THE UNION Articles on
Planning -- March 2006
Grass Valley hardly an oasis for business, Pat Butler, March 4, 2006
City should review approval process, Union editorial board, March 2, 2006
Wildwood bond deal tabbed as financial feat, Trina Kleist, March 1, 2006
Project passes on 3-2 vote, Josh Singer, March 1, 2006
Grass Valley hardly an oasis for business
By Pat Butler, patb@theunion.com
March 4, 2006The notion that the city of Grass Valley just rolls over for business interests seems a bit far-fetched.
The most recent skirmish in our ongoing growth wars revolved around the design of a new building for DeMartini RV Sales on Idaho-Maryland Road. Tim DeMartini, whose current lot practically spills over onto East Main Street, said he told the city a couple of years ago that he wanted to move his business.
According to DeMartini, the city then asked him to stay in Grass Valley, and it even helped identify locations for the RV business.
Why would any city reach out to a business like DeMartinis? The answer probably has a lot to do with the amount of sales tax the business collects for the city, which in this case is considerable.
Now before you say we should not sell out our unique character and heritage, I ask you to look at your personal situation (you need money to pay the bills, right?) and evaluate a recent proposal put before our City Council that was largely motivated by an outcry from residents.
In the case of Grass Valley, more revenue is needed to maintain and improve our streets. In fact, it was only a few weeks ago that the city proposed raising development impact fees on commercial projects by as much as 100, 200 and even 300 percent in some cases.
The proposed increases are steep on any scale. Moule Paint & Glass, which wants to move across the street from its location on East Main Street, would see its fees jump from $100,248 to $237,724. Another proposed project, a research and development office complex, could see its fees rise from $68,748 to $282,754. Those increases would primarily be earmarked for transportation projects.
When you see these proposed fee increases, it is a stretch to assume we have a city staff or a City Council that wags its collective tail every time someone pitches a building project. In fact, you could easily argue that these sort of increases will discourage small businesses from expanding or moving here.
What kind of business could afford these sort of impact fees? Of course, it's the big-box retail stores that few of us want to see in western Nevada County. And I can assure you that those corporations and their lawyers won't flinch when they hear the word Roseville.
The reason city staff proposed such large increases in development impact fees is that the city needs more money to ease our transportation pains, which opponents of projects like DeMartinis have identified as the number one problem in Grass Valley.
And therein lies the problem: How does the city resolve its traffic problems without additional revenue? It's pretty obvious that we shouldn't expect any state or federal highway transportation funds in the near future even if Rep. John Doolittle has pledged his assistance in getting money for the Dorsey Drive Interchange project.
Keeping a business like DeMartinis in town is part of the solution. After the owner decided to build in the city, it took him more than a year to get through the process. After the project had passed through a gauntlet of seven different meetings that led to three design changes, it had 57 conditions attached to it, according to Tim DeMartini.
The final design that was presented to the City Council was developed through the city's own process and largely paid for by DeMartini. This doesn't sound like a free ride, especially when you consider the city likely wanted to keep this business here in the first place.
Maybe a better question to ask is whether certain parties in this community really want a solution to our traffic problems? Are they using the traffic argument, the architecture argument or the development impact fee proposal as a way to discourage small businesses from either expanding or moving here?
Would these same folks who expect businesses to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees and for mitigation studies be willing to accept a half-cent increase in sales tax dedicated to street projects?
The answer is probably no. According to a Citizens Concerned About Traffic memo that recently wound up in my mailbox, the group seems to oppose any sales tax increase.
The memo, in bold print, says at one point: "Instead of the responsible party bearing the burden for remedying the problems created, it will be the taxpayer who will suffer the resulting traffic congestion and will bear the financial burden."
This comment raises the chicken-or-egg question. We know that many of our new residents are choosing to move here in pursuit of a certain quality of life. At the same time, it is highly unlikely they are moving here to shop at Moule, even if it is an local business that has been here for decades.
As an area grows, so does the demand for local services and supplies. It only makes sense then that an existing business might want to expand to meet the needs of a growing community. When that business expands, it collects additional sales tax revenue that a growing community needs.
Are design standards and traffic mitigation efforts important for Grass Valley? Absolutely. But let's make sure our arguments are genuine and the solutions fair to existing businesses that have been here for many years.
ooo
Pat Butler is the editor of The Union. He can be reached by e-mail at patb@theunion.com or by phone at 477-4235.
Our View: City should review approval process
The Union editorial board
March 2, 2006Now that the Grass Valley City Council has given final approval to the design for the new DeMartini RV Sales building on Idaho-Maryland Road, it might want to take a look at how the city handles these projects.
After nearly two years, seven meetings and three design changes, DeMartini's project was challenged on Tuesday night by City Councilman Dean Williams, who raised concerns that the final look did not reflect the area's historic character.
Williams contended the design reflected a more suburban look. He also wanted to make sure the landscaping included numerous fast-growing trees to shield the 12-acre RV lot from passers-by.
City councilman Mark Johnson would later join Williams in a vote against the project's design.
Mayor Gerard Tassone and Councilwomen Patti Ingram and Lisa Swarthout voted to approve the design, which allows Tim DeMartini to start building a project that he has been working on with the city since May 2004.
DeMartini's project was reviewed four times by the city's Development Review Committee and three times by the Planning Commission. In that process, he submitted three different designs in an effort to meet concerns raised throughout the process.
In the end, the Planning Commission approved a design that was not even DeMartini's first choice.
So when DeMartini learned prior to Tuesday's meeting that "his" design was considered inappropriate by as many as two city councilmen, he was understandably frustrated by the process.
If the city wants to start enforcing strict design codes, it first needs to be clear on what architecture it finds acceptable and then establish clear guidelines for those who evaluate the projects. Otherwise, it is presenting a moving target, and that's not fair to applicants.
In this particular case, the city had numerous opportunities to craft the project it desired. DeMartini, meanwhile, worked with various city agencies and planners in an effort to comply with the conditions established to get his project approved.
Fortunately, the majority of council members understood this and approved a project that had been taken through a long and costly process. If the council would have rejected this project, it would have represented a failure on the council's part to successfully communicate to its committees, commissions and planners what kind of look it wants for the city's new buildings
This time, by a 3-2 vote, the process did work. If the council would have rejected the design, it would have penalized a longtime local business that could have chosen to build elsewhere.
Wildwood bond deal tabbed as financial feat
Trina Kleist, trinak@theunion.com
March 1, 2006Nevada County supervisors on Tuesday approved a complex deal that allows a Los Angeles developer to pay off a failed bond issue connected to the Wildwood Ridge Phases 2-4 project by issuing new bonds.
That means people who buy homes in the new development, when it is built, will take on the payment of special taxes to fund the costs of infrastructure.
It also means the county will catch the attention of the national bond market for ridding its record of a financial black mark, said Michael Castelli, a Nevada City lawyer who has worked on the deal on the county's behalf for eight years.
Nevada County will be able to pay every penny owed on the failed bond issue that has plagued the project.
Castelli praised county staff and the latest landowner, Stone & Youngberg LLC, for putting the deal together. The company is the state's largest underwriter of land-secured government bonds. It was invited by the county to take on the project when it became an albatross.
"Not anyone could have done this," Castelli said. "They're the best in the field."
The deal also lets the county avoid a $200,000 annual bill it would have had to pay for the upgrade of the Lake Wildwood sewage treatment plant, Castelli said.
Since 1993, when the original bond issue to pay for that infrastructure failed, the county has been paying those special taxes to the districts that are supposed to receive the tax money. That cost has been running about $20,000 annually, Castelli said.
The higher sanitation bill now will be spread among the landowners, Castelli said. Most of the affordable housing units, however, will be exempted from the special district taxes.
The new community facilities district created for Wildwood Ridge has the authority to issue up to $9 million in bonds to be paid over a period as long as 40 years. The Board of Supervisors will have to approve any bond issue separately.
The original $10 million bond issue was restructured to cost less than $9 million because much of the original principal had been paid off, Castelli said.
After the original bond failed, the county put the property's 207 acres on the market for $1. There were no takers.
When Stone & Youngberg bought the property in 1999 for $10, the property's value was $6.5 million less than its debt, Castelli said. Rising land values and the underwriter's commitment to fixing the problem made Tuesday's deal possible, he said.
"They don't want defaulted bonds out there on the market," Castelli said. "That gives the whole industry of land-secured bonds a bad name."
ooo
To contact staff writer Trina Kleist, e-mail trinak@theunion.com or call 477-4231.
RV sales business set to move to Idaho-Maryland
Josh Singer, joshs@theunion.com
March 1, 2006The Grass Valley City Council approved the DeMartini's RV Sales project by a 3-2 margin Tuesday night, marking the culmination of nearly two years of meetings regarding the project's design.
DeMartini RV Sales, one of Grass Valley's leading generators of sales taxes, has been trying to move from East Main Street and Dorsey Drive to a 12-acre property on Idaho-Maryland Road since the spring of 2004. Since that time, owners Timothy and Margie DeMartini have met with the city's Development Review Committee four times and with the Planning Commission three times.
Timothy and Margie DeMartini appeared at Tuesday night's meeting joined by numerous family members. A handful of residents spoke during the public comment session. Mike Walsh, the owner of a property adjacent to the proposed project, expressed wholehearted support for it. Another resident said she felt the project should have architectural improvements before gaining approval.
Mayor Gerard Tassone and council members Patti Ingram and Lisa Swarthout voted in favor of the project. Vice-mayor Mark Johnson and council member Dean Williams voted against it.
Johnson listed roof design and architectural cornices as reasons for voting no, saying that he didn't think the current plan for the RV Sales store conformed to Grass Valley's architectural character, which the city's General Plan mandates all new projects must do.
Williams said he didn't "have a strong opinion about the changes (he) would like to see." However, he expressed concern about the large parking lot people would see from the freeway.
According to a survey presented at Tuesday's meeting, for someone driving at the speed limit, the parking lot would be visible at a non-direct angle for approximately 10 seconds.
Williams had previously submitted photos likening DeMartini's latest design to staples of big box architecture in suburban California, such as Home Depot, Chuck E. Cheese, and REI.
Tassone, Ingram and Swarthout said they were comfortable with the current design plan, aside from such potential changes as the building's base color.
DeMartini has said he hopes to open the RV Sales store by this fall.
ooo
To reach staff writer Josh Singer, e-mail joshs@theunion.com or call 477-4234.