THE UNION Articles on
Planning -- December 2005
Get real on affordable housing, Dana Reed, December 26, 2005
Chapa De project resurfaces, Brittany Retherford, December 21, 2005
Clock Tower Project gets green light, Brittany Retherford, December 21, 2005
Home prices still sizzle, Brittany Retherford, December 20, 2005
Healthy growth possible, Terry Lamphier, December 19, 2005
...impact of growth on our economy, Terry Lamphier, December 15, 2005
Joint session planned on SDAs, Brittany Retherford, December 14, 2005
Office ban one step closer to a reality, Brittany Retherford, December 14, 2005
Affordable housing ideas, Beverly Pack, December 12, 2005
Wildwood Ridge consultants back to the table, Brittany Retherford, December 9, 2005
Nevada City approves first-floor office ban, Brittany Retherford, December 9, 2005
Council against project, Brittany Retherford, December 1, 2005
Get real on affordable housing
By Dana Reed
December 26, 2005Affordable housing is certainly a hot topic these days. Many people wring their hands and lament the lack of it in Nevada County, yet the undeniable economic principle of supply and demand seems to be (deliberately?) overlooked. It's just this simple; if you really want lower housing prices, then the supply must be increased, and that can only be achieved by new development.
Every time a new housing project is denied due to objections about increased traffic, developers' greed, open space, etc., the housing supply is constrained and the result is higher prices. So, all you greenies, haters of developers and real estate agents, lovers of open space and rural quality of life, understand that your efforts against new development directly cause increased housing prices. It's hypocritical to oppose development and desire affordable housing at the same time; the two objectives are mutually exclusive. And please don't propose government intervention as the solution. Why? Treat yourself to a Christmas present and buy "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. He discusses rent control and government price controls in detail and explains why they fail every time they're tried.
Dana Reed, Nevada City
By Brittany Retherford
Staff writer
December 21, 2005Proponents of a new Chapa De Indian Health Program's facility on Sierra College Drive have not given up despite its beleaguered past with the city of Grass Valley.
The 28,000 square foot project resurfaced Tuesday evening in a study session at a Planning Commission meeting. Calling it one of the best, and most-needed projects he's worked on in his 47 years as a land use planner, Andy Cassano of Nevada City Engineering urged city officials to work with the nonprofit organization to find a way to make the project a reality.
"Once in a great while you have a project that really goes to help people," he said. "I am very proud to work on this."
The project initially faced opposition because of an increase in traffic on East Main Street and Idaho-Maryland Road. However, there were also concerns that perhaps the project was too large and would serve only a small group of residents.
Cassano said that the project would also serve low-income residents and not just Native Americans.
To address the issue of traffic, the planners proposed trimming the hours the clinic would be open, closing at 3:30 p.m. The Union was not able to hear the planning commissioner's opinions or further questions on the project due to deadline.
Because it was a study session, however, no decisions were expected Tuesday evening.
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Clock Tower Project gets green light from planning commission
By Brittany Retherford
Staff writer
December 21, 2005Rebuffing concerns raised by neighborhood residents, the Grass Valley planning commission approved the mixed use "Clock Tower Project" on Berryman Lane and South Auburn Street Tuesday evening.
Several who spoke called the project an "eyesore" and "too massive" despite revisions made by the developer, Rasor and Associates.
"It is still inappropriate for the neighborhood. It is an albatross to us and our neighborhood," said Chris McCall, a resident of South Auburn Street.
All seven residents who spoke asked the city to consider delaying their decision so more of their concerns could be addressed.
The planning commission opted instead to approve the project in a 3-1 vote, with a few minor changes, including the additions of a sidewalk and a 6-foot fence along Berryman Lane, and a few window design alterations.
The project includes two buildings, one comprised of three condo units and another for office and retail use.
Prior to the meeting, the project had been downsized, with the major change being the elimination of the namesake 400-square-foot clock tower building.
Still, residents raised concerns the project was still too large and would infringe upon the unique character of the neighborhood - particularly the residential structure.
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
By Brittany Retherford
December 20, 2005Every six hours during the month of October, a house was sold somewhere in western Nevada County.
That's a total of 131 homes in 31 days, according to data tracked by DataQuick.com, a real estate industry news service. While this might sound healthy, it is down from the month of August, when one home changed hands every five.
Experts in the industry are saying this apparent drop, however, is not a slowing of the market, but rather a crazy market "correcting" itself and that the future still looks bright for Nevada County.
"We have enjoyed the last five years, a very rapid market, that to a certain degree was unrealistic and people were realizing huge profitable gains that they'd never seen before," said Mimi Simmons, owner of ERA Cornerstone Realty and a major seller in the county.
Homeowners were experiencing on average 20 to 30 percent gains in the price of their homes - nearly 15 times the amount in a normal market, where homeowners typically see two and three percent gains per year.
For example, the median price a Nevada City home sold for in October was $500,000 - that's up from $389,000 in October 2004, a change of nearly 29 percent. That's different from August, where a the median sale was 43 percent higher than August 2004.
The change - and unpredictability - does affect homebuyers and sellers, however, who have relied on a fast-paced market when determining when to sell, and then, when to buy.
Diane Sackl, who owns a home in Lake Wildwood said she is thankful she and her husband, bought and sold when they did - in early September. If they had waited, she said, their decision to take a chance might have turned into trouble.
Sackl is a Walnut Creek resident who spends weekends in Nevada County, she said. Their plan is to hopefully retire here someday, she said, and so had been searching for a lakefront home.
Sackl said they found one over Labor Day weekend and, "to get it, we took a chance and made an offer with no contingencies. It seemed back then (just a few months ago) that the market was hot and we couldn't let the opportunity pass. It was a gamble, but hubris set in. And the real estate gods were with us. Five days after we listed our original home, we sold it for our asking price," she said.
While the risk was worth it then, it might not have been possible now when homes are on the market longer.
"We are well aware that this scenario would not be happening in today's market, just three months later. Both houses closed on the same day in October. We had luck on our side," she said.
Skip Lusk, president of the Nevada County Board of Realtors, said that not only have homes been on the market longer, but there are less listings and fewer offers, which does have an impact.
"There became fewer and fewer listings, then you begin to lose the people who wanted to sell," he said. "There are always a group who will wait until the market changes, but some people have to sell."
Still, the future looks good.
"It's come down a little bit, but we are still going to have a strong 2006," said Bill Papola, co-owner and broker with Network Realty, a company that has more than 70 agents in five offices throughout the county.
"I've been doing this since 1973," he said, "I've been through major recessions in '81 and one in '90. We are not going into a recession. We are getting into a typical normal slowdown."
Lusk attributed the changes to a variety of factors, such as several increases in interest rates at the federal level. There have also been fluctuations in the mortgage rates, although not as much, he said.
Ultimately, however, the most important factor is whether demand will continue to supersede supply, which Lusk says it likely will.
"There is a housing demand in California that hasn't changed irrespective of the market."
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail or call 477-4247.
By Terry Lamphier
December 19, 2005Can we have slow growth, affordable housing, a healthy sustainable economy and time to fix traffic issues.
The City of Grass Valley 2003-2009 Housing Element, adopted January 2004, states: "Grass Valley is responsible for accommodating 1,448 additional housing units between 2001 and 2009, of which 535 units should be affordable to very low and low-income households, approximately 37 percent of Grass Valley's total share of regional housing needs."
If this was implemented:
• less housing development would occur (each house built costs every taxpayer citywide about $500/year in taxes).
• which would allow time and money to fix traffic problems, and,
• we'd have actual guaranteed housing to those frozen out of the market.
What are the problems?
• It could be an instant ghetto, unless the housing is mixed into a development with all price ranges of housing. We have to stop choosing between ghettos and gated communities and start choosing real neighborhoods.
• Developers would complain they couldn't make it pay. Projects can pay as long as Nevada County housing remains $220K less than Placer County. Berg Heights developers offered 100 percent affordable housing by carrying $12 to $25 million in second mortgages. That's financial flexibility.
Terry Lamphier, Grass Valley
Other Voices: Looking at the impact of growth on our economy
Terry Lamphier
December 15, 2005Note from Herb: In my opinion, most of this article is nonsense, but Terry brings enough truth into his arguments to sway members of the public who are already leaning his way. What bothers me most is that he concludes so much with so little knowledge. But please, come to your own conclusion.
As we head into this important phase of our county’s direction and what it means to those of us who value our unique area’s quality of life, I’d like to take this opportunity to attempt to sort out some myths and facts regarding local growth issues and our economy.
1) “We need jobs.” Actually, our county has a relatively low unemployment rate, much lower than the state’s average.
Unfortunately, many of the jobs don’t pay well enough to make home ownership possible. One well-paying exception is the construction industry, which is, in the words of a prominent local engineer and project consultant, responsible for “50 to 60 percent of the local economy.” However, this boom comes at a cost, possibly a big one.
In the opinion of this engineer, rapid buildout, especially if the several proposed huge new developments are all approved, will lead to a collapse of the construction and general economy in a few short years — comparable to the effects of ending mining and timbering operations.
This is an excellent argument for opposing big growth and supporting extended, incremental growth, which could keep the local construction industry “sustainable” indefinitely.
2) “We need affordable housing.” Well, yes we do, as does most of the West Coast and many other parts of the country. But the free-market approach — volume discounts, or build a lot to take pressure off prices — is faulty, because as long as local housing is dramatically less expensive than Placer County, people will still move here, buy up stock and keep prices high. And free market “affordable housing” is still not “affordable,” in any case.
The city of Grass Valley is currently using government intervention to guarantee that at least some of the housing being built is truly affordable, because the housing is to be sold at prices that real Grass Valley residents can afford — and preference is given to locals. However, the current standard of 20 percent set-asides for this program should be boosted to about 37 percent to meet state guidelines as to needs versus current practice.
This would have the effect of slowing new construction, which would allow time to address our growing traffic problems and to provide more local home ownership.
3) “It is in the city of Grass Valley’s best interests to annex the proposed large developments.” The arguments are that the city can impose development standards to maximize revenue and minimize negative impacts.
The first argument has been blown out of the water by the recently released “Economic and Fiscal Conditions Study for the City of Grass Valley,” the long-awaited, city-ordered final report. I have only gone into the large report’s first few pages, specifically, “Impacts of Land Use Alternative No. 1: Retain 2020 General Plan Land Use Requirements for the SDA’s” (Special Development Areas/proposed large annexations). This alternative provides more than double the tax revenue of the next best alternative — modify the SDAs’ proposals — and almost five times the tax revenues expected if the SDAs were to be approved as proposed. Also, the reports states, “the retention of the 2020 land use requirements for the SDA’s may strengthen Grass Valley’s position as a regional employment center.”
As to mitigating negative impacts, one argument put forth is that if the SDAs were not annexed by the city and were developed under county regulations, it would result in less dense development that would encourage “sprawl.” What is sprawl? Allegedly, in our case, we would get estate homes on large lots inhabited by commuters and retirees, with little or no provision for parks, design controls over commercial development and the like.
Well, estate homes have a neutral or positive effect on the tax base, reducing the pressure on public agencies to raise taxes for schools, police, fire, etc. And apparently the state of California is implementing new septic system standards that may put a real dampening on new construction in rural areas, so we are unlikely to get huge new developments outside of any city limits. If we can get the county on board to require true and significant affordable housing set-asides on any proposed large developments and get the city of Grass Valley to stick with the General Plan, we can get housing for those who need it, with a balanced and sustainable economy, while having time to address traffic problems.
As far as I can tell, the only true beneficiaries of big growth are out-of-town developers. We need our local leaders to stand up for us and “just say no!”
Terry Lamphier lives in Grass Valley
Council split on public review process
Brittany Retherford
December 14, 2005With four large developments looming on Grass Valley's horizon, the city's elected officials met Tuesday evening to settle on a strategy for how they want to actually begin dealing with them.
After several minutes of tense discussion, the only step the five council members could come to consensus on was to hold a joint session with the planning commission "as quickly as feasibly possible" to address the 2020 General Plan, the city's governing document. The urgency was part of the motion made by Councilwoman Patti Ingram to go forward to discuss changes that may be needed before processing applications from the special development areas, or SDAs.
The idea is to lay out exactly what the town's vision is, with input from the public.
The city's development director, Joe Heckel, outlined four possible "doors" - or options - the elected officials could open when discussing the general plan, along with a five-step public review process.
The options ranged from sticking fast to the general plan - which immediately tosses out a few SDAs because they don't currently mesh; to doing a total update of the plan - which could be costly and time-consuming.
This is where the conversation turned quarrelsome.
Mayor Gerard Tassone and Ingram proposed permanently throwing out a total plan update.
"I will bet you dollars to donuts that you are not going to get a four-fifths vote to do a (comprehensive) update to the general plan. (Let's not) go down those paths if we don't need to," Tassone said.
Ingram agreed, saying that the only reason it even was an option was because a member of the public brought it up during public comment.
"It was a comment that was made by someone who would probably really enjoy watching us do a comprehensive update. It would cost us two years and a lot of money," she said.
But Councilman Mark Johnson said he doesn't have enough information yet to totally toss out that option.
"Eventually we will want to go open up one of those doors. I think we really need to review (our options) and what our vision is and how to get there. I like the concept that Joe has outlined for us," he said.
Johnson later argued that the proposed five-step process - which would include the joint session, town hall meetings, and presentations on each of the SDAs by the developers - was key to ensuring the public had a say.
This was also important to Councilman Dean Williams, who said, "I am also aware that there are people out there, experts that could help us with engaging (the public) so that the whole community takes ownership."
Councilwoman Lisa Swarthout said there are several bigger picture issues she'd like the public to address before amending the general plan, such as a transportation scheme and the city's sphere of influence.
"That needs to be driven through a community process, not a developer process," she said.
No date was set for the joint session with the planning commission.
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Office ban one step closer to a reality
Brittany Retherford
December 14, 2005The firestorm surrounding a freeze on any offices from opening at street level in Nevada City's downtown seems to have significantly subsided now that it's just one step away from becoming a law.
The Nevada City council focused Monday night on suggestions that had been made by the Planning Commission on the proposed ordinance. Some of those included restricting the ban to only real estate offices and eliminating conditional-use permits.
The majority of council members disregarded several of those suggestions, said Councilman Kerry Arnett.
City Manager Mark Miller said Mayor Conley Weaver expressed concern that restricting the ordinance to only real estate offices was illegal or even unconstitutional.
However, Miller said Tuesday that he does not believe this is the case.
"What the law says is you cannot discriminate, but the law also says you can limit the number of any particular use. Local land-use authority is a fundamental right of government and the Supreme Court has upheld that," the city manager said.
City Attorney Jim Anderson was not present at the meeting, nor was available for comment Tuesday.
The majority of the council members, however, agreed with the Planning Commission's suggestions to change the map that defines the area where the ordinance will be in effect.
Some of these changes included removing upper Spring Street and Mill Street from the map and including the nub at the bottom of Main Street, where the Chamber of Commerce is located. The area of Main Street up to the fire station museum was included, as was Pine Street from Commercial Street up to Washington Street.
They also voted to keep the Planning Commission's suggestion to allow for current office owners to sell their businesses without requiring buyers to apply for special permission to continue the use.
This atmosphere at Monday's meeting was a striking contrast from the one that has existed the past two months, since four members of City Council said they would support the idea. During these meetings, which took place in October and November, City Hall was packed.
A public hearing was held just prior to the ordinance's first reading and only two residents - one of whom is a planning commissioner - spoke out, according to city officials. No one spoke when the Planning Commission addressed the topic Dec. 9.
If no substantial changes are made to the ordinance, it will be read a second time by the City Council following a public hearing Jan. 9, 2006. Thirty days later the new prohibition will go into effect. A moratorium on new offices from opening continues to be in effect until March 25, 2006.
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Beverley Pack
December 12, 2005First of all, Nevada County, Grass Valley and Nevada City all need to face the fact that the tremendous need for affordable housing is not going to go away. Most of the people needing affordable housing are already citizens of this county, and it is unfair, under the guise of "causing traffic problems," to penalize our working people from having a homes of their own.
Zoning laws need to provide, immediately, a new zoning classification for "Mobile Home Parks" - both for families and senior citizens. Manufactured housing has improved tremendously in the last few years by using quality materials and including the availability of an attached garage. Land, zoned for mobile homes, could be subdivided where buyers could purchase the space, or it could be a "resident owned" park where a corporation is formed and the residents can voluntarily purchase a share and thus have a hand in controlling the rents, or buyers could place their own units on a lot and pay a monthly rental. Affordable housing could be provided for all income groups in a very reasonable time frame.
Beverley Pack, Grass Valley
Wildwood Ridge consultants back to the table
By Brittany Retherford
December 9, 2005A consultant's failure to answer questions raised by residents during a June public hearing for the "Wildwood Ridge Phase II" subdivision project will force the consultant's firm back to the table for two more weeks.
The Nevada County Planning Commission ruled Thursday that the consultant needs to treat these concerns with as much weight as those expressed in dozens of letters that were received in response to the project's draft environmental impact report.
"I think if somebody goes through all the effort to come to a meeting and speak, it should be recognized," said Commissioner Bob Jensen. He also said that a few of his own questions from that meeting were never answered.
Holly Keeler, a senior associate consultant with the Chico-based firm Pacific Municipal Associates said they will return on Dec. 22 with responses to the June 2 minutes and planning commissioner's questions.
"We'll make it happen, if that is the wish of the commission," she said.
Hal Degraw, assistant county counsel, said that the reason the consultant might have been confused was because of the discrepancy between state and local requirements for fulfillment of the California Environmental Quality Act.
"At the state level, there is no public hearing requirement ... and CEQA people aren't used to dealing with (the difference)," he said. Local agencies have the option to toughen up their own CEQA requirements, such as having public hearings.
Residents raised a variety of questions at the June 2 meeting, ranging from fire safety, to traffic calming measures, to noise reduction methods.
On Thursday, Supervisor Robin Sutherland, who represents the Wildwood Ridge area, spoke during public comment about the need to require construction traffic to find an alternate route around Gold Country Drive to protect the children.
Merrill Hall, president of the Wildwood Ridge Homeowners Association, gave a list of the association's proposed fixes to keeping traffic problems down and maintaining a safe neighborhood. He said he is working with the developer, Brian Masterman, to integrate some of these solutions into the plan.
The county's planning commission has never discussed the development plan itself, only the environmental impact report. The commission is expected to discuss the project for the first time during its Jan. 12 meeting.
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brit tanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Nevada City approves first-floor office ban
Ordinance only for real estate firms
By Brittany Retherford
December 9, 2005The Nevada City Planning Commission approved an ordinance prohibiting any new real estate offices from opening on the street level in the historic downtown Thursday night without much opposition.
The five-member commission made several changes to the ordinance, including limiting it only to real estate-related offices, allowing current real estate offices to sell their businesses once without the ordinance taking effect, and eliminating the conditional use permit process. There were also some revisions made to the area included in the ordinance.
Commissioner Steve Dodge was the lone "no" vote, saying he believed the ordinance should apply to all offices, not just real estate.
A small smattering of residents came to hear about this most recent decision, and no one spoke during public comment. Of the six in the audience, one was Buck Stoval, who regularly videotapes government meetings for the city; and two other attendees, who were high school students.
The amicable atmosphere was nearly opposite of the heated one that persisted on the topic during Nevada City City Council meetings of the past few months. However, it was the first time the commissioners had a chance to publicly weigh in on the controversial idea.
The ordinance was initiated after several residents expressed concern to City Hall that there was a proliferation of real estate offices in the downtown area.
The City Council passed the ordinance during its Nov. 14 meeting, but to become law, the proposed ordinance must undergo a series of public hearings and a final reading. The planning commission ruling is one step in that process.
The ordinance will now go back to the City Council. It is anticipated that it will become law in March. Meanwhile, a temporary moratorium that mimics the ban is in effect until March 25.
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Nevada City planning commissioners comments on the new ordinance
At the beginning of Thursday's hearing, the Nevada City Planning Commissioners laid out their overall feelings about the ordinance prohibiting any new real estate offices from opening on the street level in the historic downtown:
"I think this is a very good ordinance. It is something we should have done a long time ago. I think almost every detail of it is very well thought out, and I am in favor of it."
- Commissioner Evans Phelps
"The city needs sales tax. This is not uncommon; there are hundreds of cities across the U.S. who have ordinances (like this)."
- Commissioner Steve Dodge
"For me, it is not a sales tax issue, it is just the heart and soul of Nevada City. Our residents want a real town, and sometimes you have to regulate uses when you have a successful downtown."
- Commission Chair Laurie Oberholtzer
"I am extremely opposed to this, to any kind of regulation. Things flourish and things die, and I think this is a horrible precedent to set."
- Commissioner John Parent
"I didn't think an ordinance passed was the solution. I think as real estate ebbs and flows (it will change). I am not for this."
- Commissioner Shelia Stein
Nevada City sees water, traffic issues at Deer Creek Park II
By Brittany Retherford
December 1, 2005The city of Nevada City has already spent $9,000 mounting a legal defense against the proposed Deer Creek Park II project that a developer hopes to build just outside the city limits off Red Dog Road.
The project, which includes 193 homes over 158 acres, is not anticipated to be heard by the Nevada County Planning Commission until late January, but Nevada City's officials have already been actively weighing in because of its potential impacts on the community - particularly on water quality and traffic.
"(The city's official position) is that we are firmly against the project as proposed. We are urging the county to disapprove the project as proposed and go back to the original zoning that allows 19 units on the project," said Mayor Conley Weaver.
One year ago, the city hired a San Francisco-based law firm that specializes in environmental law - Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger - to essentially speak for the city's interests during the planning process, Weaver said. So far, two legal opinions have been written in response to the environmental review reports, and, according to law, the developer must include a response in the final report.
Lance Amaral is the project developer, and in addition to building the homes, he hopes to log a neighboring 422 acres that would then be kept for open space.
He said Wednesday that he has not only been excluded from all the community meetings held about the project, but that he has never had a chance to discuss the plans with anyone in the city or the neighbors.
"They've never discussed any of their concerns with us. They've asked me not to attend the community meetings, and I live in the community," he said. He said he would like to speak with the city officials. "I would think it would be an appropriate use of public money."
At a recent City Council meeting, the city's attorney, Jim Anderson, said he told the council that they are most worried about the project's impacts on water quality and traffic.
"We are concerned for a couple of basic reasons. It is pretty obvious that all the traffic will come down Red Dog Road and Boulder Street, and Boulder Street is already overused."
Another concern is that much of the city's water supply comes from a location near the proposed project. Deer Creek Park II's homes would use some sort of septic system and there is a threat that contaminated water could drain down the hill into the existing water supply.
The $9,000 spent by the city also includes hiring traffic consultants and other experts to substantiate these opinions, Weaver said.
Amaral said his project conforms with the general plan and "I believe in supporting and enforcing the general plan. (This project) seems to be very appropriate."
Anderson said that regardless of how the Planning Commission votes, it is likely that the decision will be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, which will make the ultimate decision.
ooo
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.