Charisse Lolli: Is Dollar General moving in, or not?
There are a lot of developments going on in Nevada County; developments that Nevada County residents want.
But this is not one of them!
We’re into the third year of letter writing and attending meetings to tell the out-of-state developers (Simon, CRE) for the three proposed Dollar General Store sites that we don’t want their chain stores moving into our rural neighborhoods, but that hasn’t slowed them down.
Being more concerned with their pockets than the residents, they plan to make money by developing the raw land and leasing to a chain store. In this case, it is the Dollar General Corporation who promises to hold a 15-year lease, but only if the developer can build a 9,100 square foot building. For the Alta Sierra site, the Planning Commission found that “the proposed project is over developed on the project site.” And although the County has requested reduction in the size and orientation, the developer has not been amenable.
Shouldn’t the Dollar General developers be subject to the same building requirements that we are all subject to? Any developer should either adjust their project to fit the property they want, or find a different property that will accommodate the project size they want. This project’s approval requires special exemptions from standard building code. The development in Alta Sierra seeks a 25 percent reduction in parking requirements based upon the occupant being a Dollar General Store, but this would require any future tenant to also prove that they quality for that same exemption, restricting any future tenant from being anything but a low volume chain store.
Allowing this entitlement restricts the future of that property forever. It can never be a Trader Joes, or Dutch Brothers, Holiday Market, or anything else that the residents have suggested.
We need to think about Dollar General Corporation terminates its lease, or sells to another corporate chain that cannot qualify for the same entitlements. Nevada County will either have to leave the building vacant and useless, or allow traffic problems in our neighborhood that will risk our safety without hope of correction.
The many entitlements for over development sought for this project leaves residents with problems that cannot be fixed. They include:
Reductions in parking requirements creating a permanent restriction on any future uses;
Massive building size causing the inability of the parcel to accommodate its own infrastructure for septic and storm drainage;
Lack of properly avoiding and mitigating the destruction of 100+ mature oaks and pines;
Causing inappropriate noise, glare and light upon residential neighborhoods;
Lack of design features that would reduce the need to grade 4,700+ cubic yards of soil;
Incompatibility with the residential neighborhood;
Lack of attention to existing culvert failures for storm drainage;
Lack of enforcement of any illegal delivery trucks;
Inconsistent with the Nevada County General Plan Central Theme of fostering a rural quality of life.
Isn’t that why we live here in Nevada County? Is there a trade-off for allowing over development in our neighborhoods?
You can help our Board of Supervisors decide! The appeals are scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 27. There is a public comment period, and letters regarding the hearing matter can be sent to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for distribution to our Supervisors at firstname.lastname@example.org
Charisse Lolli lives in Alta Sierra.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.