Site search
sponsored by
91°F 
Saturday July 5th
Saturday July 5th 
| Welcome, Guest |
 |
| LOGIN | Become a Member | What's This? |
Please enter the following information:
| Email: | |
| Password: | |
| Remember Me | |
|
Forgot Password?
Become a Member |
Close Window |
Jobs
Autos
Classifieds
Search local dealer inventory and private seller listings
An unusual coalition has formed to fight a proposed ballot initiative that would alter the way Grass Valley residents make important development decisions.
Grass Valley United brings together at least five former Grass Valley City Council members - including Patti Ingram, Gerard Tassone, DeVere Mautino, Linda Stevens and Steve Enos.
During much of the decade both on and off the council, Enos has aggravated other council members and those who favor development by relentlessly criticizing projects, often on the basis of design and compliance with environmental protection regulations.
But they all agree in their opposition to the proposed Managed Growth Initiative, citing concerns the measure would spur rural sprawl, divide the community, raise new housing costs and allow fear to rule at the polls.
"It makes no sense whatsoever," Tassone said.
The initiative would lock in the land-use element and land- use map of the Grass Valley 2020 General Plan - the "comprehensive plan for growth and development in the city of Grass Valley and the surrounding unincorporated area," according to the plan's introduction. Changes to the map would go to a vote of city residents.
Supporters of the measure have said the general plan map puts a limit on sprawl by defining development boundaries, and that a good project would win the approval of voters.
"The general plan allows for a reasonable amount of growth," Grant Cattaneo, who helped start the initiative, has said.
But Enos, who has fought to get developers to adhere to city planning guidelines, disagreed.
"I'm against it because it's just wrong. It's not needed and it's going to be very, very divisive," Enos said. "This is going to drive a big, fat wedge that drives our community apart."
A map for "sprawl"
The initiative would lock in place the land-use map of the Grass Valley 2020 General Plan. The plan was approved in 1999 and the land- use map was approved in 1982, city Community Development Director Joe Heckel said.
The initiative would extend them until 2038 - though state law requires them to be updated about every 10 years, Enos said.
Under the proposed initiative, any developments that would make a more intensive use of a property than called for in the general plan map would have to win approval from city residents.
"The general plan is pretty good," said Enos, who has been a land-use planner for many years. "What I have a problem with is the general plan map. ... The map is sprawl."
In recent years, various concerns have arisen about rural sprawl in Nevada County, where people in unincorporated areas live on large lots, far from each other and farther from village or town centers - reducing open space.
Now, City Council members can vote to change the map, and have done so four times, Enos said.
Two of those amendments were for the BriarPatch Market on Sierra College Drive, and the Wolf Creek Village cohousing project to be built at Freeman Lane and McKnight Way.
They are examples of a more intensive use of property than what is contemplated in the general plan - projects that would not have been built under the initiative, Enos said.
They are "the two most environmentally sensitive projects this town has ever seen," he said. But "nobody is going to take forward a project to a vote of the public."
A ballot measure on each development would further divide the community - over and over again, Enos said. "I call it the 30-year war," he added.
Much of people's growth concerns in the area stem from four large projects that came before the city starting in 2002 on properties set for annexation by 2020.
Ingram and Tassone were part of a council majority that, in 2006, approved a set of guidelines that would allow city officials to give those developers more housing and greater density than the land-use map allows them in exchange for amenities such as open space, historically appropriate architecture, communications infrastructure, bus stops and mixing retail with residential areas.
The Managed Growth Initiative would require such changes to go to the ballot boxes.
If developers each have to take their projects before a public vote, their costs would soar, opponents to the initiative said.
"I am very concerned about the cost of housing and the loss of jobs because of the cost" of a ballot measure for developers wanting to change the land use map, Ingram said.
The city would pay the cost of a special election.
Disagreement about growth
Growth is less of a problem than initiative supporters present, Ingram said.
"There were, maybe, 50 people who moved to the city last year, out of 205 that came into the county. They could even have been people from the county who chose to downsize and move close to town and services," Ingram said.
"These numbers do not justify putting a stranglehold on our elected officials' ability to address the community's economic health and service needs," she added. In addition, the initiative undermines representative government, Ingram said.
"The cornerstone of our government is we elect people to make decisions for us who are informed," she said.
Council members do "not have extra brain power," but do have access to studies and consultants who help them make informed decisions, Ingram added.
In an initiative process, complex decisions with myriad elements could be made on the basis of fear and uninformed opinion influenced by developer dollars rather than by study of the projects and their impacts, Ingram said.
At last week's council meeting, Enos gathered with people he has battled in the past, including builder Keoni Allen of Sierra Foothills Construction Co., to voice opposition to the initiative.
"We can fight and divide, or we as a community can come together to develop a common and shared vision for the future of this great town," Enos said at the meeting.
To contact City Editor Trina Kleist, e-mail tkleist@theunion.com or call 477-4230.
Grass Valley
2020 General Plan
A general plan is "a comprehensive plan for growth and development" for a city and surrounding, unincorporated areas.
According to state law, a general plan's land-use element "designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space" and other uses such as schools, parks and sewage treatment plants.
It also sets density for residences - or how many houses per acre - and the intensity of use of the buildings, such as warehouses or fast-food restaurants.
n To read Grass Valley's 2020 General Plan, visit www.cityofgrassvalley.com/services/resources/gen_plan/html/final_gp_ch1.htm
n The land-use element is in chapter 3.
Grass Valley United brings together at least five former Grass Valley City Council members - including Patti Ingram, Gerard Tassone, DeVere Mautino, Linda Stevens and Steve Enos.
During much of the decade both on and off the council, Enos has aggravated other council members and those who favor development by relentlessly criticizing projects, often on the basis of design and compliance with environmental protection regulations.
But they all agree in their opposition to the proposed Managed Growth Initiative, citing concerns the measure would spur rural sprawl, divide the community, raise new housing costs and allow fear to rule at the polls.
"It makes no sense whatsoever," Tassone said.
The initiative would lock in the land-use element and land- use map of the Grass Valley 2020 General Plan - the "comprehensive plan for growth and development in the city of Grass Valley and the surrounding unincorporated area," according to the plan's introduction. Changes to the map would go to a vote of city residents.
Supporters of the measure have said the general plan map puts a limit on sprawl by defining development boundaries, and that a good project would win the approval of voters.
"The general plan allows for a reasonable amount of growth," Grant Cattaneo, who helped start the initiative, has said.
But Enos, who has fought to get developers to adhere to city planning guidelines, disagreed.
"I'm against it because it's just wrong. It's not needed and it's going to be very, very divisive," Enos said. "This is going to drive a big, fat wedge that drives our community apart."
A map for "sprawl"
The initiative would lock in place the land-use map of the Grass Valley 2020 General Plan. The plan was approved in 1999 and the land- use map was approved in 1982, city Community Development Director Joe Heckel said.
The initiative would extend them until 2038 - though state law requires them to be updated about every 10 years, Enos said.
Under the proposed initiative, any developments that would make a more intensive use of a property than called for in the general plan map would have to win approval from city residents.
"The general plan is pretty good," said Enos, who has been a land-use planner for many years. "What I have a problem with is the general plan map. ... The map is sprawl."
In recent years, various concerns have arisen about rural sprawl in Nevada County, where people in unincorporated areas live on large lots, far from each other and farther from village or town centers - reducing open space.
Now, City Council members can vote to change the map, and have done so four times, Enos said.
Two of those amendments were for the BriarPatch Market on Sierra College Drive, and the Wolf Creek Village cohousing project to be built at Freeman Lane and McKnight Way.
They are examples of a more intensive use of property than what is contemplated in the general plan - projects that would not have been built under the initiative, Enos said.
They are "the two most environmentally sensitive projects this town has ever seen," he said. But "nobody is going to take forward a project to a vote of the public."
A ballot measure on each development would further divide the community - over and over again, Enos said. "I call it the 30-year war," he added.
Much of people's growth concerns in the area stem from four large projects that came before the city starting in 2002 on properties set for annexation by 2020.
Ingram and Tassone were part of a council majority that, in 2006, approved a set of guidelines that would allow city officials to give those developers more housing and greater density than the land-use map allows them in exchange for amenities such as open space, historically appropriate architecture, communications infrastructure, bus stops and mixing retail with residential areas.
The Managed Growth Initiative would require such changes to go to the ballot boxes.
If developers each have to take their projects before a public vote, their costs would soar, opponents to the initiative said.
"I am very concerned about the cost of housing and the loss of jobs because of the cost" of a ballot measure for developers wanting to change the land use map, Ingram said.
The city would pay the cost of a special election.
Disagreement about growth
Growth is less of a problem than initiative supporters present, Ingram said.
"There were, maybe, 50 people who moved to the city last year, out of 205 that came into the county. They could even have been people from the county who chose to downsize and move close to town and services," Ingram said.
"These numbers do not justify putting a stranglehold on our elected officials' ability to address the community's economic health and service needs," she added. In addition, the initiative undermines representative government, Ingram said.
"The cornerstone of our government is we elect people to make decisions for us who are informed," she said.
Council members do "not have extra brain power," but do have access to studies and consultants who help them make informed decisions, Ingram added.
In an initiative process, complex decisions with myriad elements could be made on the basis of fear and uninformed opinion influenced by developer dollars rather than by study of the projects and their impacts, Ingram said.
At last week's council meeting, Enos gathered with people he has battled in the past, including builder Keoni Allen of Sierra Foothills Construction Co., to voice opposition to the initiative.
"We can fight and divide, or we as a community can come together to develop a common and shared vision for the future of this great town," Enos said at the meeting.
To contact City Editor Trina Kleist, e-mail tkleist@theunion.com or call 477-4230.
Grass Valley
2020 General Plan
A general plan is "a comprehensive plan for growth and development" for a city and surrounding, unincorporated areas.
According to state law, a general plan's land-use element "designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space" and other uses such as schools, parks and sewage treatment plants.
It also sets density for residences - or how many houses per acre - and the intensity of use of the buildings, such as warehouses or fast-food restaurants.
n To read Grass Valley's 2020 General Plan, visit www.cityofgrassvalley.com/services/resources/gen_plan/html/final_gp_ch1.htm
n The land-use element is in chapter 3.
Other Top Items
|
Related Articles
|
Most Recommended Articles
|
Comments
