving, October 22, 2005
Nevada City off to a bumpy start with panel, Editorial Board, October 21, 2005
Let residents in on SDA discussions, Eric Engles, October 20, 2005
Mayor on two-man committee, Brittany Retherford, October 20, 2005
Developer to appeal rejection, Brittany Retherford, October 20, 2005
Berg Heights denied, Brittany Retherford, October 19, 2005
County and cities tackle big issues, David Mirhadi, October 19, 2005
Today's meeting brings promise of better future, Editorial Board, October 18, 2005
Faith-based firm seeks housing plan OK, Brittany Retherford, October 18, 2005
Rents through the roof, David Mirhadi, October 18, 2005
Grass Valley traffic group earns award, The Union Staff, October 14, 2005
Commissioner has little time to enjoy job, The Union Board, October 14, 2005
Downtown ban opens doors to some concerns, The Union Board, October 13, 2005
Silberstein on commission, Becky Trout, October 12, 2005
Nevada City approves ban, Brittany Retherford, October 12, 2005
Broad Street offices face ban, Becky Trout, October 11, 2005
Debate produces more heat than light, George Rebane, October 7, 2005
Housing report draws critics, Becky Trout, October 6, 2005
Council to vote on new planning commission member, Becky Trout, October 5, 2005
CABPRO supports ... Grass Valley mine, The Union staff, October 4, 2005
Catalyst for change, Brittany Retherford, October 4, 2005
copies of written comments includedBy Brittany Retherford
October 28, 2005
After just three hours, the Grass Valley City Council voted Thursday evening to formally accept a study that has been almost two years in the making and which was designed to aid elected officials to better understand the potential impacts of proposed area developments.
The study takes a detailed glance at what these developments - Northstar, Southhill Village, Loma Rica, and Kenny Ranch, known collectively as special development areas or SDAs - could mean for the area economically.
"We didn't have anything before," said Councilwoman Patti Ingram. "(The study) gives us some baseline numbers, based on actual numbers, of people who live and work here."
The much-anticipated study has been seen by some as the kickoff step in the process to launch these developments into reality and, therefore, is viewed with skepticism.
About a half dozen members of the public spoke, representing groups such the Sierra Club, Grass Valley Neighbors, the Audubon Society, and Citizens Concerned About Traffic, among others. Many others merely listened to the presentation by consultant, Applied Development Economics, sifting through the results of the weighty study. They represented residents, developers, and local politicians.
Several raised similar concerns, making comments such as "it's the wrong study," or, "the numbers are flawed." Despite these, however, the City Council voted 3-2 to accept the document as a tool to guide them in making decisions.
Councilmen Dean Williams and Mark Johnson both voted against accepting the report.
Williams said he would prefer to have waited until more residents had a chance to comment, just in case certain "assumptions" were indeed faulty, or needed tweaking.
Johnson said there has been so much pent-up anxiety about this study, he thought it OK to take a bit more time to dissect it.
"The numbers are an important piece, but they are not the most important piece," he said.
For others, acceptance of the report did not negate the involvement of the public.
"I believe this needs to be a very public process," said Councilwoman Lisa Swarthout. She said she thought it important that public comments to continue to be considered.
Ingram agreed, but said it was time to move to the next step. She cautioned that a delay could force these developers to take their business to the county.
"I don't want to be idling in neutral much longer," she said. "We need to give them the opportunity. They have the right to go develop their property or they will go to the county and we will get the impacts."
"You do have some willingness from the developers (to be flexible)," Mayor Gerard Tassone said. "What I have seen is it is not going to be a snap decision, but it does need to be in a reasonable time frame."
A schedule of public workshops is expected to be approved during the City Council's Nov. 8 meeting.
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
'Red tag' threatens new real estate office
By Brittany Retherford
October 22, 2005
Susan Sotelo's been looking forward to the grand opening of her real estate office in downtown Nevada City ever since she bought the building a few months ago.
And since she said she secured a business license 11 days before the moratorium on new offices moving into ground-floor spaces was implemented in downtown Nevada City, she thought she was still safe.
So at noon Friday, the Network Real Estate agent had a ribbon cutting ceremony complete with Chinese food from Szechuan Fred's, a giant tub of Halloween candy, and walls bedecked with black and white photos of downtown.
"I never thought this would happen," she said. "How great to own a piece of Broad Street."
Sotelo's honeymoon period could possibly be cut short - at least that is the way it seemed all Friday afternoon. Just an hour before the ribbon cutting ceremony, she said a county building department employee stopped by to tell her that he'd return that afternoon to "red-tag" her building for building permit violations. But Sotelo swears she's not in violation and that all she's done to the interior since the temporary halt was enacted was to put in carpeting and paint the walls.
It may sound strange that the county would get involved in a city problem, but since Nevada City doesn't have a building department of its own, it contracts that job to the county, City Councilman Steve Cottrell explained.
The rumored return of the county employee materialized just before 5 p.m., Sotelo said.
"He walked in and he goes, 'how'd it turn out?'" she said. Sotelo said he told her that he didn't see a problem and they'd address the issue again Monday.
"He was very nice. What a sweetheart."
Just a block away in his office in City Hall, City Manager Mark Miller said he wasn't even aware the Sotelo situation was even going on.
"I don't know anything about it, but a business license doesn't mean you can open a building necessarily," he said Friday afternoon.
The rules are a bit more complicated, he said.
The building, which was built in the 1860s, most recently was an antiques and clock shop, Miller said. This would mean that if it changed its use to a real estate office, it would require a change of use permit so the city could determine things such as parking impacts, he said.
"I've not seen any plans, any submittal," he said.
But regardless, Sotelo is poised to begin selling and has promised to keep listing posters out of the windows and allow local artists wall space to display their works free of charge.
"She's a special person," said Sotelo's assistant Suzann Potampa. "You know, she's somebody who wants to preserve this town."
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Meeting on real estate offices calm
By Brittany Retherford
October 22, 2005
Given the volatility of the most recent debate in Nevada City, the first meeting Friday morning could have been a bit more heated.
But the 20 residents and business owners who attended instead offered up ideas for ways to resolve what is seen by many as a business proliferation problem in the historic downtown - of real estate offices.
The City Council recently approved a controversial moratorium on any new offices moving into the first floor of this area, but at the same time, also agreed to form a committee to discuss the viability of this as a long-term solution.
City Manager Mark Miller opened the meeting Friday by announcing that he would be the mediator. He then explained that purpose of these meetings is to encourage dialogue and fix the problem.
Given the 45-day time limit, Mayor Conley Weaver said the committee hopes to be able to come up with some type of proposal to bring back to the City Council at its Nov. 14 meeting - the final meeting before the moratorium expires.
"We are here to gratefully receive ideas and suggestions from the public," he said. During the hour-long meeting, both the problem and possible solutions were discussed.
Resident Lowell Robertson, who dislikes the cluttered look of real estate office windows, proposed building a "real estate exposure board" on the side of Bonanza Market that would display all listings by price.
"(That way) the consumer wins and every (agent) gets equal exposure," he said.
Tom Coleman, owner of the National Hotel, thought this was a terrible idea, saying that nobody in Nevada City wants a billboard. Coleman said he thinks the city needs to get itself out of the business of controlling what goes in downtown and what doesn't.
Former supervisor and resident Peter Van Zant suggested real estate agents contribute to the town by thinking of innovative window displays, offering up maps or other amenities for tourists to keep them in town and "help their fellow retail folks do a better job."
Shari Barley and Sheila Stein, both in the real estate industry, said they'd be willing to pay some sort of surcharge directly to the city to take place of what the city loses in sales tax revenue.
Cartoonist Bob Crabb said the real problem was high rent prices and perhaps the city should take a look at ways to solve that dilemma.
While no solution was reached, Miller said he was pleased with the "civil" way the meeting turned out.
The next meeting will be held at 8 a.m. Friday and then Nov. 4 at City Hall and they will be open to the public.
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Fighting for a town's heart and soul
By Pat Butler, patb@theunion.com
October 22, 2005
A debate about a downtown can be a dangerous thing.
Just ask some of the folks in Nevada City. Why is it that these relatively small areas of commerce can light us up like a firecracker?
It's a discussion that perhaps subconsciously takes the pre-mall generation back to our simpler times when downtowns were the center of commerce and vitality in practically every community. For many of us, it was the first happening place we visited and it became an enjoyable part of our daily routines.
I can still remember the thrill I got when I first sat on a stool at the counter in Schmidt's drug store in downtown Plankinton, S.D., and ordered a black cherry soda. It was a ritual I would repeat as often as I could in the early 1960s in that town of 600 people. The movies on Friday and Saturday nights at the downtown theater seemed like Hollywood at the time.
My grandpa and grandma Berg owned and operated a Gambles hardware store in downtown Wabasso, Minn., for many years. I always enjoyed staying at their apartment above the store and playing in and around their home and business in that tight farming community.
But then came interstate highways, malls, megamalls and the final, crushing blow - big-box retailers in buildings with no distinguishing characteristics except for yellow smiley faces pinned to a clerk's smocks. Many downtowns have since become relics of the past, mere shells of their former glory.
Plankinton, like many small towns in the Midwest, is a perfect example. Traffic now roars past it on Interstate-90, taking people to Mitchell, the home of the Corn Palace and some national retailers, and the big city, Sioux Falls, which has two malls and hosts practically every big box you can think of, thus contributing to the homogenization of our landscape.
I visited Plankinton four or five years ago to show my son where I spent my early years. A good portion of the downtown was either vacant or boarded up. As of the last report I've received, nothing has changed to stir the shrinking economic pot and the lifestyle that it once triumphantly spawned.
The leadership of Redding, where I spent five years, felt it had the tools and the opportunity in the 1970s to save its downtown with a pre-emptive initiative. The City Council decided the best way to compete with a new mall on the edge of town was to put a roof over its downtown, which it did with much fanfare.
Today, the city is trying to figure out ways to peel that tin can off. Most of the businesses that were downtown are now gone. The mall has the feel of a large and mostly empty storage shed.
But it will cost millions to undo that boondoggle. In the meantime, you'll find more people on a Friday night at the Barnes & Noble near the mall than you will downtown. In that case, the city should have left things alone.
In western Nevada County, we're fortunate in that we have two communities within five miles of each other that have classic and invigorating downtowns. In fact, they're tourist attractions all by themselves. Americans love to shop and stroll and when you add excellent restaurants, live music at a pub or two, wine-tasting rooms, theaters and venues for live performances, you have something quite extraordinary.
But prosperity, popularity and obscene property prices have brought fresh concerns about the vitality of our downtowns. Real estate agencies want to get in on the action and the action is downtown. They want to be near all those visitors who have become enchanted by our natural beauty and quaint communities as they walk down the street hand in hand, dreaming about the endearing qualities of yesteryear.
Nevada City has responded to this concern by slamming the door on any new offices for 45 days while it decides what to do about this. Others will tell you privately that there are similar concerns in Grass Valley. It seems that Realtors have the deepest pockets these days and are willing to pay top prices to rent downtown spaces and thus potentially push out the very shops that have helped make our downtowns so inviting
The Grass Valley Downtown Business Association and its director Howard Levine have done a remarkable job of creating and maintaining a diverse and interesting downtown. It's been done largely by working with landlords and prospective tenants as it continuously strives for the best mix. It's a never-ending and daunting task but the rewards are so fulfilling.
In my view, that is the best way to strive for success. But the Nevada City council is now taking another approach that is, of course, controversial. It is looking at introducing new regulations to help create or maintain what it believes is best for the city. That is inherently tricky as well as challenging and shouldn't be taken lightly.
It can also be emotional and we're seeing that in Nevada City. One city councilor expressed a great deal of unhappiness with an editorial we wrote that questioned the wisdom of regulating downtown businesses. Others have contacted the newspaper and said they do not trust the city's motives, demanding that we dig ever deeper. City officials are no doubt bracing for what could amount to a battle royale in a community where residents are not reluctant to share their feelings.
While city governments can and do set standards for growth and development, new initiatives like these are going to be subjected to a fair amount of scrutiny. It is especially the case when we talk about a downtown, something that we should all care about.
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.
Berg Heights proposal derailed by dogma
By Paul Sieving
October 22, 2005
The recent paralysis of the Grass Valley Planning Commission regarding the proposed housing development known as Berg Heights is a glaring example of how our community has become polarized by extremism once again.
It seems that we are stuck in an either/or mindset that prevents us from seeing what is right in front of us. The questions that echo through our community frame this polarization very clearly. "Growth or Environment?" "Housing or Quality of Life?" "Traffic or Trees?" "Creationism or Evolutionism?" These questions are indicators of how we cling to dogma that is unsupported by facts like a security blanket of denial that provides comfort for our growing ignorance.
Each of the questions above is based on the unfounded supposition that the included concepts are mutually exclusive.
We should be thankful that there are members of our community who actively resist this "dogmatization" of their thinking and pursue solutions to the challenges we face without crippling themselves with the either/or mindset. These good folks recognize that it is possible to have solutions to both traffic and housing that complement each other and contribute to a balanced community where opportunity and husbandry are equally valued.
In the last five years, as our community has experienced significant pressure to grow, both from within and without, the challenges of housing and traffic have grown to the point where both need our immediate attention.
We all recognize that our transportation infrastructure is becoming overloaded by increased traffic and that Ridge Road is a potentially sensitive spot due to the high school traffic during the morning and afternoon "rush minutes." We also recognize that the folks we all depend on to keep our community vital and attractive are being priced out of the housing market by our oil-centric, sprawl-oriented approach to housing production.
Has anyone out there ever been "stuck in traffic" on Ridge Road or been even mildly inconvenienced outside of these brief intervals? Does anyone honestly believe, based on the facts available from traffic studies, that the impact of a 10-acre, 122-unit housing development that provides a clear benefit to the community in relieving the shortage of affordable homes will be the death of all traffic flow in the northeast quadrant of our community?
The traffic count from Nevada Union dwarfs the potential additional trips-per-day due to the proposed development. The NU traffic is concentrated in two short intervals on weekdays during the school year, while the traffic from the proposed development would be spread out evenly throughout the days and weeks of the year. We must remember to refer to the facts when making decisions about the future of our community. We cannot yield to the voices of the few from either extreme who would have us cling to the dogma of denial and be paralyzed and polarized.
Let's not forget that the best solution to the traffic issues in this part of town is already on the board and is actually at the top of the list for major solutions to be implemented. The Dorsey Drive interchange with Highways 49/20 has been the focus of our citizens who are truly concerned with solutions and not paralyzed by polarization.
If we can open our eyes and our minds to the idea of balance in our community, we will see that there are folks actively working to meet the challenges of housing and traffic that we face. If our minds are open, we may recognize the efforts of our "reasonable majority" and value the outcomes that they seek.
If we can look further into the future than the next Planning Commission or City Council meeting and the personal agendas we wish to pursue there, we might see that the minimal impact of the Berg Heights development on our traffic situation will be more than offset by the benefit of this type of housing to our community. We might also see that a major traffic solution that is currently on the books will further minimize this impact when implemented.
ooo
Paul Sieving is a Realtor who lives and works in Grass Valley.
Our View: Nevada City off to a bumpy start with panel
October 21, 2005
Is it a committee or isn't it? And what can we expect from the meetings where the future of downtown Nevada City will be discussed?
On Oct. 11, the Nevada City council agreed to form a committee to look at what some believe is a proliferation of offices on the ground floor of its downtown. That decision came after the council voted 4-1 to approve an urgency ordinance that put a 45-day moratorium on new offices in downtown Nevada City.
Earlier this week, at least five members of the public were contacted and asked if they wanted to sit on this committee. The initial committee meeting was scheduled for 4 p.m. Wednesday. However, a notice was not posted 72 hours in advance, which in this case was required by the state's open meetings law, otherwise known as the Brown Act.
The city canceled that meeting and scheduled another one for 8 a.m. today at the City Hall in Nevada City. On Wednesday, Mayor Conley Weaver told The Union that the committee now consists of himself and City Councilman Kerry Arnett. Meanwhile, at least some of the people invited to join the original committee have been asked to attend today's session, although their roles are unclear.
City Manager Mark Miller wouldn't say Thursday whether the Weaver-Arnett team constitutes a committee. What is clear, however, is that the new arrangement means the city is no longer obligated to abide by the terms of the Brown Act.
The reason for this is that a majority of a council, in this case three members, needs to be named to a committee before it falls under the Brown Act. Committees that include members of the public are also covered by the Brown Act.
So at first glance it appears the city has taken steps to allow itself to hold these meetings without notifying the public in advance. That, of course, would cast a dark cloud over the entire process and undermine its legitimacy regardless of how noble the goals might be.
Miller, however, has promised that the city will abide by the spirit of the law and notify the media before all meetings are held by this committee or group. He said the current arrangement will enable them to hold frequent meetings if necessary and that's important since the city has given itself only 45 days to take action on what it considers an urgent issue.
It's crucial that the city's efforts be beyond reproach as it wades into the thorny issue of what's best for downtown Nevada City. We are now expecting the public and the media will be given ample notice of any future meetings so all points of view and options can be considered before the City Council meets again on this matter.
Other Voices: Let residents in on SDA discussions
By Eric Engles
October 20, 2005
Reflecting its laudable "let's move carefully" approach, the city of Grass Valley some time ago hired a consultant to study the economic and fiscal impacts of developing the four Special Development Areas surrounding the city. As readers may know from coverage in The Union, the consultant's report was released - behind schedule - in September.
As you might expect, the study is not a page-turner, but you can download it from the city's Web site (www.cityofgrassvalley.com) and try to digest its numbers and data tables for yourself.
Although the SDA study will bore the average citizen, it's a big deal to the impatient would-be developers of the SDAs. They want to see its arrival as the final step of information-gathering and the beginning of action.
That would be putting the cart before the horse. Although the kind of information contained in the study is important to consider, it is not what should drive the process of planning for Grass Valley's future. What's missing is meaningful public participation-citizens deciding how they want their community to grow.
The study makes guesses about future population growth and demand for housing, jobs, and commercial and business space. Based on its projections, it comes up with the number of housing units and the square footage of commercial space that Grass Valley may need to "absorb" in the next 15 years. The numbers are not all that large - the projected need for housing, for example, falls short of what the SDA developers are proposing in total - but it's important that we not take them as gospel.
In the first place, the study's projections are questionable. Fifteen years is plenty of time for more increases in the price of gasoline, bursting of the housing market bubble, rising interest rates, or another long recession to drastically change market dynamics and the recent demographic trends on which the study relies so heavily.
But even more importantly, what external forces may or may not have in store for western Nevada County in the next 15 years is largely beside the point. What matters is what we want for our community. Despite our political differences, we generally agree that we don't want worse traffic or Roseville-style sprawl. At the same time, we generally agree with the need for a vibrant economy and housing for people with low and moderate incomes. The only way to balance these values and needs and arrive at a vision for the future that we can all embrace is to plan democratically.
The SDA study is useless for this purpose. Democratic planning means debate, compromise, and listening to everyone's point of view. It comes from talking and problem-solving, not number- crunching.
To their credit, the folks at city hall are allowing for at least the appearance of public participation in regards to the SDAs. The consultants who prepared the SDA study will be presenting it during a special city council meeting Oct. 27, during which the public will be allowed some comment, and planning is underway for a series of subsequent public workshops and a community survey. Does this mean those at city hall really care about what citizens think? Don't be so sure.
It's clear that some city officials dislike debate, political openness, and questioning of the status quo. Firing the too-outspoken planning commissioner Terry Lamphier is but a recent example. Unless citizens demand opportunities for real participation, appearance is likely to triumph over substance.
Members of the City Council: Here is your opportunity to show th at you truly want citizens to participate in determining the city's future. Set up the meeting on the 27th to allow the public to question both the conclusions of the study and its assumptions. Admit that the study only scratches the surface of what we need to know before proceeding to make some of the most important decisions in Grass Valley's history.
Take seriously what citizens say in the survey. Encourage all citizens to take part in the workshops. Create opportunities for developing creative alternatives to what the four developers have proposed for the SDAs. Allow the community as a whole to "think outside the box" and figure out ways of forging win-win solutions, preserving our quality of life and promoting sustainable development.
Whether or not city officials rise to this challenge, responsibility ultimately lies with the citizens of Grass Valley and the western county. It's time to step up to the plate and take control of your future. Attending the meeting Oct. 27 is a good first step.
Eric Engles lives in Grass Valley.
Duo to hold meetings on downtown NevadaCity's new office rule
By Brittany Retherford
October 20, 2005
A two-member committee has been formed to discuss possible solutions to a perceived proliferation of real estate offices in downtown Nevada City, but not without some confusion over who should be on it.
Mayor Conley Weaver and Councilman Kerry Arnett comprise the committee, which will host its first meeting at 8 a.m. Friday at the Nevada City City Hall. The public is welcome to attend.
The formation of the committee comes after a decision made Oct. 11 by the City Council to implement a 45-day moratorium on any new offices moving into downtown ground-floor spaces. The ordinance specifically targets real estate offices, which, according to an urgency ordinance passed at the meeting, are too prolific in the small downtown area.
The temporary moratorium was implemented to give the City Council a chance to come up with a possible permanent solution to the concern.
"We are just going to open it up and see what kind of creative ideas (there are)," Weaver said Wednesday.
Councilman Steve Cottrell voted against the urgency ordinance, saying at the meeting that he could not understand how this could be considered an urgent issue, although he did support forming a committee.
An original meeting that was set for 4 p.m. Wednesday was canceled earlier that same day upon the advice of the city attorney, Jim Anderson, said City Manager Mark Miller.
"We are trying to do a balance between notices and people there to get the work done," he said.
Proposed members for that committee also included members of the public, including Lowell Robertson, Stacy Drake, John Hensley, Karla Arens and Peter Van Zant.
According to the Brown Act - the state law that governs open meetings - if a committee appointed by the City Council includes members of the public, it must be publicly noticed. If it has less than a quorum of the City Council - or only two members - it does not.
Weaver, who appoints the committee members, said that the meeting was not canceled because it was not properly noticed. "No, we decided that we were going to restructure things a bit," he said.
"I had some additional thinking and changing the composition of the committee.
"We have a limited time. The end of the ordinance is only 45 days to resolve whatever it is we need to resolve," Weaver said.
Miller said that this way, the committee can also hold as many meetings as needed to resolve the issue. All meetings will be open to the public.
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion .com or call 477-4247.
By Brittany Retherford
October 20, 2005
Rick Kerr said he doesn't plan to give up the fight to bring affordable housing to the city of Grass Valley.
He's going to take his housing development project, Berg Heights, to the City Council now, following a denial by the city's Planning Commission at its Tuesday meeting.
"Nearly 500 people will be affected by (the denial of) this project," he said Wednesday, referring to the number of people who could be living in his 122-unit project over 10 acres in the Ridge Road area.
Kerr, a landowner on Ridge Road who has teamed up with Tentmakers, a faith-based nonprofit, had hoped that with approval of his project, at least some of the city's affordable housing needs would be met. He said his neighbors had been looking to him as a way to help solve some of the problems they have been facing with rising costs that come with home ownership.
"Those who are poor or poorer are humble and have a tendency not to talk a lot," Kerr said.
In a 4-1 vote, the project was denied by the Planning Commission. Commissioners said they were concerned that increased traffic in the area outweighed the benefit of the affordable housing.
The project proposed to "set aside" 30 percent of the units as long-term affordable units. Another 20 to 30 percent was also determined to be sold at a cost that moderate- to lower-income residents could afford, Kerr said. Since Tentmakers is a nonprofit, all profits would have to go back into the community, likely toward the building and maintenance of a community center located in the middle of the development.
Kerr said he is dedicated to bringing affordable housing to the area. He was also the developer behind the Whiting Street housing project, which was recently sold to a Roseville-based developer, Dunmore Communities, after Kerr managed to get approval for it by the city. Kerr said financial problems experienced by his partner forced the sale. He said he would not comment on whether that was a nonprofit endeavor, as well.
He did say that the new developer is bound by contract to build the project to the approved specifications.
Kerr said he plans to file an appeal straight away for Berg Heights. He has 15 days to do so, said city planner Joe Heckel. A noticed public hearing by the City Council will be scheduled for the project within the following 30 to 45 days.
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brit tanyr@the union.com or call 477-4247.
Traffic at heart of problem for commission
By Brittany Retherford
October 19, 2005
Traffic issues continued to plague a proposed Ridge Road area project during the Grass Valley Planning Commission meeting Tuesday evening.
As a result, the subdivision, known as "Berg Heights" was denied in a 4-1 vote and must now be appealed to the City Council to receive approval.
Commission Chair Gloria Hyde, the solo supporter, was clearly unhappy with the decision reached by her fellow commissioners.
"I think we are throwing affordable housing out the window and I'm very upset about that," she said.
Developer Rick Kerr, who has partnered with the a faith-based nonprofit, Tentmakers, said his project will help lower and moderate income residents actually be able to afford to buy a home. At a September meeting, the planning commission had requested the number of homes be dropped below 100 units to help reduce the amount of traffic in the area.
Kerr returned Tuesday evening with a 97-home proposal, eliminating a much-desired community center, but he actually was hoping to receive approval for the original project, citing concerns that fewer homes would mean a greater burden on the individual homeowner.
But Commissioner David Emanuel said it's all wrong. "Wrong project, wrong time, wrong place."
Additionally, the commissioners were seemingly surprised about the nonprofit status of the company, saying that this was the first they'd learned of it.
But Kerr said the reason it was never brought up before was because "we are attempting to have this project approved on the merit of the project, not whether it is for profit or (not for profit)."
Commissioner Emanuel was also irked about the lack of numbers available.
"We keep talking about the increases in costs, but I don't think that we've ever heard what the cost of these proposed homes are, what the homeowners dues will be?"
Kerr had no answer, again citing complications in the formula to derive the prices.
"I don't mean not to answer your question, there are just so many ways to interpret that," he said, explaining briefly about how the nonprofit is able to partially subsidize some of the homes. He also said that no money would come from city coffers to do so.
But the conversation eventually circled back to traffic.
"Ridge Road is much busier than what these presenters would have you believe," said Ridge Road resident David Price.
Commissioner Eleanor Kenitzer said she'd only be willing to support the project if it was reduced to just 49 units, which was determined to be the "magic number" by city staff to not have any significant traffic impacts on Ridge Road.
Linda Stevens, a former city councilwoman, was irritated with the decision, saying it's time for the city of Grass Valley to finish their commitment to take care of its citizens.
"We are discriminating against a whole group of people," she said.
"By God, get off the stick and stop listening to the squeaky voices that yell in this place and do something about it."
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
County and cities tackle big issues
By David Mirhadi, davidm@theunion.com
October 19, 2005
Nevada County's elected officials rediscovered the importance of teamwork during a historic meeting in Grass Valley.
The day-long session Tuesday at Condon Park highlighted the need for collaboration between elected officials who rarely meet together to discuss pressing issues, said Nevada County Supervisor Ted Owens, who represents Truckee and is the Board of Supervisors chair.
"Historically, it seems that we have governments going off and doing their own things," he said.
On Tuesday, 17 elected officials and the managers of each of the incorporated cities and towns as well as county CEO Rick Haffey gathered to find solutions and receive input on the county's transportation needs, growth and development concerns and Nevada County's methamphetamine epidemic.
"It's what we do with the information that we take today that will make this historic," said Owens, a rookie supervisor and former Truckee Town Council member.
The elected officials agreed to take their raft of concerns to their respective boards and councils, who will come up with solutions to bring back to a second such meeting during the first quarter of 2006.
Some of the information shared between the elected officials surprised them.
For example, officials learned that 56 percent of all the homes in Grass Valley are owned by absentee landlords, and that it would take a family income of $63,000 for a family of four to live in a home worth $270,000, more than $100,000 less than the median price of a Nevada County home.
"I haven't seen a developer with a real plan that showcases affordable housing," said District 1 Supervisor Nate Beason. "They prefer to build large houses to show off to the equity refugees."
Conversely, 75 percent of Truckee residents own homes, with a median price above a half-million.
The dearth of affordable housing could be fixed if developers worked with cities to increase the density of homes, District 2 Supervisor Sue Horne said. Large, expensive lots squeeze young families out of the market.
Creating these homes is expensive when one considers the need for water, sewer and road improvements, said Grass Valley Mayor Gerard Tassone. More affordable housing units, combined with the four proposed annexations that could bring as many as 3,000 homes into Grass Valley in the next few decades, will increase the city's infrastructure costs.
Collaboration between local and regional governments was a common theme.
Truckee elected officials spoke of how they lobbied state and national representatives for an Interstate 80/Highway 267 interchange several years ago.
"A lot of Truckee's success is getting involved, knowing who the people are and maintaining good relationships with legislators in Sacramento," said Truckee Town Council member Josh Susman. "They may seem like they're inaccessible and in an ivory tower, but they're willing to go to bat for us."
The message was not lost on Nevada City Mayor Conley Weaver, whose council is debating plans for the proposed Deer Creek II development outside the city limits. Most of the traffic will traverse bumpy, uneven Boulder Street to get there.
"If the project goes though, there is no solution, and it will be out of our hands," said Weaver, who lives on Boulder Street.
Dan Landon, executive director of the Nevada County Transportation Commission, said his office is assembling a plan that would gauge interest in a possible countywide sales-tax increase to fund road improvements.
The collective group also learned of law enforcement's efforts to collar the methamphetamine epidemic.
In 1998, the Nevada County Jail held an average of 120 inmates, Sheriff Keith Royal said. That figure jumped to 210 in 2005, with 70 percent of those inmates in the jail because of substance abuse convictions.
In 2004, 600 individuals were arrested on suspicion of using or selling methamphetamine.
Many of them have been rehabilitated under the terms of Proposition 36, a drug-diversion program approved by California voters in 2000.
The program lacks the necessary teeth to be fully effective and curtail relapses, District Attorney Mike Ferguson said. Those who are in the program are eligible only for a single 90-day inpatient program. "There aren't nearly enough resources to deal with the issue," he said.Scott Krause, convicted in September of second-degree murder in the January 2004 death of UPS driver Drew Reynolds, was a Prop. 36 participant.
"I'm not against treatment," Ferguson said. "I'm for treatment that works."
Supervisor Robin Sutherland urged the group to focus their efforts on prevention, saying the methamphetamine epidemic has reached students in middle school.
"The biggest impact you can have on (curbing this problem) is education," said Sutherland, who represents the Penn Valley area. Sutherland is working on securing a $158,000 grant that would supply anti-meth education programs to Head Start children in Placer and Nevada counties.
"It's a minimal investment for long-term gain," she said.
ooo
To contact staff writer David Mirhadi, e-mail davidm@the union.com or call 477-4229.
Our View: Today's meeting brings promise of better future
The Union Editorial Board
October 18, 2005
Methamphetamines, affordable housing, growth, traffic.
These are issues that touch every resident of Nevada County. Today, 20 elected officials from this county are expected to participate in a daylong meeting to discuss these problems and hopefully take the first steps toward developing a countywide strategy to confronting them.
City councilors from Grass Valley, Nevada City and Truckee will be joined by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors at the public meeting, which begins at 8:30 a.m. at the L.O.V.E. Building in Condon Park in Grass Valley.
In addition to the important issues they plan to discuss, we hope that the meeting can serve as a launching pad to a more collaborative approach to problem-solving in this bustling area.
Governments often have different agendas and compete for economic development opportunities and state and federal money. Councilors and supervisors are elected to represent the interests of their constituents and look out for the future of their communities. So we should not expect it to be in their nature to, in a sense, enlarge their circle of concern.
In this case, however, it's apparent that the problems of meth, housing, growth and traffic transcend our geographic boundaries and that ignoring or pushing our problems down the road is not really a satisfying or long-term solution.
We don't expect any of these representatives to surrender their obligations to their constituents. We are encouraged, though, that there is an apparent willingness to share ideas and perhaps resources and intellectual capital to tackle these problems, which affect the quality of life of each and every resident of Nevada County.
Faith-based firm seeks housing plan OK - Memo included
Brittany Retherford
October 18, 2005
Representatives of a nonprofit, faith-based company that wants to build a housing development in the Ridge Road area say that forced cuts to its project by the Grass Valley Planning Commission threaten its unique community-building essence.
A slimmed down version of the proposed "Berg Heights" housing development will appear again tonight before the Planning Commission, but developer representative Rick Kerr said he plans to ask the board to approve the original plan, which includes 122 homes and a community center on 10 acres.
Kerr represents a company called Tentmakers, which he explained as a faith-based company that is dedicated to making housing available to low- and middle-income residents who bring important services to an area.
This could include people such as police officers, firefighters, teachers and health workers - people who traditionally have had a tougher time buying homes in the escalating Nevada County real estate market.
The project has now been shaved to 97 homes as requested by the Planning Commission, which, during a Sept. 20 meeting, cited concerns about traffic.
The 25 fewer homes mean the development won't have enough money to build and support the community center, an integral part of the project, Kerr said Monday afternoon.
"It is more than just a building. It is more than just a rec center," Kerr said. "(It is a place) to gather, to have classes and mentoring opportunities."
Kerr said the reason for this is simple: "As a nonprofit, everything is formula-driven. The loss of those 25 units - that's big."
Besides, for "many of our homebuyers, this will be the first home they will ever own and they need some greater care than other families."
He said that it has been their experience that the support provided by some sort of community center gives the residents a better chance at success, particularly financially.
Now, in place of the community center, a park is planned, according to the staff report for tonight's meeting.
And while Kerr did not reveal the average cost of a home in the proposed project, saying it is complicated on first glance, Tentmakers also provides a money-lending service for homebuyers that is somewhat similar to the city's first-time homebuyer program.
"We have the ability to subsidize the price of these homes dramatically, based on their income," he said.
Loans could be offered at a lower interest rate and, in some cases, residents would even have a chance to pay off their debts in alternative ways that contribute instead to the community.
For example, a city police officer might agree to park his or her squad car in front of his or her home at night, thereby reducing crime in the area. Or, "a teacher, in return for doing before-school and after-school tutoring, their loan is forgiven," he said.
This, of course, would require that there be a community center.
During the meeting tonight, Kerr plans to ask the Planning Commission for approval of the project in its original form. He said he plans to argue that the city's own staff report proves that an additional 25 homes doesn't make a huge difference when it comes to traffic, especially at the sacrifice of a valuable addition to the community.
"There are some who seem to be placing traffic above all else in the city."
If approved, the project will then go before the City Council for final approval.
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Mobil home rent increases shock residents
David Mirhadi
Staff writer, davidm@theunion.com
October 18, 2005
Most of them live on fixed incomes, in tidy single-wide trailers where friends gather under metal carports to swap stories or a cup of sugar.
As far as Pat Rose is concerned, her 29-year-old mobile home isn't much to look at, but for 12 years, it's been home.
On Monday, Rose was wondering how much longer she'd be able to call the place her own.
Last week, Rose and the 104 households at the Grass Valley Mobile Home Park off Highway 49 were given notice that their rents would be increasing in January by $100 a month - from $350 to $450. For the first time, residents will be asked to sign two, five- or 10-year leases.
Those that sign the 10-year leases must also pay for improvements to the mobile home park in addition to the increased rents, according to memos given to the residents by the park's owner, Roseville-based Waterhouse Management Corp. The increases in rent were announced at a meeting held at the trailer park last week by the park's new owners.
On top of the $100 monthly increase that begins Jan. 10, 2006, those who sign multiyear leases will face additional increases ranging from $50 to $350 a month in 2007.
For people like Rose and her neighbor Janet Voshell, who is used to rent increasing by an average of $108 annually, the $1,200 annual hit to her pocketbook might just be too hard to take.
"I won't be able to handle it. I'm on a fixed income and can barely make it right now. The question is, what priorities will I give up just to make a living?"
Representatives of the property-management company did not return two messages left at their headquarters on Monday. The company owns and operates more than 50 mobile home parks in California. The company purchased the Grass Valley Mobile Home Park from a family trust, Voshell said.
Rose and approximately two dozen of her neighbors showed up Monday at a Rood Administrative Center conference room, hoping to bend the ear of the county's Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
Though they weren't on the agenda, the committee of county supervisors and housing officials promised to address the park's concerns at next month's meeting.
Rose, who takes home $886 every two weeks as a county employee, said moving from the Grass Valley Mobile Home Park to another nearby won't be easy. Moving to an affordable housing complex is probably out of the question, since she'd have to get rid of a 29-year-old, 720-square-foot single-wide trailer with a leaky roof.
"And I don't see much in the paper that I can afford," Rose said.
Grass Valley traffic group earns award
The Union staff
October 14, 2005
A local grass-roots group, Citizens Concerned About Traffic (CCAT), was chosen to receive the Outstanding Community Service Award from the Sierra Nevada Group of the Sierra Club at the latter's annual awards ceremony on Oct. 21 in Nevada City.
The award will be given "in recognition of the positive impact CCAT has made in educating the public about growth and development issues in western Nevada County," according to Barbara Rivenes, chair of the local Sierra Club group.
CCAT is comprised of volunteers who share concern about traffic in western Nevada County. Its mission is to have development in western Nevada County take place in a measured way, with governmental processes set in place and implemented so that potential traffic problems are mitigated and resolved before any problems arise.
"We're very pleasantly surprised to receive this award," said Grant Cattaneo, coordinator of the traffic group's steering committee. "We have many volunteers working with us to help raise awareness of traffic issues, and to be recognized for this by another community organization is very gratifying."
Citizens Concerned About Traffic represents more than 300 local residents who have signed on with the group to indicate their concerns about traffic and the need for mitigation measures. Its Web site (www.ccatnc.org) has information on the four proposed large developments around Grass Valley and suggestions for actions citizens can take to share their concerns with elected officials.
Commissioner has little time to enjoy job
The Union Editorial Board
October 14, 2005
Ralph Silberstein, welcome to the Grass Valley Planning Commission.
And with that your honeymoon period is now over.
It's your time to sit in one of the hottest seats in town.
The five-member Planning Commission has been thrust into the spotlight recently due largely to the actions of Terry Lamphier and the City Council's decision to remove him.
Lamphier's short stay on the commission was marked by his outspoken nature. Some members of the City Council were not comfortable with pieces he wrote for this page that at times questioned the city's direction. He also had many questions for city staff that some found excessive.
So six months after he started on the commission, he was removed from it.
As of Tuesday night, we have a fresh face on this important governmental body. Silberstein has pledged to be a diligent member and left little doubt that he will be more reserved publicly than his predecessor.
We do hope, however, that the software engineer will not be reluctant to ask tough questions of staff and those who appear before the Planning Commission in these emotionally charged times. He should come into the process with an open mind and a willingness to scrutinize projects on their merits.
This is especially important as the city begins the long and surely grueling process of evaluating the four Special Development Areas that if approved in their current state could bring 4,000 new homes to the area over the next several years.
The pressure will be immense for the Planning Commission and the City Council as these proposals work their way through the process in a community that in many ways is polarized over the issue of growth.
Our View: Downtown ban opens doors to some concerns
The Union Editorial Board
October 13, 2005
The Nevada City council's decision to temporarily ban new real estate offices from the downtown's ground floor raises questions about what appears to be an attempt to do some commercial engineering.
The council, which approved the 45-day ban on a 4-1 vote, is concerned about a proliferation of offices in an area that might be better suited for retail stores. Currently, at least eight real estate offices occupy space in downtown Nevada City and another one or two could be in the works.
In a bid to stop any more offices from moving in while the council looks ahead to a possible permanent ban, the situation was declared an emergency on the night the vote was taken.
While we admire the council for looking ahead and even implementing a vision to make Nevada City's downtown a more complete shopper's destination, it seems that creating an ordinance that restricts private property rights might be going too far.
And if the City Council is determined to take steps to potentially reduce the value or income stream of a property, what is it going to do for the owner who will be required to make a sacrifice for what the city deems as the greater good?
Another consideration is, where does this business of picking and choosing suitable commercial enterprises end? Today, it's real estate offices. Tomorrow, it could be expanded to all offices. What if the council decides there are too many gift shops or art galleries? And at what point does this process get political?
A city has the absolute right, if not obligation, to create and help sustain a viable downtown, which essentially is a community's soul. A downtown consisting of nothing but office space would likely have all the appeal of a vacant storefront.
But the City Council should seek creative ways to achieve its goals. It needs to consider providing appropriate incentives for property owners to lease their space for less money than they might otherwise get. It can also help landlords find tenants for businesses it deems more appropriate.
To pass an ordinance, however, that bans certain businesses is a dangerous precedent, and it might discourage the very thing the council wants - a commercial district that is vibrant and diversified.
By Becky Trout,
beckyt@theunion.com
October 12, 2005
With a speedy approval from the City Council, Ralph Silberstein secured a spot on the Grass Valley Planning Commission Tuesday evening.
Silberstein, a software engineer and board member of the Wolf Creek Community Alliance, thanked the council for the opportunity and pledged to commit himself to the task. The council voted him in unanimously.
He will take the spot vacated by Terry Lamphier, who was removed from the commission in mid-September after questioning city policies and writing slow-growth "Other Voices" columns in The Union.
After appointing Silberstein, the council took up the long-debated proposal to hold a team building session, which sparked a clash between Mayor Gerard Tassone and Councilman Dean Williams at the council's last meeting.
With all five members present, the council defeated an effort by Williams to focus on a specific issue, such as the four major developments, at the session.
Councilman Mark Johnson expressed concerns about conducting the session.
"I think things are working well," Johnson said. "If this team building session has something to do with toning down the debate, then I don't want anything to do with it."
"Let's change the name," Tassone offered. "Say strategic planning. Somehow it's perceived that team building is touchy feely."
The session will focus on ensuring the six new staff members and three new council members communicate and that they understand the city's goals, Tassone said.
If the session is goal focused, then it should be held in January when the council plans to set its goals, Johnson said.
The council voted unanimously to hold a day-long session in January, with the morning geared toward team building and the afternoon spent working with staff.
In other business, the council voted unanimously to name the soccer field at Mautino Park after Elwin T. Mulcahy, who sold the land to the city for use as a park.
It also voted to kick off a process to raise sewer and water rates, which have not been changed for 10 years.
A series of rate increases could go into effect in January, but three public meetings will be held before then.
Combined sewer and water rates would rise for a single family house from about $46 month to about $68 after about two years, a consultant said.
ooo
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion .com or call 477-4234.
Non-retail stores out on ground floor downtown
Brittany Retherford
October 12, 2005
Despite strong and vocal opposition from the Nevada City real estate community, a freeze was placed on any new non-retail businesses moving to ground floor offices in the historic downtown by the City Council at its Tuesday evening meeting.
The temporary emergency ban, which will primarily affect the real estate industry, was passed in a 4-1 vote and will last the next 45 days. Councilman Steve Cottrell was the lone dissenting vote, arguing that there was no need to declare it an urgent issue.
"Should we create a committee? Absolutely," he said, "but there is no way in God's green Earth that this item meets the threshold of being an urgency."
The 45-day moratorium ordinance was enacted to give time for a committee to form and to possibly iron out details for a permanent ban. Councilwoman Sally Harris proposed that if this happened, the ban should specifically include only real estate offices. As it currently stands, barber shops, doctors offices, and any other non-retail business are also affected.
Harris' decision to support the ban was because "our perspective here is to look after the interests of the residents."
For her, the ban is an urgent issue that was possibly, in part, self-created. "My sense is we may have caused a frenzy and possibly caused more real estate offices to be signed on because they were worried about being left out."
"If we don't do it tonight, we may get more of that," she added.
The move was soundly opposed by a number of individuals during the meeting, many of whom called for more creative solutions for the city to find money claimed to be lost to diminishing numbers of retail businesses.
One-third of the revenue for the city originates from sales tax, according to the ordinance passed Tuesday evening. The city has seen a decline in sales tax from retail industries, said City Manager Mark Miller.
There was some opposition from those not in the real estate business.
Pat Dyer, who owns Utopian Stone jewelry store and is the chair of the business improvement district (BID), said that a committee should be formed rather than a ban implemented.
"A business district reflects what people want out of an area, and what people want out of Nevada County is to buy it," he said. Dyer said this was his personal opinion, explaining that the official view of the BID is "we want to go on record as having no stand. (We support all businesses) as long as they fit the general plan."
Bob Buhlis, president of the Nevada City Chamber of Commerce, is also a business owner in the historic downtown. He echoed Dyer's personal opinion as similar to his own, but explained that at the Sept. 19 meeting of the chamber, "we unanimously (voted) on being against prohibiting non-retail because we need to support all of our members."
He received a round of applause when he pointed to the high cost of rent as a reason that some retail shops have a tough time.
"(The city should) work with property owners and ask them to be a little more reasonable with the rents."
Ultimately, the majority of the City Council opted to give the ban a chance.
"It's gotten to a point where we have force ourselves to make a move. It's been a series of a lot of procrastination," said Mayor Conley Weaver.
After 45 days, the City Council will be able to decide whether to extend the ban - which it can do for up to two years - or it can opt to make it permanent. Since the ban is an urgency moratorium, each extension would require a four-fifths vote from the City Council.
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brit tanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Nevada City looks at 45-day restriction of first-floor offices
By Becky trout,
beckyt@theunion.com
October 11, 2005
Offices, in moderation, aren't offensive, even in historic Nevada City. They are usually well maintained, and they rarely attract rowdy crowds. But they also don't generate sales tax dollars or attract sight-seeing daytrippers.
Rumbles about restrictions on first-floor offices in downtown Nevada City have circulated for months, but tonight the City Council will consider imposing an immediate ban on all conversions from retail to office.
"This is a way of forcing ourselves to address (the issue)," said Mayor Conley Weaver, who placed the proposed ban on the agenda. The urgency doesn't stem from a particular proposed conversion, Weaver said.
"There's just been a constant flow of them," Weaver said.
The city's sales tax receipts are dropping while its expenses continue to rise, the ordinance states.
If enacted tonight, a 45-day ban on the switch from retail to office in historic Nevada City would go into effect. Existing offices - used by Realtors, insurance agents, lawyers or others - would not be affected.
Councilman Steve Cottrell called the move an "ill-advised attempt at economic engineering." He also questioned the need for immediate action.
Know & Go
What:
Nevada City City Council considers a temporary ban on office use of ground-floor space in downtown
Where: Nevada City City Hall, 317 Broad St.
When: 7 tonight
Real estate offices on Broad Street
• Cornerstone
• Network
• Gold Country Properties
• Good & Co.
• Paul Law
• Realty Executives
• Coldwell BankerCouncilwoman Sally Harris said she wanted to be sure the ordinance was legal before she acted. Similar efforts have been possible in other places, she said. The number of jewelry stores or art galleries have been limited in some California cities. "There is no such thing as a pure (free market) system," Harris said.
Heaps of public money has been poured into downtown, Harris said, and citizens should be able to influence its makeup.
"I have not talked to one resident that doesn't think it's a problem," Harris said.
"People are not going to drive hundreds of miles to come to a town that's made up entirely of real estate offices," said Councilman Kerry Arnett, seconding comments made by a guest columnist at The Union, Andy Spurlock.
"If (Nevada City is) entirely populated by offices on the ground floor ... does it really make it very special?" Arnett asked.
Opponents of the ban were given little time to organize as the city's plans nearly slipped under the radar. The city is required to post a meeting agenda 72 hours in advance of a meeting. Nevada City's Chamber of Commerce did not receive notice until around 5 p.m. Friday, said Cathy Whittlesey, executive director. The Union never received an agenda.
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.
Other Voices: Debate produces more heat than light
October 7, 2005
It wasn't clear what salve a recent public forum on growth applied to our laudable itch to practice grassroots democracy.
Fundamental questions to advise elected officials, planners, and citizen activists on growth were totally ignored as disparate offerings were dispensed from the panel. An example of this that continues to amaze is that no one wants to nail down whether we should hire people with sandwich boards reading 'Move to Beautiful Nevada County' to stand at the Highway 49 exit in Auburn, or erect barricades at the Bear River bridge, or something in between.
Nevada County will not grow in a vacuum. Its growth will be affected (determined?) by very strong population pressures from neighboring counties and the state in general. Yet at these sessions we continue to hear various numbers of contemplated housing units over varying time periods being bandied about and absorbed by a serious-faced audience as if they understood their impact on growth policy let alone on the future quality of life in our county.
Wouldn't the prime piece of necessary information be the growth rate such housing units would generate and how that growth rate compares to the projections for our northern neighbors along the I-80 corridor and the state in general? That would tell us whether such developments would cause us to lead, lag, or stay on par with our demographic environment. With raw housing unit numbers we can't even make up our collective mind whether to order the sandwich boards or ... And yet this is the current state of growth planning in the county.
During a more humorous interlude a Grass Valley City Council member was asked what factors should determine pushing the city limits outward to annex yet another gerrymandered tract from the county. With a serious mien she responded that since people outside the city limits come into the city and impact its quality of life by contributing to congestion, noise, etc., and also gain benefits from the city by shopping there, enjoying its parks, etc. all without paying sufficient city taxes, it therefore would be proper to annex them. With that metastasizing policy in place, Grass Valley's growth will simply accelerate the larger it gets because, yes, people in the country do come into the city to buy stuff and entertain themselves. But nobody laughed.
Finally, it seems that such public forums should be conducted for more stratified audiences if they are to generate more light than heat. It's difficult to present a coherent body of information on growth at any level to an audience when some members don't know what a General Plan is, while other members apparently can absorb the service rates of specific intersections and integrate this data into an overall assessment of the quality of life.
Perhaps, we shouldn't try to cover the whole waterfront at a single sitting. But then again, since light illuminates so unevenly, easy heat is a good substitute because everyone can feel it. And what can be more democratic than that?
George Rebane lives in Nevada County.
Residents express concerns about Deer Creek Park II
By Becky Trout,
beckyt@theunion.com
October 6, 2005
A worn manila folder in a back room of the Rood Administrative Center brims with more than 80 letters - some packed with acronyms and planning jargon, others barely legible heartfelt scrawls, but nearly all expressing concerns about the Deer Creek Park II development.
The city of Nevada City also weighed in with a 32-page critique of the proposal's environmental review, which attorney Tamara Galanter said "continues to fail to meet the minimal standards of adequacy."
The letters were submitted as part of a review process for the 193-house, 158-acre project proposed for Red Dog Road east of Nevada City. Lots would range from half an acre to two acres. The development also includes 422 neighboring acres that would be harvested for timber.
An environmental report was conducted when the project was first proposed in 2001. That report was found faulty and was significantly altered.
The second environmental report, the focus of the recent comments, was released in July.
It found several potential problem areas - traffic, air quality, safety, noise and growth encouragement - that could not be fixed.
But many letter-writers said developer Lance Amaral needs to keep working to lessen the effects of the houses.
The Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, in particular, urged Amaral to continue hunting for ways to mitigate the five significant air-related problems, including short and long-term emissions and the effect of the timber harvest the development is expected to generate.
Amaral, reached Wednesday, said he had no comment.
Galanter, an attorney representing Nevada City, faults the report for its failure to fully evaluate the effects of the timber harvest, for excluding potential "granny units" from the study, and for relying on fixes deemed impossible - such as expanding Boulder Street.
"The (study)... simply shrugs and accepts the degradation of safety in Nevada City," wrote Galanter, part of the San Francisco law firm Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger.
Several letters also pointed out that traffic estimates were based on outdated information.
Although the letter-writers were instructed to focus on the environmental study, many wrote about the development itself.
"No on Deer Creek Park II!!," wrote John, Jane and Scott Landry. "We have lived on Red Dog Road for 28 years and (we) love it."
The development threatens the wonderful, dark skies with light pollution, wrote Margaret Little of Red Dog Road.
Deer Creek Park II is just another in the line of "all the developments throughout the years that (have) only served to ruin this once tranquil, quiet county," wrote native Nevada City resident Mario Valceschini.
"If I lived in Sacramento and was being told to clean up my air while watching projects like this being proposed, I would laugh," wrote area resident Michael P. Anderson.
"My wife and I are in the process of relocating to Nevada City, which we fell in love with because of its beauty, historical charm, and small town atmosphere," wrote Gerald Anderson, urging for changes to the project.
A letter from Dale Peterson of Gracie Road stood out from the pack.
"I wonder where all those highly opinionated anti-growth malcontents live - in tents? ... I'm not averse to sharing this beautiful part of the state with a few more lucky newcomers," she wrote.
The comments, from regulatory agencies or neighbors, will be incorporated into the final draft of the environmental report, expected to be released in a couple of months, said Randy Wilson, the county's planning director.
The Nevada County Planning Commission will then have a meeting to decide whether to accept the report. If the study is accepted, the commission will then hold a meeting or meetings to discuss the development.
ooo
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234What is Deer Creek Park II?
About 40 years younger than the original, the proposed 158-acre Deer Creek Park II includes 193 houses and 422 neighboring acres that are intended to be logged. It is located just east of Nevada City off Red Dog Road.
Each house will have a septic system. It would add 1,619 vehicle trips - such as one-way drives to the store - to Red Dog Road and Boulder Street, according to a county analysis.
Council to vote on new planning commission member
Williams chooses Silberstein for commission
Becky Trout and Brittany Retherford,
beckyt@theunion.com
October 5, 2005
Councilman Dean Williams said Tuesday he has nominated a Grass Valley Group software engineer for the city's planning commission.
Ralph Silberstein, a former general contractor who lives on Cypress Hill Drive, was chosen from a list of 17 people considered for the Planning Commission vacancy, Williams said.
"Everyone I talked to seemed smart enough. They seemed to accept what the role of the planning commissioner is," Williams said. "The one thing that caught my attention was it seemed Ralph would be very thorough."
If approved by a majority of the council, Silberstein would replace Terry Lamphier, whose propensity to speak out frustrated his fellow commission members and led to his removal several weeks ago.
Steve Enos, a former councilman who was considered a leading candidate for the spot, isn't interested, Williams said.
"His dad is terminally ill," Williams said.
Silberstein chose his words carefully Tuesday to express his feelings about the position.
"I'm concerned about the growth and planning issues we have. I would like to be involved," he said.
Silberstein said his experience as a contractor familiarized him with the planning process and he professed his respect for the city's governing document, called a General Plan.
"I'm willing to diligently try to understand (each) project and try to find workable solutions," he said.
"I really feel there's a tendency to sprawl ... I would like to see Grass Valley manage the development so we have a community that allows people to walk, ride bicycles, and take public transportation."
Silberstein lives with his wife, Denise. They have a grown daughter, Brenna.
He is on the board of the Wolf Creek Community Alliance and volunteers with the South Yuba River Citizens League.
The five-member Planning Commission has the authority to review and shape development projects proposed in the city. It will be busy in upcoming months as the city considers annexing four large chunks of land on its outskirts.
ooo
To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.
CABPRO supports project to reopen Grass Valley mine
The Union staff
October 4, 2005
The California Association of Business, Property and Resource Owners - known as CABPRO - announced Monday that it "strongly supports" the plan to reopen Grass Valley's Idaho-Maryland Mine.
The group said a new mine operation would create vital jobs for western Nevada County.
"One reason we support the project is out of respect for local citizens looking for gainful employment here versus commuting to Sacramento," the organization said in a written statement Monday.
"The Idaho-Maryland Mine Project has the potential to provide hundreds of quality jobs to the area."
Members of the public have an opportunity to hear Idaho-Maryland Mining Corp. Director Ross Guenther's progress report on the proposed reopening. CABPRO is hosting a luncheon on Wednesday, Oct. 12, at noon, at Christopher's Catering, 408 Colfax Highway in Grass Valley. The cost is $15 for advance reservations or $18 at the door. Call CABPRO at 478-1331 for reservations.
Charles Durrett brings cohousing to town
By Brittany Retherford
October 4, 2005
Development follows the path of least resistance - just like flowing water, says Nevada City resident Charles Durrett.
As areas open up for new homes and businesses, growth can gush in, leaving sloppy communities in its wake. With high housing prices, such as those in Northern California, those left out of the boom can include senior citizens, families, and even young professionals, who want to be able to buy their own home and know their neighbors.
Durrett and his wife, Katie McCamant, have dedicated their lives to countering such trends by designing affordable and friendly communities clustered together with some shared space.
Such developments - known as "cohousing" - foster a desired and recognized "sense of place," he said, but they also take careful planning, patience and innovative thinking. Otherwise, the result can be sprawl, which Durrett said is generally the easiest way for a region to develop.
Durrett has designed projects throughout the United States, in downtown Auckland, New Zealand, and in Tokyo. He was educated in Denmark, where he met McCamant.
But he feels most at home in Nevada County, the midway point between the two places he knew growing up as a child and the location of his newest cohousing project.
"When you live in Sierra County, Nevada City is the center of the universe," he said. And with a dad living in Sierra County and a mom in Sacramento, Durrett spent time in both places and learned the differences between the two.
What is cohousing?
While cohousing projects vary from city to city, they all share certain characteristics. Some of these include:
• Residents help plan and design the development so it directly responds to their needs.
• The neighborhood’s physical design encourages a sense of community.
• Each household has a private residence with a kitchen but also has access to the common facilities, which include children’s play areas, vegetable gardens, walking trails and a common house.
• Residents are responsible for managing and organizing the community to meet its changing needs.
Source: The Cohousing Company at www.cohousingco.com"I learned what good planning gives you and what bad planning takes away," he said, explaining that this is why he sometimes likes to tell people he attended the "Downieville School of Planning."
After returning to Nevada County with their daughter, Durrett and McCamant designed the Nevada City Cohousing project off Chief Kelly Drive, and he recently completed a report for the Nevada County Board of Supervisors on the viability of "mixed use" development that merges residential and commercial sites.
Both were met with skepticism, which Durrett says is the typical reaction to some of their ideas. At a Sept. 13 meeting of the board, Supervisor Robin Sutherland expressed concern that mixed use in the Penn Valley area might cause vacancy rates to rise. Supervisor Sue Horne was concerned that some people's shopping habits, such as going to Costco, were not considered.
The Nevada City Cohousing project also encountered resistance, which included more than three dozen meetings with government officials.
"When you get into the habit of fighting everything, you just fight everything," Durrett said about the process on a recent afternoon in Cafe Mekka, the coffee shop just below the offices of The CoHousing Company.
But the troubles are nothing new, Durrett said. Most of their projects have faced similar concerns from the opposition, which is wary of change. After the projects are completed, however, minds themselves seem to change and people become supportive, he said.
That is what happened in Nevada City, where people are now on a waiting list to buy a condo in the cohousing project, Durrett said.
As for his future, Durrett has hopes to stay in Nevada City for a long time and plans to move into the cohousing project when it's completed.
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.