THE UNION Articles on
Planning -- February 2006
City to review RV site design, Trina Kleist, February 28, 2006
Zoning change OK'd for Sierra Terrace, Trina Kleist, February 15, 2006
Step taken toward Wildwood Ridge, Trina Kleist, February 15, 2006
Housing plan to go to Supes, Trina Kleist, February 14, 2006
Plot plan pockets praise, Trina Kleist, February 10, 2006
Median house price beyond income of many local workers, Trina Kleist, February 7, 2006
Family ties keep peace officer in town, Robyn Moormeister, February 4, 2006
Housing needs are becoming more apparent, Union Editorial Bd., February 4, 2006
Northstar nears completion, Jon Beckhardt, Swift News, February 2, 2006
County's pace of rising prices may be slowing, Trina Kleist, February 2, 2006
What a home can cost, Trina Kleist, February 2, 2006
In search of the impossible: The affordable home, Brittany Retherford, February 1, 2006
Olympia Gardens, meters at issue, Brittany Retherford, February 1, 2006
Status of more projects underway, Grass Valley Planning Dept, February 1, 2006
DeMartini's dealership faces new challenge
By Trina Kleist, trinak@theunion.com
February 28, 2006Grass Valley's architectural character and how new developments fit in with that will be discussed at the City Council meeting tonight, when the design of a new development is up for a vote.
The meeting starts at 7 p.m.
DeMartini RV Sales on East Main Street is one of the city's biggest generators of sales taxes - in the top 25, according to city financial reports. The company makes the majority of its sales over the Internet, including international customers, owner Timothy DeMartini said.
The family is planning to move its cramped operations on East Main Street and Maltman Drive to a 12-acre property on Idaho-Maryland Road. DeMartini has said he hopes to open by this fall.
The city's General Plan says the architecture of new developments should reflect Grass Valley's history and architectural character. Exactly how to do that, however, is not spelled out.
Timothy and Margie DeMartini have been going through the city's design review process since the spring of 2004. They met with the Development Review Committee four times and with the Planning Commission three times. In the process, they revised their design three times to meet concerns raised.
However, one City Council member said the design needs more work.
Councilman Dean Williams said Monday he would like more information about the landscaping, especially about how many trees will be planted, what kind, how fast they grow and how tall.
"I'm pretty sure the community doesn't want to look at acres of RVs parked there," Williams said.
He also raised questions about the similarity of DeMartini's latest design to big-box architecture that can be seen anywhere in suburban California. Williams has submitted photographs of The Home Depot, Chuck E. Cheese, Cost Plus World Market and REI camping equipment in Roseville to the council to show the similarity of design.
"A very large percentage of our sales tax revenue comes from his business," Williams said. "We want to accommodate him, but we want to find a balance."
After nearly two years of investment and design changes, DeMartini said he is frustrated with the length of the process that includes design review and repeated public comment, much of it contentious. When he started to think about expanding, DeMartini said, the city leadership asked him to stay in Grass Valley and worked with him to select a site.
Now, he said, the project is being held up by people who are "anti-progress."
ooo
To contact staff writer Trina Kleist, e-mail trinak@theunion.com or call 477-4231.
Zoning change OK'd for Sierra Terrace
Property originally was planned for commercial use
Trina Kleist, trinak@theunion.com
February 16, 2006A Grass Valley project to build as many as 36 residences, most of them priced in the middle range of housing or lower, took a step forward late Tuesday.
City council members approved a zoning change for the Sierra Terrace LLC project that is being built by Philip and Pablo Zeiter. The 2.3-acre parcel sits at 130 West Berryhill Road near East Main Street and Harris Drive. Matson Creek, encased in an old and broken flume, runs through the property.
The parcel originally was zoned for commercial use. Council members voted to change the zoning to allow housing at their regular meeting late Tuesday.
The plan has changed since it was proposed last year after several meetings with the Zeiters, city staff, Vice Mayor Mark Johnson and Councilman Dale Williams.
"I think your project is better than it was seven or eight months ago. I appreciate the time and energy taken to make the changes," Johnson said. "Is it perfect? No."
The plan now proposes 30 units on lots ranging from 2,500 to 3,500 square feet. They would have:
• 14 detached, two-story single-family houses ranging from 1,300 to nearly 1,600 square feet. Six of them would have detached garages placed at the edges of the property. At the owners' option, they could have apartments over them that could be rented as affordable housing, but there is no requirement that they be built or rented.
• Four duplexes with units of nearly 1,200 square feet.
• Two buildings with four units each of 800 square feet. Six of these would be sold at "affordable" rates, fulfilling the city's requirement that 20 percent of the project be made available for sale to families earning 80 percent of the county's median income, city associate planner Daniel Chance said.
The median income for Nevada County currently being used for calculating affordable housing is $44,500 for an individual and $63,600 for a family of four, based on the United States Census and the Consumer Price Index.
The other units would be sold at market prices. Philip Zeiter told council members he expected those prices to range from $250,000 to $450,000, given current conditions.
Members of the audience late Tuesday whistled and chuckled in response.
The median price for a single-family house sold in Nevada County in 2005 was $460,000, a price beyond the reach of most families who work in the county.
Zeiter said those sales-price estimates are very rough. He still needs to do soil work, and his costs of labor, materials and fuel are rising at a rate of about 20 percent yearly.
The project could be completed in about two years, Chance said.
ooo
To contact staff writer Trina Kleist, e-mail trinak@theunion.com or call 477-4231.
Step taken toward Wildwood Ridge subdivision despite some concerns
By Dave Moller
and Trina kleist, davem@theunion.com
February 15, 2006The Wildwood Ridge housing project made progress Tuesday, despite drainage, traffic and fire escape concerns from nearby residents.
Officially, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors voted to increase the green-belt portion of the project to 80 acres from 50 acres. Board members also accepted a development agreement that ties them to the county general plan and the land use and development code.
But Supervisor Robin Sutherland, who represents the area directly north of Lake Wildwood where the 383-unit project sits, said she wants to revisit traffic and fire safety issues before approving the 206-acre development.
Although the county planning commission accepted the project Jan. 19, supervisors chairman Nate Beason reminded the board and those in attendance, "This is not a done deal when we walk out of here today."
Lake Wildwood resident Lee Blakemore told the board that drainage from the uphill property will only make contamination problems worse in the lake.
"We're very, very concerned and our lake is precious to us," Blakemore said.
Blakemore said he and others were also concerned there are not enough escape routes in case of wildfire. "I don't know how I'd get out of Lake Wildwood if there was a crisis situation during a fire," Blakemore said.
"We know from the 49er Fire (in 1988) it was very difficult to get out," said Holly Townsend, a member of the Lake Wildwood Board of Directors.
But developer Brian Masterman said he had an escape plan for his project and suggested points for escape from Lake Wildwood as well. County staff said drainage concerns might be addressed with catch ponds.
Masterman also talked more about the affordable housing portion of the project.
That part of the plan, which still must be approved by the planning commission, calls for 36 single and duplex units available to moderate, low and very low income earners for at least 10 years.
There would be six, one-bedroom units and six studio apartments that would be attached to garages and rent for $600 to $700 per month. Another 24 duplexes would be built scattered throughout the project that would be two or three bedroom and sell for $169,000 to $285,000, Masterman said.
The board also moved a public hearing regarding the formation of a Community Facilities District and its bonded indebtedness for the project to 2 p.m. on Feb. 28.
The development's history dates back to 1968 and originally was part of the Lake Wildwood project. Three separate maps were drawn for subdividing the acreage, but it never got off the ground.
The project, eventually dubbed Wildwood Estates, failed in 1993 when the project's lender foreclosed. One of the owners went to prison in connection with the financial fiasco involving county-issued bonds. A fourth map was drawn, but it also stalled.
In 1997, the county sued the new owner for back taxes, and a court ordered the property sold. The county brought in Los Angeles-based Stone & Youngberg, California's leading underwriter of local government bonds. The investment company created a subsidiary, Wildwood Resolution LLC, to buy the property in 1999 for $10.
Stone & Youngberg also took up the failed $10 million bond issue, plus back taxes and other debt totaling nearly $1.5 million.
Masterman, president of subsidiary S&Y Capital Group LLC (which owns Wildwood Resolution) and the project developer, said he expects to restructure the old bond to $8 million or $9 million.
In January, supervisors voted to forgive $929,000 in penalties and interest. They still will require the developer to repay $600,000 in back taxes.
ooo
To contact senior staff writer Dave Moller, e-mail davem@theunion.com or call 477-4237.
Trina Kleist, trinak@theunion.com
February 14, 2006County supervisors will be asked to vote today on the Wildwood Ridge development project, even though details remain to be worked out as to how the required affordable housing portion will be handled.
Among the details are the fate of 12 affordable, over-the-garage apartments that are expected to be built. They would be rented at affordable rates to low-income and very-low-income tenants, according to the developer's current plan.
However, the development agreement that supervisors will vote on does not guarantee that any of the 12 affordable rental units will ever go on the rental market. Nevertheless, they are among 36 affordable units that are considered to satisfy the county requirement that 10 percent of the development's units be affordable.
The development agreement, reached between the developer and county planning commissioners last week for the Wildwood Ridge Phases 2-4 project, will go before the Nevada County Board of Supervisors at 1:30 p.m.
The development agreement guarantees to the builder that the county will not change its planning and development policies or its requirements for the project.
Supervisors also will vote on whether to approve a zoning change that will allow for more open space in the project than originally planned. The map from the failed Wildwood Estates project called for 30 acres of open space. The current project plans for 80 acres of open space, mostly in areas too steep for building; that requires a different zoning to be consistent with the county zoning map for that parcel.
The current plan calls for building 383 units on 352 lots on nearly 207 acres just north of Lake Wildwood. Of those, 36 would be available at affordable rates.
Of those affordable units, 12 would be the over-the-garage apartments. The developer estimated those rental rates would be between $585 to $650 monthly.
Another 24 affordable units would be half-plexes - that is, half of a duplex - sold at market rates. The developer estimated they would sell at between $215,000 and $300,000.
The developer, Brian Masterman of S&Y Capital Group LLC of Los Angeles, has been working with county planners on the details of how those units would be designed and managed. He will come back to the planning commission by mid-March with more information.
The development plan, however, does not set in stone the composition of the affordable housing, how much the units will be rented or sold for, who will get them or how they will be managed.
Currently, three housing developments in the unincorporated areas of the county have the higher densities that trigger the county's requirement for affordable housing, county Planning Director Randy Wilson said.
Together, they are expected to provide 71 units of affordable rental and purchase housing. The other two projects are Villa Bellaggio, across the road from Lake Wildwood, and DarkHorse, next to Lake of the Pines.
ooo
To contact staff writer Trina Kleist, e-mail trinak@theunion.com or call 477-4231.WHAT: Nevada County Board of Supervisors meeting
WHEN: 9 a.m. today
WHERE: Eric Rood Administrative Center, 950 Maidu Ave., Nevada City
AGENDA: Wildwood Ridge II; 2006 objectives and goals; resolution requesting Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislature to include widening of Highway 49 in the 2006 General Obligation Bond Proposal; request to send letter to Caltrans requesting permission to vacate portion of Highway 37 Stock Trail easement on private property owned by Mr. Frank Cadjew.
- copy of plan includedWildwood Ridge facelift applauded
By Trina Kleist
Staff writer, trinak@theunion.com
February 10, 2006County planners praised an overhauled plan for affordable housing in the Wildwood Ridge Phases 2-4 development at a workshop Thursday.
But members of the Nevada County Planning Commission also asked for more details about how the affordable units would be managed and who would get them.
Developer Brian Masterman, president of S&Y Capital Group LLC from Los Angeles, will return to the commission within 30 days with more information.
At 1:45 p.m. Tuesday, the county Board of Supervisors will consider the development agreement with Masterman, which includes the new affordable housing plan, and the zoning changes the plan requires.
In the new plan, Masterman proposed offering 24 “half-plex” units — that is, half of a duplex — with two or three bedrooms at estimated market-rate sales prices ranging from $215,000 to $300,000.
And he reduced the number of rented over-the-garage units from the 26 originally proposed to 12 studio and one-bedroom apartments.
Masterman, whose company owns the site north of Lake Wildwood, originally had offered no low-end purchase opportunities among the 36 affordable units the development is required to include.
The plan calls for 352 lots on 207 acres; the county’s General Plan requires that 10 percent more units be made available for moderate, low and very low income earners.
Questions remain about how long the rental units would remain in the affordable category.
The garage apartments would be built as part of the overall house construction on the Type B lots. The homeowners would theoretically become landlords to their lower-income tenants under the plan. That situation can become problematic, Masterman said.
However, there is no guarantee that the units would ever go on the rental market. Commissioners also wrestled with the possibility that homeowners could rent to an adult child or a parent, fulfilling the letter of the regulation but not the spirit.
In the case of the half-plexes, Commissioner Laura Duncan raised concerns about who would buy the units, saying they could go to people coming in from out of the area.
For both types of housing, commissioners discussed how long the units would be required to remain in the affordable category; Masterman had suggested 10 or 15 years. They also considered how the terms of property deeds could be worded to keep them affordable.
“I think 10 years is too short, but ... 30 years is too long,” Commissioner Bob Jensen said.
Commission Chairman Douglas Donesky noted both the concern about providing for local people and the potential for constitutional conflicts concerning property rights.
Commissioners also agreed they neither want to get involved in the details of managing these units, nor become burdensome to homeowners through over-regulation.
“This is not a free ride for anyone,” Masterman said. In these kinds of debates, he said, “persons in the business of producing lots and building homes are put in the position of becoming a housing authority.”
Duncan asked Masterman to do more research on how other communities manage affordable housing and how deeds can be restricted to keep units affordable.
5.25 MB download: Wildwood Ridge Planning Commission Presentation with map
(Download well worth the wait, particularly for LWW residents)To staff writer contact Trina Kleist, e-mail trinak@theunion.com or call 477-4231.
Median house price beyond income of many local workers
by Trina Kleist
Staff writer, trinak@theunion.com
February 7, 2006When state and local governments talk about “affordable housing,” they typically mean rental housing for people on low incomes. They usually are not talking about what a working person can afford to buy.
Median wages vs. a median-priced house
• Median regional wages (in October 2005): $3,008 per month, pre-tax
• Median household income (in 1999): $3,822 per month, pre-tax
• Cost of a median-priced home (in 2005): $2,725 per month (includes mortgage, property taxes and insurance)How do local wages compare to the cost of buying a house here?
The median wage in 2005 for all jobs in northeastern California is $17.36, or about $36,100 yearly before taxes, based on a 40-hour work week, according to state figures.
The picture is slightly different when looking at household income, which includes all wage earners in a household.
In Nevada County, the median household income was $45,864 in 1999, according to the most recent federal information.
Those rates are slightly ahead of what is needed to pay for the median-priced, single-family house in Nevada County, which cost $460,000 in 2005.
A person working a 40-hour week would have to earn $15.28 an hour, or $32,700 yearly after taxes, just to pay for the mortgage, property taxes and insurance, according to calculations by The Union.
The median is not the average. Rather, it is the exact middle, where half of everything measured is higher and half is lower. It is the number preferred by statisticians tracking wages, housing costs and most other statistics in the state.
Those statistics often don’t mesh easily, but they begin to sketch a picture of the cost of housing compared to wages in Nevada County. DataQuick Information Systems, based in San Diego, tracks housing prices by county. In Nevada County, the median hit $460,000 for 2005.
Loan terms and actual payments for that house can vary widely. However, to calculate an approximate monthly payment for that median-priced house, The Union assumed the buyer has a 20-percent down payment and a conventional loan fixed at 6.125 percent.
Using those assumptions, the approximate amount needed to pay the mortgage, insurance and property taxes each month for the median-priced house comes to about $2,725, or $32,700 yearly.
While DataQuick offers county-by-county information on median house prices, the state Employment Development Department groups Nevada County wage information together with nine other counties in northeastern California. (See median monthly wages chart.)
On the Web
• For a portal to state figures on industry and employment, go to www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov
• For state figures on employment and wages by sector in the 10 northeastern California counties, go to www.calmis.ca.gov/Yet Nevada County has the most jobs among the 10 counties, making up nearly 30 percent of employment in the region. That makes the county-region comparison problematic, but the best one possible given the statistics that are currently available, said state labor market consultant Mary Mahoney, who is based in Nevada City.
Regionally, workers earned a median of $3,008 per month, or $36,100 yearly in late 2005, according to those EDD figures.
Household income information is available by county through the United States Census Bureau — the median was $3,822 monthly for Nevada County in 1999. But it is based on the most recent census and lags behind the state information and the figures for the current real estate market.
To contact staff writer Trina Kleist, e-mail trinak@theunion.com or call 477-4231.
Family ties keep peace officer in town
By Robyn Moormeister, robynm@theunion.com
February 4, 2006The high cost of housing and a lower salary, compared to other police departments, would push Grass Valley Police Officer Jim Amaral out of town, if not for his sentimental connection and family ties.
For three years now, the 27-year-old town native and his wife Nicole - a title/escrow officer and also a lifelong western Nevada County resident - have been renting while searching for a house to buy in the community, where the median price of a home last year in Grass Valley was $399,500 and $470,000 in Nevada City.
"You could buy a house to fit your budget, but those houses need so much work," Amaral said after his recent shift as school resource officer for the Park Avenue Alternative Education Site. "It's really bad. The houses - especially in city limits - are so old."
He knows he could easily afford a newer house in a town like Elk Grove, where the median house price last year was $432,750 and the starting annual salary for sworn police officers is $50,667 - compared to a Grass Valley police officer's starting salary of $39,270.
But Amaral stays and continues his home search because he couldn't imagine leaving.
"I love living here," Amaral said. "I'm close to the ski slopes and my in-laws."
Grass Valley Police Administrative Captain Dave Remillard said family roots are often the only thing that will keep young officers planted here.
In order to attract officers, the department will pay to put qualified candidates through the six-month police academy in Sacramento; a $28,000 cost to taxpayers for each officer.
The department is now paying for three officers to attend the academy.
It's an expensive investment, Remillard said, that often does not yield a return.
"On average, younger police officers will stay about four years," he said. "In a small department, there's not a lot of opportunities for promotion and there are other agencies that will pay more and have more special assignments, which are attractive."
Remillard says he's lost several good officers to agencies like Elk Grove, Rocklin and Roseville police departments, he said.
He said the young officers that do stay have to make sacrifices, such as paying high monthly rent, borrowing from parents for down payments on homes or simply living with their parents to save up enough money to afford a down payment later.
Amaral, his wife and their 3-year-old son had to live with his in-laws for nearly a year to pay off enough debt and save enough to buy a three bedroom home. They've moved out and are now renting a home for $1,100 a month.
"I'd rather rent," he said, referring to the median price of Nevada County home. A monthly payment on a loan for a median-priced home in Nevada County, assuming the buyer has good credit and paid a 20-percent down payment, would be $2,236.And that's not even considering property taxes, which would bring Amaral's total monthly payment to approximately $2,725.
Commuting from another town is not an option for Amaral, because the Grass Valley Police Department requires officers to live within a 15-mile radius of the department headquarters in downtown Grass Valley.
Although the police department has granted permission to one officer to temporarily live with his parents in Roseville for six months so he can save enough money for his own place in Grass Valley, Remillard said.
Nevada County Sheriff Keith Royal said state law requires sheriff's deputies to live within the state they work, a financial burden to deputies who work in the sheriff's Truckee substation. Instead of living in Nevada, where housing is generally cheaper, they must live in Nevada County - or Truckee, where the median house price is $570,000.
"It's very expensive to live and work in the eastern region of the county," Royal said. "We're trying to carry legislation that would allow someone to live out of state and be a deputy."
He said he is working with a lobbyist to help create new legislation regarding deputy residency requirements, though no senate or assembly bill on has been drafted yet.
To make up for the hit they take in housing costs, Nevada County Sheriff's deputies who work in the Truckee substation make $41,943 a year: That's 8 percent more than their counterparts who work out of the Eric Rood Administrative offices in Nevada City, where a deputy just starting out makes $38,837 a year.
The added incentive has boosted lateral hires at the Truckee substation from other counties such as Yuba and Placer. Royal said most of his deputies are former correctional officers at the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility.
"When we hire them, we know what we're getting and they've already settled down in the area," he said.
Other deputies, he said, tend to move on to larger agencies that offer higher salaries.
In the meantime, Amaral holds on to the hope that he'll find an affordable house in decent condition, but he's not holding his breath.
"I just made an offer on a house," he said.
The house is on the market for $380,000. Amaral offered $330,000 and the seller made a counter offer of $350,000.
"I can't afford it," he said.
ooo
To contact Robyn Moormeister, e-mail robynm@theunion.com or call 477-4236.
Housing needs are becoming more apparent
The Union Editorial Board
February 4, 2006In today's edition of The Union, we tell the story of a Grass Valley police officer who wants to live in the community he works in.
Jim Amaral is 27, a husband and a father. His wife, Nicole, works as a title officer. These are just the type of people any smart community values.
Yet, there's a good chance Amaral will someday join the other police officers who have left Grass Valley for bigger salaries and less expensive homes in Elk Grove, Rocklin and Roseville.
The median price of a home in Grass Valley is $399,500, which is an increase from $335,000 in 2004. In Nevada City, it has climbed from $375,000 to $470,000 in the past year. Penn Valley's median price has went from $350,000 to $430,000 in the same period of time.
As these numbers climb, it will make it even more difficult for public servants such as Jim Amaral to remain in this area even though a substantial investment has been made in training him to be a police officer.
In the meantime, our local governments are just beginning to implement workforce housing programs.
The Union reported this week that since the city of Grass Valley implemented its "20-percent policy" in 2004, it has approved 46 affordable housing units from a total of six projects. Overall, these projects call for a total of 226 new homes, condos, duplexes and apartments. None of these units have been completed yet.
Nevada City implemented a 30-percent rule for housing projects in 2003. The first project approved under those guidelines is a 48-unit cohousing project. According to City Manager Mark Miller, 12 of those units are considered affordable under county guidelines and are being purchased by eight teachers, three nurses and a bus driver.
Nevada City has also approved the Vierra project, an 18-unit development that consists of three homes with apartments and 12 additional rentals. According to Miller, all of the rental units will be considered affordable.
It's encouraging that our local governments are beginning to address the affordable housing crisis, but more needs to be done and quickly.
For the city of Grass Valley, that means making the necessary adjustments in the General Plan so the developers of the four Special Development Areas can get their proposals considered by a City Council that should make affordable housing its top consideration when evaluating the projects.
By Jon Beckhardt
Swift News services
February 2, 2006Amidst cranes, hustling workmen, and shrieking drills, the Village at Northstar in Truckee has finally begun to open for commerce.
Despite continuing delays, phase one of Northstar's village is coming to completion piece by piece, as shops and restaurants open one at a time.
Now open at Northstar
Stores: Oakley Icon, The North Face, True North, Butterbox, Mine, Helly Hansen, Elite Feet.
Restaurants: Grapes and Grounds (opens today), Big Wave Burritos & Wraps, Timbercreek Restaurant, Luv Shack Bar
Coming Soon
Stores: The Village Gallery at Northstar, Double Diamond Jewelry, Tripflix
Restaurants: Earthly Delights, S’more’s Kiosk, Starbucks Coffee, Euro Snack, Timbercreek RestaurantSeven shops are now open, as well as four restaurants and the ice skating rink. Three more shops and five restaurants are scheduled to open in the coming months.
"(Customers) are coming in full force," said Brad Taylor, manager at True North, expressing an enthusiasm heard from village shop workers who said they were glad to have their stores open. "Because we opened so late, we are still stocked with limited edition gear."
Phase one of the village includes three buildings for shops and restaurants and other amenities, 72 condominiums, and the 9,000-square-foot ice skating rank. Nicole Klay, spokeswoman for the development, said this phase will be complete by summer.
In fall 2005, East West Partners, the company managing the construction of the village, said the first phase of the village would be complete by the start of the ski season. Klay said both the early season rainfall and the devastation of Hurricane Katrina unexpectedly delayed work because there was a shortage of construction materials.
The delays were not a result of a state order that stopped construction on the village in November 2004 due to repeated water quality violations, said village construction director Bob Gaus.
Now, builders and retailers, like Oakley Icon manager Armando Enriquez, said they were looking forward to the coming months.
"It should be a great year," Enriquez said. "Business will increase as we open more and more [of the village]."
Furthermore, tenants were placated with three months paid rent, and condominium owners were given a $250 gift certificate to Wild Goose, a restaurant operated by East West Partners, Klay said.
Meanwhile, 70 percent of the retail spaces have been leased, she said.
Construction for phase two of the project, which will include two buildings of condominiums and a village plaza, is underway. Klay said it should be complete by the start of next ski season.
County's pace of rising prices may be slowing
By Trina Kleist
Staff writer, trinak@theunion.com
February 2, 2006The median home price for all of Nevada County rose to $460,000 for 2005, an increase of nearly 20 percent over the median of $385,000 a year before, according to figures released this week by the national research firm DataQuick Information Systems.
The local figures are in line with price increases in neighboring counties. Median prices rose 20.6 percent in Placer County and 17.7 percent in Sacramento County. Prices rose much faster in several Central Valley counties, including Kern County, where prices rose more than 38 percent to $235,000.
In bellwether San Diego County, however, the median price rose just 8.7 percent, to $500,000.
The rapid rise of housing prices may be slowing in western Nevada County.
"I think there is a subtle softening in the market in the past three or four months," said Skip Lusk, executive director of the Nevada County Board of Realtors.
"There are more houses today on the market than there were at this time last year," added Dick Law, an agent with Paul Law Realty in Grass Valley. That means most houses are taking longer to sell, prompting some sellers to bring down their asking prices.
Changes here could be trailing the softening of markets in the Bay Area and Southern California. A "great deal" of buyers in Nevada County come from those areas and tend to be retirees more often than people in the work force, Lusk said.
"Historically, our market depends a great deal on what happens to real estate south of the Tehachapi (Mountains) and in the Bay Area," Lusk said.
In the nine Bay Area counties, the median price for December 2005 was $609,000. The number of homes sold there dropped 15.5 percent from December 2004 to December 2005, according to DataQuick.
"Demand still seems to be there, but the sense of urgency seems to be a thing of the past," said DataQuick president Marshall Prentice, based in San Diego.
DataQuick's figures are for sales recorded for single-family homes and condominiums, both new and resold, for the entire year. The median price is not an average, but rather the midpoint of all prices: Half of all sales are below the median and half are above.
Nevada City saw the biggest jump in prices, from a median of $375,000 in 2004 to $470,000 in 2005, an increase of 25.3 percent.
Nevada City also saw the sharpest month-to-month increase.
The median price there for homes sold in December 2004 was $355,000. In December of 2005, the median rose nearly 48 percent, to $525,000.
Residences for sale in the western part of the county currently range from older two-bedroom, one-bath houses in the low to mid-300,000s to custom estates of more than $1.6 million, according to advertisements placed in The Union.
The statistics should be viewed with caution, Lusk said. They don't treat separately the unique communities of Lake Wildwood, Lake of the Pines or Alta Sierra. In addition, he said, Truckee's real estate activity skews the picture for western Nevada County.
To contact staff writer Trina Kleist, e-mail trinak@theunion.com or call 477-4231.
Median-priced area house means paying $2,725 a month
By Trina Kleist
Staff writer, trinak@theunion.com
February 2, 2006What does it take to buy the median-priced home in Nevada County?
The median price of a single-family house in 2005 rose to $460,000, up nearly 19.5 percent from the year before. For single-family house sales in the month of December, the median hit $475,000, according to information gathered by the national research company DataQuick Information Systems, based in San Diego.
Buying the
median-priced homeTo buy a median-priced house of $460,000, and assuming a buyer has good credit, a 20-percent down payment and a conventional, 30-year, 6.125-percent fixed-rate loan, the buyer would need:
Up front:
• $92,000 down payment
• $9,076 closing costs
• Up-front total: $99,076
Monthly payments:
• $2,236 mortgage
• $96 homeowners insurance
• $393 property taxes (more for special local assessments)
• Monthly total: $2,725
- Trina KleistAssuming a buyer for the county's median-priced house has good credit and a 20-percent down payment of $92,000, the buyer would need a loan of $368,000.
Here's how the monthly payments would work out, according to mortgage loan officer Janice Bree of Citizen's Bank in downtown Grass Valley:• Monthly payment of principle and interest, assuming a 30-year conventional loan fixed at 6.125 percent: $2,236.
• Homeowners insurance: $96.
• Property taxes for most people are about 1.028 percent of the sales price, according to accountant Gary Wallace of the Nevada County Auditor/Controller's Office. That comes to $4,714 per year, or $393 per month.
• Total monthly payments: $2,725.In addition, a buyer needs to pay the costs of the loan, Bree said. Those costs can vary widely, depending on the type of loan and the arrangements of the lending company. Some costs can be added onto the loan amount instead of being paid up front, Bree said. Some loans let the buyer pay a higher interest rate instead of up-front costs.
• Assuming the most conventional arrangement - all costs paid up front, no payment to reduce interest - the buyer of the median-priced house would pay about $9,075 in closing costs, Bree estimated.
Loan terms also vary widely, depending on the amount of down payment, whether income is verified, whether more money is paid up front to reduce the interest rate and other factors.
Depending on all those factors, the actual monthly payment for a particular loan can vary widely, even if the amount of the loan is the same.
To contact staff writer Trina Kleist, e-mail trinak@theunion.com or call 477-4231.
In search of the impossible: The affordable home
By Brittany Retherford
Staff writer, brittanyr@theunion.com
February 1, 2006Residents of western Nevada County have long balked at the area’s rising home prices, which can make it prohibitive to live in the same community where they work.
Their cries — which are resounding louder each year on The Union’s editorial pages — coupled with looming state requirements that force local governments to satisfy citizens’ affordable housing needs, have set off a flurry of debates over how best to cope with the problem.
How To Qualify
Buying an “affordable” home in Grass Valley comes with some of the following restrictions:
1. The unit remains affordable for 30 years, after which it may be sold at market rate.
2. Grass Valley has the right of first refusal on all sales.
3. Future maximum affordable sales prices of the property will be determined by the city and may be less than the fair market value of the home.
4. Applicants’ names will be placed on a waiting list on a first-come, first-serve basis, although the development owner will make the final decision. Priority applicants include those who work or live locally and first-time home-buyers.
5. The property may not be rented.
To view an application or to learn more information about the application process, visit the city’s Web site at www.cityofgrassvalley.com
Source: City of Grass ValleyAnd it seems that Grass Valley, a city of 12,000, is the jurisdiction most often pegged with finding the solution.
“We have the infrastructure that would handle it; it has forced us into this situation to build all this housing,” said Mayor Gerard Tassone, adding, “it is not that it is a bad thing, it is just the way it is.”
Two years ago, Grass Valley was presented with two impending projects — the Whiting Street Project, which proposed 67 units, and the Highlands Project, which slated to build 39 units. Both received approval from the city council in April 2004 and, for the first time ever, were required to price 20 percent of the homes at “affordable” rates, a calculation based on income and current housing prices and which came strapped with restrictions.
It marked the beginning of Grass Valley’s new “20 percent policy,” which is now applied to all larger projects. Similar policies were also adopted by Nevada City and Nevada County at varying levels — 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively. The idea was that it would edge each of them closer to the state’s requirement for affordable — or workforce — housing, while also easing some of the burden of rising home prices. In December 2005, the median home price tag hit $475,000, according to DataQuick.com, a real estate data tracking Web site.
Now, with the Highlands Project on Catalpa Lane just nearing completion and other projects in the works, it is time to take a look at how Grass Valley has fared in meeting these needs; whether it will comply with state laws; and what opportunities to break into the market will become available for workers like teachers and police officers in the years to come.The state requirement
State guidelines set by the Housing Element — a plan that must be adopted by each local jurisdiction — say that between 2003 and 2009, a total of 868 homes should be built for low- to moderate-income residents — or a home that is affordable for a person who earns less than $44,500. That salary level qualifies an individual as a moderate-income earner and is Nevada County’s median income, according to the 2000 United States Census. (Grass Valley’s median income is $28,000, but the numbers are based on the county-wide data.)
At first glance of a Sept. 14 report, however, it appears the city is falling quickly behind its requirements.
Records show that since 2000, less than one-fifth of homes — or 133 of nearly 700 — that were built, are priced at what is considered affordable rates. And if you count all the residential projects that have been either approved or are currently awaiting the city’s approval, Grass Valley is still 654 affordable homes shy of reaching its 2009 goal.
The Housing Element also decrees that 1,448 homes be built by 2009. In the past five years, 679 homes have been built, 279 have been approved, and 259 are awaiting city action. That puts Grass Valley just 231 homes shy of its overall housing goal. This is because Grass Valley is still approving several small projects or homes that are built one at a time and therefore elude the 20 percent rule.
How do you fix that? The four proposed special development areas could be one way to provide a quick fix, says Mayor Tassone.
By the numbers
Residents interested in being put on a waiting list for upcoming affordable units can fall into categories ranging from lowest to moderate. Each housing project designates a certain number for each category. For example, the Highlands Project in the Brunswick Basin designates eight units for low-income individuals or families.
This means the following incomes can apply:
Household Size/Low-income limit
1/$35,600
2/$40,700
3/$45,800
4/$50,900
5/$54,950
6/$59,000
Source: City of Grass Valley“If they are approved, we could meet those numbers,” Tassone said. Otherwise, the city will have to wait for additional projects. “Everything is there to do it, it is whether the projects come forth. You try and promote some densities types that will allow those types of developments to come in.”
If the city doesn’t meet the requirements, however, it receives little more than a mild reprimand from the state and a threat to potentially withhold housing funds.
“It’s a goal to work for,” said Dan Chance, a city planner, explaining that if the city appears to be making a good-faith effort, its progress will be considered.
“If you compare (Grass Valley) with Nevada City and the county, we are very, very progressive,” he said.
Current and future projects
The news, however, isn’t as grim as it might at first seem, some officials say.
Tassone said he prefers the term, “workforce housing,” because it also encompasses units that are not specifically labeled “affordable” by the city (and which are laced with restrictions, such as how much it can be re-sold for, and how long it must remain affordable), but are still priced for the area’s workforce.
Encouraging the building of smaller homes on cozier lot sizes is one way to ensure prices remain lower — a plan adopted by the 39-unit Highlands Project, which is just now nearing completion.
The Whiting Street Project has yet to break ground, however. Progress has been delayed because it was sold by its initial developer, Rick Kerr, to Roseville-based Dunmore Properties. It was also renamed “Victoria Grove.”
“Many times, once a project is entitled the project will be sold. (The owners) aren’t necessarily home builders,” said Craig Hoffman, the new project manager. The project must still stay within the limits of its approval, which it will, Hoffman said. They are now working out the engineering and infrastructure details and plan to begin construction this spring.
Several other projects have been approved, but are yet to be built, including a few that predate the 20 percent policy. Still others are awaiting city action for approval.
Grass Valley has also succeeded in getting a few affordable apartment complexes built — the Cedar Park and Glenbrook apartment complexes in the Glenbrook Basin — but Community Development Director Joe Heckel says the city has put a priority on home ownership.
Statistics from a 2000 Economic Resource Council report — the most recent available — show that only 43 percent of the city’s approximately 12,000 residents live in homes they own, which means a clear majority are renters.
Heckel said that since renters have a higher tendency to leave if the local economy sours, a healthier balance would be just the opposite — with at least 60 percent homeowners.
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Olympia Gardens, meters at issue
By Brittany Retherford
Staff writer, brittanyr@theunion.com
February 1, 2006To finally convert the Sutton Way Olympia Garden Apartments complex into condominiums, all owners Alan Kilborn and Alan Brant must now do is install individual water meters on each of the 44 units.
Sounds simple enough, and most agree it would encourage people to conserve water, but Kilborn says it will cost them more than $200,000 to do so — a burden that would ultimately be passed down to the buyer, who would more than likely be a first-time homeowner or a lower-income family.
“I am struggling with a decision; this may cost us several hundred thousand dollars to separate those pipes, it may take us right out of the realm of conversion,” Kilborn said. Kilborn, a part-time police officer who, along with Brant, see this conversion as an opportunity to help working class citizens enter Nevada County’s expensive housing market.
In a city struggling to keep up with state affordable housing requirements — not to mention local demands for workforce housing — the increase of $7,000 to $10,000 per unit is something to think about. Kilborn said he did not know how much the units would sell for, but, according to DataQuick.com, a real estate data tracking company, the median sale price for a home was $393,500 in Grass Valley for November 2005.
City policy requires that 20 percent of the units are required to be set aside for low- to moderate-income residents, said Grass Valley Planning Director Tom Last.
But Planning Commission Chair Gloria Hyde said she questions whether allowing Kilborn to forgo individualized meters is OK with state requirements, which says condos must have individual meters unless there is an undue hardship.
Kilborn said the price is high for Olympia Garden because the contractor hired would have to break through several walls of drywall and detangle numerous feet of plumbing. And while it might help residents who buy a condo save some money on their water bill — Kilborn estimates about $100 per month for the entire complex would be saved — he wonders whether that is worth the price.
The cost of installing individual meters was waived by the city of Monterey for a condo conversion for just that reason in April, according to minutes from the planning commission meeting, but Hyde says citizens have a right to know how much their bills will be.
Kilborn said he plans to return to the city to ask for a waiver of the requirement before moving ahead with conversion plans.
Hyde, who staunchly opposed the idea of a waiver back in June, said Thursday she has not changed her mind.
“It was just a terrible idea and I got support,” she said. The alternative would be to have the bill for the entire complex managed by the condominium’s homeowners association and every unit would pay the same price.
Hyde also questions whether Olympia Garden should even be converted into condominiums, saying “in general, it is my belief that apartments which are designed for apartments should not be converted. They don’t have the kind of amenities that places designed for condos have.”
This includes private space — of which Olympia Garden has little, except for a small communal area that is “maybe a place for a picnic table,” she said.
Some have raised concerns during the summer meeting that the conversion would limit available affordable units, but Hyde said that idea was refuted by local real estate agents who said there was an adequate supply.
Kilborn said that his current renters would have the first option to buy a unit — a requirement he would have fulfilled regardless, because they already know the area and the property, he said.
State law also requires Kilborn to give his tenants 120 days notice if he chooses to move forward with the conversion plans.
To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.
Status of more projects underway
Grass Valley Planning Department, February 1, 2006
Several residential projects in Grass Valley have received approval to be built, but have not yet been constructed.
Project name: Makiah Woods
Builder: Jay Cuccia/Brunswick One by Tony Rosas
Location: 9.25 acres at 10639 Brunswick Road
Total number of units: 41 homes, 5 duplexes
Number that are affordable: 10 units
Project status: Approved, construction could begin at earliest in summer 2006
Project name: Victoria Grove
Builder: Dunmore Properties
Location: 624 Whiting Street
Total number of units: 67 single family homes
Number that are affordable: 13 units
Project status: Approved, building slated to begin in spring
Project builder: Dennis Cuva
Location: 305 North School Street
Total number of units: 2 units over garages
Number that are affordable: none
Project status: Application filed, going to the design review committee Tuesday
Project name: Town Talk Village Development Project
Builders: Patty Pucket and Jim Pack
Location: 634 Town Talk Road
Total number of units: 11 single homes, 4 apartments
Number that are affordable: 2 units
Project status: Approved
Project name: The Olympia Garden Apartments
Owners: Alan Kilborn and Alan Brant
Location: 304 Sutton Way
Total number of units: Conversion of 44 apartments into condominiums
Number that are affordable: 9 units
Project status: Approved
Project builder: Terry Hutson with Geocapital Management
Location: 455 Bennett Street
Total number of units: Conversion of 15 apartments into townhomes
Number that are affordable: 2 units
Project status: Approved, not built
Project name: Highlands Project
Developer: Bill Ross
Location: 4.8 acres on Catalpa Lane
Total number of units: 39 houses
Number that are affordable: 8 units
Project status: Under construction
Project name: Morgan Ranch West
Total number of units: 25 single family homes
Number that are affordable: None
Project status: Building has begun
Project name: Village at South Auburn
Total number of units: 34 single-family duplex units and 23 apartments, 26, square feet of commercial and office space
Number that are affordable: None
Status: Approved, not built
Project name: Clock Tower Project
Developer: Rasor and Associates
Location: Berryman Lane and South Auburn Street
Total number of units: 2 buildings with 3 condos and office and retail use.
Status: Approved, not built
Source: Grass Valley Planning Department