Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
The managed growth initiative would harm Grass Valley's economic base, demolish the General Plan, put several projects in limbo, encourage sprawl and make it almost impossible for the city to meet affordable housing mandates, according to a staff report the City Council will review Tuesday night.
The report identifies a dozen areas of official concern if voters approve the initiative, which is on schedule to be on the Nov. 3 ballot.
Proponents say the ballot measure will simply give residents the right to vote when changes are proposed to the land-use element of the 2020 General Plan, which was approved in 1999. It also extends the life of the land-use element of the plan by 30 years to 2038.
The report paints a different picture, saying passage of the measure will have far-reaching and harmful financial and planning consequences for Grass Valley and the region.
"They say they want to hold the General Plan in place. In reality, it's more complicated than that," said Joe Heckel, the city's community development director.
City officials say the measure would infiltrate every nuance of the planning process, potentially requiring special elections on zoning changes, subdivision maps, conditional-use permits, building permits or any change not spelled out in the land-use element approved in 1999. It would also undermine joint planning efforts and agreements with the county and possibly kill infill projects in Grass Valley, according to the report.
"The biggest issue with this is that you eliminate flexibility. What they want to put in place will make the whole process more difficult," City Administrator Dan Holler said.
One major concern would be losing Special Development Area projects such as the Loma Rica Ranch project that are now in the city's sphere of influence where they could be annexed by the city. This would lead to sprawl around Grass Valley and the loss of future revenue, the report says.
"What happens if all this stuff goes to the county, and we have no control over that?" Holler said. "North Auburn comes to mind."
If the initiative is approved, the SDAs would have to be approved by a majority of voters since certain land-use changes would be required. Rather than submit to that process, the project's developers could take their proposals to the county for approval.
On the potential loss of revenue from SDAs and other projects that the city believes it needs to sustain Grass Valley's status as the economic hub of western Nevada County, the report states "impacts will be felt in a drop of fees and charges, impact fees, and utility connections, all of which will impact the city's financial health."
A number of mixed-use projects in the planning pipeline might be affected as well, according to the report. Olympia Plaza II, the Whiting Street project and Village of South Auburn all offer a combination of residential and either office or commercial space, which is a change from what was approved in 1999.
State law allows the City Council to make up to five changes a year in its General Plan, which in Grass Valley includes 10 elements that address everything from parks to public safety to historic preservation. The 2020 General Plan is designed to project what the land use and other needs will be for the next 20 years as the city moves forward.
The "Report on Potential Issues and Impacts of Proposed Land-Use Initiative" says changing the timeline to 2038 for the land-use element will affect every aspect of the General Plan, including the city's ability to meet California's affordable housing mandates.
"The city will be challenged with how to update the elements of the 2020 General Plan to match the 2038 time frame. ... Of particular concern is the city's ability to comply with future state housing mandates and how our housing element can be updated and linked to the land-use element."
The penalty for not meeting housing mandates, the report says, can include fines, other penalties, and eligibility for certain state and federal grants. In addition, the report says the initiative could create more opportunities for litigation from either developers or project opponents.
The report says having a different timeline for the land-use element would make it difficult to move ahead with other projects in the General Plan.
As a result, "the goals, objectives and implementation strategies contained in the nine other elements will not, in all likelihood, be implemented by 2020. The ability to create parks, trail systems, circulation improvements, open space and further our public safety standards are tied to the levels of growth and development identified in the land-use element," according to the report.
Holler said having "one fixed piece of the General Plan makes it more difficult to integrate it" with the other elements, thus complicating the entire planning process in new ways.
The summary report will be discussed and a power point presentation will be shown at Tuesday's regular meeting of the Grass Valley City Council, which starts at 7 p.m. at 125 E. Main Street. According to the agenda, the city describes this as a preliminary report and will ask the council for additional time to prepare a more detailed report.
***
To contact Staff Writer Pat Butler, e-mail pbutler@theunion.com or call 477-4239.
The report identifies a dozen areas of official concern if voters approve the initiative, which is on schedule to be on the Nov. 3 ballot.
Proponents say the ballot measure will simply give residents the right to vote when changes are proposed to the land-use element of the 2020 General Plan, which was approved in 1999. It also extends the life of the land-use element of the plan by 30 years to 2038.
The report paints a different picture, saying passage of the measure will have far-reaching and harmful financial and planning consequences for Grass Valley and the region.
"They say they want to hold the General Plan in place. In reality, it's more complicated than that," said Joe Heckel, the city's community development director.
City officials say the measure would infiltrate every nuance of the planning process, potentially requiring special elections on zoning changes, subdivision maps, conditional-use permits, building permits or any change not spelled out in the land-use element approved in 1999. It would also undermine joint planning efforts and agreements with the county and possibly kill infill projects in Grass Valley, according to the report.
"The biggest issue with this is that you eliminate flexibility. What they want to put in place will make the whole process more difficult," City Administrator Dan Holler said.
One major concern would be losing Special Development Area projects such as the Loma Rica Ranch project that are now in the city's sphere of influence where they could be annexed by the city. This would lead to sprawl around Grass Valley and the loss of future revenue, the report says.
"What happens if all this stuff goes to the county, and we have no control over that?" Holler said. "North Auburn comes to mind."
If the initiative is approved, the SDAs would have to be approved by a majority of voters since certain land-use changes would be required. Rather than submit to that process, the project's developers could take their proposals to the county for approval.
On the potential loss of revenue from SDAs and other projects that the city believes it needs to sustain Grass Valley's status as the economic hub of western Nevada County, the report states "impacts will be felt in a drop of fees and charges, impact fees, and utility connections, all of which will impact the city's financial health."
A number of mixed-use projects in the planning pipeline might be affected as well, according to the report. Olympia Plaza II, the Whiting Street project and Village of South Auburn all offer a combination of residential and either office or commercial space, which is a change from what was approved in 1999.
State law allows the City Council to make up to five changes a year in its General Plan, which in Grass Valley includes 10 elements that address everything from parks to public safety to historic preservation. The 2020 General Plan is designed to project what the land use and other needs will be for the next 20 years as the city moves forward.
The "Report on Potential Issues and Impacts of Proposed Land-Use Initiative" says changing the timeline to 2038 for the land-use element will affect every aspect of the General Plan, including the city's ability to meet California's affordable housing mandates.
"The city will be challenged with how to update the elements of the 2020 General Plan to match the 2038 time frame. ... Of particular concern is the city's ability to comply with future state housing mandates and how our housing element can be updated and linked to the land-use element."
The penalty for not meeting housing mandates, the report says, can include fines, other penalties, and eligibility for certain state and federal grants. In addition, the report says the initiative could create more opportunities for litigation from either developers or project opponents.
The report says having a different timeline for the land-use element would make it difficult to move ahead with other projects in the General Plan.
As a result, "the goals, objectives and implementation strategies contained in the nine other elements will not, in all likelihood, be implemented by 2020. The ability to create parks, trail systems, circulation improvements, open space and further our public safety standards are tied to the levels of growth and development identified in the land-use element," according to the report.
Holler said having "one fixed piece of the General Plan makes it more difficult to integrate it" with the other elements, thus complicating the entire planning process in new ways.
The summary report will be discussed and a power point presentation will be shown at Tuesday's regular meeting of the Grass Valley City Council, which starts at 7 p.m. at 125 E. Main Street. According to the agenda, the city describes this as a preliminary report and will ask the council for additional time to prepare a more detailed report.
***
To contact Staff Writer Pat Butler, e-mail pbutler@theunion.com or call 477-4239.
