Planning -- September Articles in THE UNION

By Becky Trout, beckyt@theunion.com
September 19, 2005

West of Hughes Road, Ridge Road looks much as it has for decades. Sure, there are more houses, a self-storage facility, and a lot more traffic, but vast views of the Deer Creek valley and grassy fields dotted with oaks still dominate the landscape.

The construction of Twin Cities Church, on nearby Rough and Ready Highway, however, portends a building boom of sorts along the once rural road.

Two smaller housing developments and the 355-acre Kenny Ranch, which also proposes a shopping center and office buildings, are all planned for the area.

The smallest of the three housing plans, Ridge Village, proposes about 50 homes on nine acres north of Ridge Road just west of Hughes Road. The project, proposed by a Yuba City developer, could appear before the Grass Valley Planning Commission in October, said Associate Planner Dan Chance.

Across the street would be Berg Heights, 123 houses and a community center on 10 acres. The Planning Commission has expressed concerns about the number of houses, a number chosen to try to lower prices so local families can afford them, developer Rick Kerr has said.

The commission will re-examine Berg Heights on Tuesday.

Many times larger, and further to the west, is Kenny Ranch. Proposed by Phil Lester and Steve Elder, the development could include 96 condos, about 100 larger houses, 100 smaller houses, about 40 apartments, a grocery store, cafe, gas station, building supply store and several office buildings.

The city doesn't anticipate annexing Kenny Ranch - or giving the development a green-light - until 2016.

But representative Brian Bisnett has expressed the developers' desire to start building sooner.

Ridge Road residents and other locals have mixed views about the project.

The city plans to extend sewer service to Berg Heights and the neighborhood, a real plus for some neighbors who have relied on septic systems for years.

Linking to the city's sewer service would be nice, said Wilman Dea, a 25-year-old who lives on Ridge Road. But the convenience might be outweighed by the project's drawbacks, Dea said.

"Getting out of the driveway is near impossible (already)," he said.

Traffic along the road is a problem, said Bernadine Bachli. Her family purchased their Ridge Road land in 1888, when it was a single-lane dirt road.

"Now, it's too bad it's not a four-lane highway," Bachli said.

The developments could bring some less expensive housing to the area, something Dea said he would welcome.

Realtor Paul Sieving has expressed his support of Berg Heights.

"I try to help people find homes they can afford," Sieving said. "I see this project as a real shot in the arm."

The Grass Valley Planning Commission and the City Council will be discussing these three projects in the coming weeks and months. For additional information, contact the city of Grass Valley at 274-4330.

ooo

To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.

By Terry Lamphier
September 17, 2005

The predictable came to pass and I have become another of a growing list of troublesome ex-planning commissioners. As I slip into ‘yesterday’s news,’ I’d like to share a few comments.

All actions that I did as a planning commissioner — and will continue to do as a private citizen — are on behalf of the regular folks who live in, or are affected by, the City of Grass Valley.

I spent the first third of my life in a small town and the next third in one of the largest urban areas in the world. I ended up in this area for many reasons, but first and foremost is that there is a feeling of connectedness. By that, I mean when you go to the store, you will see the same faces, faces who eventually become people and, often, friends. When you drive down the road (at least in some areas here) strangers will wave to you. When someone is in need, there is a huge outpouring of support.

In my opinion, this area is beginning to lose this and before you shrug your shoulders and say it’s inevitable, bear with me.

At the risk of stating the obvious, be aware that we are now in one of the most important phases of Grass Valley (and the county’s) history. Changes every bit as dramatic as the closing of the mines or the move away from timber harvesting are occurring. Our local economy is now being driven by the construction industry — much of that engaged in building houses.

Have you noticed a relationship between the increase in growth and the decrease in civility and quality of life? The one commodity that our area has, now that we are not relying on gold or timber, is our special, beautiful caring place to live. And there are some that would sell out Grass Valley until there is nothing left but another mediocre place to live.

Is growth inevitable? Many of you believe it is and there certainly are huge pressures and at least partially valid reasons to do so. How do you answer the challenges of allowing new people who want to live here or providing housing for the less fortunate?

This leads up to two of the things I asked of the planning commission, City Council and staff before I was fired:

a) can the planning commission have an extra 48 hours to deliberate on pending development proposals and;

b) can we rearrange things so that only one large project is heard and deliberated on by the planning commission in an evening?

As to my third request, I had asked for clarification of the process used to determine how staff selects elements of the General Plan to evaluate or support a pending development project and why other elements of the plan are not used.

Why is this so important?

The City of Grass Valley’s General Plan (the supreme law of the city unless revised or selectively overruled by the City Council) provides the overriding vision — and law — from which all else follows. This includes planning commission decisions and, theoretically, City Council direction.

The General Plan’s “Vision Statement” says: “The General Plan’s goals, objectives, policies, and implementation measures are intended to facilitate a climate of preserving, protecting, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of life we value in Grass Valley. This includes our neighborhoods, commercial and public lands, and area of future expansion.” That’s it. That’s our “Constitution.”

The interpretation of the vision via “goals and objectives” is generally quite good, too, but one of the concerns I raised (which I believe was a part of my being fired) was that there is no objective standard for selecting which of the several — and often contradictory — elements of the General Plan to use when evaluating a large project, such as Berg Heights and the land use of the surrounding Ridge Road area.

After my firing, I was very tempted to take the low road and, using the city’s own documents regarding procedures and Code of Conduct, systematically take apart the City Council and the planning commission chair’s behavior, process, arguments and conclusions resulting in my firing. I will simply leave it at that:

a) it would be easy to do and:

b) the Council took the best action that they could — allowing me my “day in court” would have been even more damaging to them than the action they took of denying me due process and;

c) these people know what they did (look at additional information about the situation at The Union’s Web site or simply look at the Council tape and observe the body language of the Council members who voted me off). They will have to live with it — and my conscience is clear.

One last thing ... please get involved!

Terry Lamphier is a former Grass Valley planning commissioner.

The following article appeared in The Union on the same Ideas & Opinions page as the ones above and below, but was not posted in theunion.com. It dawned on me today, 9/23/2005, that the article might be on the Grass Valley web site, which it is. It probably was not on theunion.com because they simply lifted it from the GV site, and theunion.com does not post articles they get elsewhere. For example, they print articles from the Sierra Sun but they don't post them. However, they give a link to the Sierra Sun web site so I wonder why they didn't give a link to Tassone's article on the GV site?

Author

Topic: Role of a Planning Commissioner

Bobbi
Administrator

posted 09-16-2005 01:36 PM

The Role of a Planning Commissioner
By Mayor Gerard Tassone

First before I describe the role of a Planning Commissioner it is important to first understand the role of the Planning Commission. The City of Grass, being a Charter City, contains a provision within the Charter establishing a Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission is a permanent committee made up of five individuals who have been appointed by the City Council to review and act on matters related to planning and development. Commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council so commission membership may change in response to changes in the City Council.

The Planning Commission plays a central role in the planning process in three important ways.

First, as defined by the City Charter and City Ordinance, "the Planning Commission shall act as a consulting and advisory board to the City Council and shall make recommendations in an advisory capacity..... or in a final capacity on matters so enacted by the City Council."

Second, the commission assures that the general plan is implemented by reviewing development applications on a case-by-case basis. A Planning Commission should work toward implementing the vision of the community and the City Council for the future as expressed in the City's General Plan.

Third, the Commission functions as the decision-making body for many proposals. The Commission should work toward their decisions from a set of principles, the General Plan and policy documents to ensure fairness, consistency and effectiveness.

However, please note, any planning commission action can be appealed to the City Council, which can uphold the commission’s decision, overturn it, modify it, or send it back for further study.

This gives the basic principles of an effective Planning Commission. That being the case, what is the role of a Planning Commissioner and what skills should a Planning Commissioner possess?

First let me state what is NOT the role of a Planning Commissioner: A Planning Commissioner is not authorized to (and should not) fly the flag of elected authority or carry on any manipulative pushing and pulling that characterize "playing politics".

A planning commissioner exercises considerable power over how a community grows and develops. With this power comes the expectation that a commissioner will hold themselves to the highest ethical standards. This is probably the most important role for a Planning Commissioner. Being ethical means exercising their power in the public’s best interests, as opposed to personal self-interests or other narrow, private interests.

Just because an action is legal doesn’t mean that it is ethical. Our community wants to feel that a Planning Commissioner is able to put the community’s interests ahead of their personal loyalties?

Another source of guidance for ethics and behavior is the City’s Code of Conduct. The City’s Code of Conduct serves as a guidepost in local decision-making and behavior. This same Code of Conduct also applies to the City Council as well.

When making decisions a Planning Commissioner should always ask themselves the following two questions:

What decision best reflects my responsibility as a commissioner to serve the interests of the community as a whole? and

What decision will best promote public confidence in the Planning Commission and my leadership?

At some point a planning commissioner will likely face many common types of ethical dilemmas. The bottom line is that being ethical means doing the right thing for the community regardless of personal costs.

Skills that are important for a Planning Commissioner are:

Civic-mindedness - An interest in planning - Objectivity and an open mind to new ideas – Ability to listen - Ability to express oneself clearly and concisely in public - Enough free time to adequately prepare for meetings - No conflicts of interest - Ability to make a decision without burdens - Ability to define “What's at Issue” on any matter requiring a decision - Ability to keep the “Big Picture” in perspective - Ability to take an initiative on policy issues. Be willing to participate in discussions and activities that advance the community - Ability to work with a group to achieve general agreement or consensus on community issues.

Finally a Planning Commissioner must have good working relationships with other planning Commission members, as well as with planning staff, other city staff, the city council, applicants, consultants, and the public. It is essential that a Planning Commissioner have the ability to treat the public with respect and demonstrate courtesy and professionalism in such a public role. This is critical in order for a planning commissioner to be efficient and effective.

Pat Butler , September 17, 2005

It’s apparent that Terry Lamphier wanted to be an effective planning commissioner for the city of Grass Valley.

But did he cross a line in his zeal? Was it his sometimes admittedly undiplomatic approach that got him into trouble, or was there more to it? What does his dismissal mean for his replacement and others on this vital body? And, finally, what should we expect from a commission that will be reviewing plans for four special development areas that someday could bring thousands of new homes to the immediate area?

Lamphier was dismissed Tuesday night on a 3-2 vote by the City Council, ending a tumultuous six months on the planning commission. He dodged a similar fate earlier after some councilors accused of him violating the city’s code of conduct for writing Other Voice columns that appeared on these pages but contained inaccurate information.

On a night when many thought the council was planning to end his time on the commission, Lamphier was instead given a stern talking to by the mayor and some other councilors about how he should conduct himself in his new position.

Lamphier apologized and was spared the vote. The council then decided to review the code of conduct to see if it was too restrictive on issues of free speech.

It wasn’t Lamphier’s first apology and it wouldn’t be his last. He’s also known as a planning commissioner who asks lots of questions at meetings and of city staff. So many so that it raises questions about his level of preparedness or his commitment to getting large projects through the process.

This was clearly beginning to grate on the nerves of people like Gloria Hyde, the planning commission chairwoman who requested that Lamphier be removed after a particularly grueling meeting in August (theunion.com has copies of the correspondence).

Dean Williams, a first-term councilman who ran unopposed, nominated Lamphier for the planning commission. Williams said in an interview with The Union before he was elected that he would support only one of the four special development areas.

That’s making your position “read my lips” clear.

Lamphier, a well-known slow-growth proponent, then was selected by the City Council to fill a spot on the five-member planning commission. These people all serve at the pleasure of the council, as they like to say. This gives the council the right to hire and fire. No one disputes that.

So Lamphier found himself in a sensitive position when he joined the planning commission. He never wavered, however, in his approach and ultimately it cost him a job he dearly wanted to keep.

The first question that comes to my mind, and I know this will sound rather naive, is whether politics should play a role on a planning commission? In other words, should Lamphier have been expected to represent Williams’ viewpoint? Or should a planning commissioner be expected to be more of a technician or referee who makes sure projects fit the parameters of the City Council-approved General Plan?

Of course, the problem with the General Plan is that it seems to be a moving target, which might be unavoidable for a community facing such intense growth pressures.

This was made obvious by the recent report on the special development areas. In the volunminous document, the General Plan’s parameters were one of three options for city officials to evaluate when determing how to proceed with these four projects.

Some will no doubt say that Lamphier is a victim of politics. I’ve heard of Tuesday night’s meeting being referred to as a lynching, which sounds a bit dramatic to me even if it’s in a metaphorical sense. But the sentiment it reflects is that there’s a concern the City Council does not want strong, independent voices on the planning commission.

Others have said that Lamphier did not trust the process and was gobbling up reams of staff time and extending meetings with his persistent questioning and tendency to make long statements.

Lamphier himself acknowledges that he could have been more diplomatic. “I’m weak on style but strong on substance,” he told me hours before the City Commission meeting on Tuesday.

In the end, Mayor Gerard Tassone and councilors Patti Ingram and Lisa Swarthout cast the deciding votes while saying they had lost confidence in Lamphier. Councilors Mark Johnson and Williams voted to keep Lamphier on the commission.

Lamphier’s past apologies and admission that he has been a bit of a thorn in the process makes it difficult to determine if he’s a victim in this case or that we now have iron-clad proof that the City Council is going to submit to developers’ ultimate wishes without any sort of encumbrance.

I don’t believe the process can work that way in Grass Valley. These four projects will take center stage in our community and with that comes a tremendous amount of scrutiny. I’m sure the City Council expects nothing less.

And the newspaper will be among those watching the process with keen interest.

ooo

If you haven’t already noticed, the mayor has written an Other Voices column that appears on this page. I asked him on Wednesday evening if he would write a piece that explains what he believes is the proper role for a planning commissioner. Lamphier has submitted yet another Other Voices column that appears below the mayor’s column. As most of you know, there’s a limit to the number of Other Voice columns that we will publish from any one contributor, but I’m making an exception in this case due to the topic we’re exploring and Lamphier’s role in it.

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.

Becky Trout
Staff writer, beckyt@theunion.com
September 14, 2005

For more than a year, the fate of 1,636 acres of undeveloped land near Grass Valley has hovered in limbo, waiting for the release of a consultant’s report.

Tuesday, that report — which analyzes the effects of adding hundreds of houses and a considerable amount of business space to the city — was released, surely launching a months-long public examination of Grass Valley’s future.

The report makes no specific recommendations about the development of Loma Rica, Kenny Ranch, North Star or SouthHill Village, the four large land areas slated for development in the city’s 1999 governing document.

(Sorry about the crappy reproduction; that's the way it is in the 88-page report -- Herb)

And it contains few surprises, several city leaders said Tuesday. The report has been in the works since 2003. It was commissioned then by the previous council to help reconcile the city’s plan for the land — outlined in its governing document, called a General Plan — with the hopes of four developers.

The four development companies — two local, one from Sacramento, and one from Oregon — would like to build 3,463 more residences and 2 million fewer square feet of business space than proposed by the city.

The report compares the developers’ plans, the city’s current plan, and a third “balanced” alternative.

Either of the three scenarios would provide plenty of money for the city, the report states.

But it is the third, “balanced” plan that would retain the city’s ratio of the number of jobs to the number of residences. To offer 1.7 jobs for every residence in the city, the four developments would need to construct 1.07 million square feet of business space (about four Nevada Union High Schools) and 1,139 residences, the report states.

It does not suggest a method of distributing the suggested number of residences between the four developments, which vary in size from the 66-acre SouthHill Village to the 762-acre North Star.

North Star developer Sandy Sanderson of Bend, Ore., said the 1.7 figure — which allows for only 1,139 residences — was selected to favor slow-growth.

“If the community wants to be an elitist community, we can make an elitist community out of (North Star),” said Sanderson,, adding that he will probably make a larger profit if that was the case.

He said he would prefer, however, to construct a “middle-class” community with amenities — his current plan for the property.

The 1.7 figure is the city’s current ratio and is stronger than the ratio of 1.5 suggested by the state, the report says. In addition, with only a .7 ratio, western Nevada County needs more jobs.

Sanderson said he isn’t sure what the council will eventually decide — “I’m just going to wait like everybody else.”

Next, the city will hold three to five public meetings to discuss the report and its plans for the four developments, Mayor Gerard Tassone said.

Then, the council will need to accept the report and its assumptions, said Community Development Director Joe Heckel. It will then need to determine whether to stick with the General Plan, adopt the report’s “balanced” scenario, accept the developers’ plans, or allow some combination of the three.

Currently, the General Plan has the most weight, Councilman Mark Johnson said.

“I would speculate right at this point in time from the city’s standpoint (we will) try to adhere to the General Plan as much as possible and (its) time frames,” Tassone said.

“We just have to take it step by step,” said Tassone, adding that he hopes to keep the process moving because everyone involved has been waiting for more than a year.

To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.

Economic and fiscal conditions story for the City of Grass Valley (.pdf)

By Becky Trout, beckyt@theunion.com
September 13, 2005

Although it leads to Ott's Assay office - one of the city's key historic structures - Nevada City's Union Street isn't a top spot for tourists or locals these days.

The stubby street at the base of the hill links Broad Street with Coyote, Main and Commercial streets. It is the address of Calanan Park and a closed gas station.

"You just walk past to get somewhere else," said Nevada City City Councilman David McKay Monday.

McKay and three of his fellow councilmembers voted Monday to pursue a plan that would expand Beryl Robinson Plaza, the small historical space that sits at the dead-end of Commercial Street - potentially enlivening the central street.

Two parking spaces would be moved, the ground would be cobbled or paved, a flag pole and lighting would be added, and the Pelton wheel would be moved toward the freeway, said architect Bruce Boyd, who along with Mayor Conley Weaver has donated his services to the effort.

"(It's) a simple design - it's not a park, it's a plaza," Boyd said.

The project would be timed to coincide with the revival of the gas station's property, Weaver said. A building with stores, offices and apartments atop a parking garage is planned to replace the defunct gas station.

Councilwoman Sally Harris called the plaza's expansion a "unique opportunity."

The city has not had to pay anything so far, Weaver said. The final financing - which could be split with the developer of the gas station, Tintle Inc. - will be determined when plans are further along, Weaver said.

In other business, the council agreed to accept the partial donation of a 20,000-pound stamp mill - twice the size of the mill in Robinson Plaza. A private individual is willing to sell the mill, valued at $49,000, to the city for $15,000, said City Manager Mark Miller.

The Native Sons of the Golden West have offered to help the city obtain the money if the city agrees to display the mill in a public place, Miller said.

Monday evening, the council agreed to display the mill. However, it did not agree to site the mill at Hirschman's Pond, as suggested by Miller.

Miller said he will ask the Native Sons if the council's decision meets its requirements.

ooo

To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.

Becky Trout
Staff writer, beckyt@theunion.com
September 13, 2005

Terry Lamphier, Grass Valley’s embattled planning commissioner, learned of his potential dismissal after returning to town Friday evening from his father’s funeral on the East Coast.

And now, just days after learning that commission Chairwoman Gloria Hyde has called for his resignation or ouster, Lamphier is preparing to defend his appointed seat at tonight’s council meeting.

At issue is Lamphier’s behavior at a mid-August meeting, where the panel discussed the environmental report for Berg Heights — a housing development proposed for Ridge Road. A letter he wrote following the meeting has also upset several city leaders.

“(Lamphier is) an increasingly non-productive and unsettling member of the commission,” Hyde wrote in a letter to the mayor, which prompted tonight’s evaluation of Lamphier’s seat.

Although Lamphier admits he isn’t flawless, neither he nor his appointing City Councilman Dean Williams feels he deserves removal.

Instead of calling for Lamphier’s removal, Williams said, Hyde should have approached Lamphier personally to discuss her concerns.

Hyde said her letter expresses all of her thoughts on the issue — “It’s pretty clear,” she said Monday, declining to discuss the issue further.

“I’m strong on substance (but there’s a) learning curve for me on aspects of being a politician,” Lamphier said.

Lamphier concedes that he didn’t have enough time to prepare for the Aug. 16 meeting, but he said that his reluctance to approve the environmental report for Berg Heights was based on valid concerns.
Hyde isn’t the only city leader who favors removing Lamphier.

Lamphier has made factual mistakes, requested that the city provide commissioners with information for meetings several days earlier, and expressed a lack of confidence in city staffers, said Mayor Gerard Tassone.

Lamphier denies criticizing city staffers and admits to only two factual mistakes, both of which he considers minor.

The planning commissioner’s review was prompted by “a host of things that keep evolving,” Tassone said.

“You’ve got to have someone on there whose cooperative. He’s just not being cooperative.”

Lamphier’s lack of time is a concern for councilwomen Patti Ingram and Lisa Swarthout.

“If you don’t have the time to do community service, than you probably shouldn’t do it,” Swarthout said.

“Everyone else finds the time,” Ingram said.

Williams feels the reasons for Lamphier’s troubles extend beyond the commissioner’s business or his outspoken nature, although his frequent opinion columns in The Union haven’t won him favor with city officials.

“One strong message has come through — for some people, their opinion of the role of a planning commissioner is that a planning commissioner should not express his personal views; that should be reserved to the mayor,” Williams said.

But Lamphier probably wouldn’t be facing termination if his columns “had come out and had glowing praise for things the city has done,” Williams said.

In Lamphier’s several “Other Voices” columns, he has questioned the city’s handling of several development projects.

If Lamphier manages to keep his spot on the commission, he said he plans to schedule a meeting with Hyde.

“We’ve got to find some common ground,” Lamphier said.
And if his spot is taken away, it’s back to regular life for Lamphier, a regular life that includes, of course, controversial columns in The Union.

Williams said he has a backup planning commissioner selected, but he wasn’t ready to release that person’s name Monday.

To contact staff writer Becky Trout, e-mail beckyt@theunion.com or call 477-4234.

If you have time for a 4+ MB download, a 12-page collection of Lamphier's stuff is available at:

By Jeff Ackerman, jeffa@theunion.com
September 13, 2005

Now that Grass Valley city officials have their long-awaited economic impact study on the four large proposed development projects (that call for a combined 4,111 new homes), I hope they'll show some leadership and silence the "sky-is-falling" alarmists who would have us believe that thousands of new homes will be built by the time we wake up tomorrow.

The economic impact study was paid for by the four principals involved in the four proposed annexations, or Special Development Areas (SDAs). City officials rightfully wanted the Berkeley-based company to prepare the study before deciding how the four major developments work, or don't work, within Grass Valley's General Plan, which was designed to guide us through the year 2020.

In the meantime, fears have continued to mount that all four projects would be approved at any moment, bringing thousands of newcomers to our area and traffic to a standstill. Hence, the spawning of organizations with acronyms that generally include an "C" for "Citizens" and an "A" for "Against." I'm seriously considering a CAC, or "Citizens Against Citizens," or CAA, "Citizens Against Acronyms."

It's time for someone at City Hall to let its own citizens know that Grass Valley will maintain a general plan that recognizes the need to manage growth while maintaining a vibrant economic foundation. Many fail to realize that the foundation of any quality community is an ability to afford one. Which is why we need businesses and jobs that contribute to the tax base.

The first thing the city needs to do is remind the alarmists that its General Plan currently calls for only an additional 648 new homes over the next 15 years and that it is unlikely it will amend that plan to accommodate all, or even half, of the 4,111 homes included within the four proposed developments (Loma Rica Ranch, Kenny Ranch, North Star and SouthHill Village). In other words, it's probably time for the city to tell at least two of the four developers that their respective projects will not be annexed into Grass Valley. At least as currently proposed.

We must all realize that growth will happen whether we are for or against it. If you don't want growth, move to North Dakota, where nobody wants to live. The question is how we will grow, which is why Grass Valley officials have taken so long to study its general plan in relationship to the four projects.

The city understands, too, that there is much more involved in the process than simply telling the four developers to go away. There is always the possibility that those projects could get approved by the county, without annexation, and that the city would then be stuck with the costs to accommodate the traffic and other impacts those projects would certainly have on Grass Valley's infrastructure. That would also, as the study points out, likely result in "low density sprawl" outside of Grass Valley.

There is an advantage to growing within the city's sphere of influence. Nevada County's traditional pattern of approving projects with half-acre or one-acre parcels spread throughout the foothills has only contributed to the traffic and high housing costs. The only effective way to provide low-cost housing is through high density located within walking or biking distances from services and jobs.

The economic study makes three recommendations:

1. Require jobs/housing balance and fiscal impact report for any land development project that needs a general plan change. "Each SDA property owner (developer) should be required to prepare a report that would inform City Staff and Council about the jobs/housing balance and fiscal impacts of their proposed (project)," reads the study.

2. Require any proposed new retail project to submit an economic impact analysis on the downtown. "Property owners that request a land use change and General Plan amendment in order to develop new commercial retail space should also analyze the economic impacts on the existing downtown district, and other City retail centers," reads the report. If you haven't noticed, downtown Grass Valley has been thriving under the direction of Howard Levine and his downtown association.

3. The final land-use mix in each SDA should be determined after the completion of each individual economic and fiscal impact study and EIR (Environmental Impact Review). "The final approval should also include the consideration of all environmental, traffic and land-use planning issues," reads the report.

As Grass Valley looks to what it wants to become, it's important to know what it has become. According to the study, 76 percent of the homes in western Nevada County are owner-occupied, compared to only 44 percent in Grass Valley. That means Grass Valley continues to be home to the "working class" that has been priced out of the housing market. It was much the same in the Gold Rush days, when the mine owners and managers lived in Nevada City, while the miners and service providers (shop keepers, etc.) lived in Grass Valley.

In the end, any future development of Grass Valley must provide an opportunity for young families to share in the quality of life we so desperately seek to protect. Let's hope Grass Valley's leadership uses this latest study to lead its citizens from an era of paranoia and suspicion to one of enlightenment through thoughtful planning.

Jeff Ackerman is the publisher of The Union. His column appears on Tuesdays. Contact him at 477-4299, jeffa@theunion.com, or 464 Sutton Way, Grass Valley 95945.