If you believe characterizations in letters to the editor and some media reports, you might think the Rural Quality Coalition's historical efforts reflect an agenda of no-growth and environmental extremism. But a real look at the RQC's activities in its nine-year history provides a more accurate picture of a serious commitment to community education, neighborhood assistance and advocacy for good planning.
The involvement of founding RQC members in Nevada County's General Plan Update process from 1990-1995 brought prominence to the fledgling non-profit organization. Since its formal formation, the organization has quickly responded to pleas for help from neighborhoods faced with development projects throughout the western County. As a result of the tireless efforts of many, the RQC has educated those neighborhoods about the complexities of the California Environmental Quality Act and the intricacies of the development permit and planning process. Hundreds of residents and many neighborhood associations have been assisted in being more effectively involved in County and cities permit processes, often resulting in new projects that are more environmentally benign and neighborhood compatible and truly assets to the community. (Back)
We all know that the RQC was formed under a pine tree (or was it a cedar tree) in Pioneer Park in Nevada City in 1993. The founders were a group of citizens who were frustrated that the very conservative majority on the then-Board of Supervisors (Christine Foster, Karen Knecht, Fran Grattan, and Rene Antonson) had out-voted Supervisor Sam Dardick and summarily thrown-out the planning recommendations of 500 citizens. Those citizens had responded to the Board's request for volunteers to help with a comprehensive update of the 1980 General Plan. The 500 collectively spent hundreds of hours developing strong planning recommendations that only Supervisor Dardick and then-Planning Commissioners Izzy Martin and Barbara Green wanted to hear.
The founding members of the RQC immediately went to work. The Board of Supervisors authorized a 17-person Steering Committee to work with the consultants and the public in developing Goals, Objectives and Policies and the Land Use Map for the new Plan. Steering Committee members were appointed by the interest group they were to represent. RQC member Peter Van Zant represented neighborhood organizations, and Laurie Oberholtzer represented Nevada City. Even though RQC members and other advocates for environmental protection and thoughtful planning were outnumbered on the Steering Committee, the focus of the pro-development majority on the Committee was primarily on the Land Use Map so that many good, hard fought for, Policies emerged and survived during the five-year update process. (Back)
So how did the updated General Plan the Supervisors finally adopted in November of 1995 turn-out? In a few words: pretty good Goals, Objectives and Policies, but a Land Use Map that provides for densities higher than certain areas can accommodate without significant impacts on infrastructure, environmental resources and public health and safety as well as neighborhood incompatibility.
The General Plan includes some really meaningful Goals, Objectives and Policies that mandate identification and protection for such environmental resources as wetlands; heritage oaks and oak groves; major deer migration corridors and fawning areas; rare and endangered species; riparian corridors within 100 feet of intermittent or perennial water courses; cultural resources; flood plains; important agricultural lands; significant mineral areas; earthquake faults; steep slopes over 30%; areas with high erosion potential and areas subject to fire hazards; and visually important ridgelines and viewsheds. (Back)
It's important to note that, despite the opposition's deceptions and fear tactics, NH2020 is nothing more than implementation of the 1995 Plan by:
The Board of Supervisors, between 1990 and 1995, spent 1.3 million dollars of taxpayer dollars to prepare and adopt the new Plan. Today, the current Board of Supervisors has committed to NH2020 only $268,000 over three years to involve scientific experts and the public in implementing environmental resource protection Policies in the Plan. The remainder of the cost is borne by grants to the County's non-profit partner, the Sierra Business Council, made available because of the environmental protection and enhancement aspects of the process. (Back)
The 1995 General Plan does include some Policies that were purposefully weakened to facilitate development opportunities. But at the same time, thanks to persuasive input from the RQC and other environmental and neighborhood groups, there are other strong Policies. Those Policies mandate:
The inclusive and collaborative NH2020 process developed by the then-sitting Board of Supervisors has allowed hundreds of citizens to attend workshops and serve on committees to help the County decide how best to protect the environmental resources identified in the Plan. (Back)
The most glaring flaw in the Plan is the Land Use Map that generally reflects the land uses and densities provided for in the 1980 General Plan. But, in response to requests from usually influential, individual property owners, the Map also provides for higher value land use designations (higher densities or different land uses) for some 150 properties whose owners individually appealed to the Board of Supervisors for increased development potential. Approval of the individual requests was usually based on who you were and who was representing you, rather than whether your request reflected environmental protection, satisfaction of land use needs and good long term planning.
General Plans usually establish a land use planning blueprint for the following 20 years. Upon adoption of the 1995 Plan, however, the then-Board of Supervisors immediately began rezoning the entire County to the maximum densities allowed by the new Plan. RQC members alerted and assisted neighborhood organizations where rezonings to higher densities were premature. For the most part, efforts to see that higher densities be phased-in only when infrastructure capabilities permitted failed. The Board was anxious to ensure maximum development potential before new Supervisors took office in January of 1997. (Back)
Media reports on the successful efforts of the RQC and the planning advocacy skills of its membership made the new organization well known. Membership numbers swelled. Neighborhood organizations and individuals called on the RQC for education and assistance in responding to development projects proposed in their communities.
As it approaches its tenth anniversary in 2003, the RQC has been called upon to assist communities in most areas of Western Nevada County in effecting responding to a wide variety of development projects. It is particularly relevant to understand that the RQC's first rule when accepting a request for education and assistance is to clearly understand the concerns of those involved and their goals for the project. Interestingly, in every case where the RQC has agreed to help, the goal of those interested has been:
The first major project to be filed following the 1995 adoption of the County General Plan was Dark Horse, a 300 dwelling unit subdivision clustered around a golf course with clubhouse, restaurant/meeting facility on 1000 acres between Lake of the Pines and the Bear River in the south County. Before the 1995 General Plan, the properties involved in the project, including an historic cattle ranch, had been zoned for 10 acre parcels. The parcels involved in the project were blessed with wetlands, oak groves, heritage oak trees and riparian corridors.
Before the 1995 General Plan, South County residents had generally been pretty complacent about land use and development issues, but Dark Horse brought a whole new level of public interest to the 5000 person community. Combie Road, the main access to the community from State Highway 49, was already carrying almost 14,000 cars per day with gridlock at peak periods. The new General Plan was providing much more shopping, offices and medium to high-density development along the Combie corridor, and residents were getting nervous. (Back)
When the RQC was first contacted by a group of South County residents, it was obvious that the community outside of the gates of Lake of the Pines had no neighborhood organization to educate and represent area residents. With the support and assistance of a handful of area residents, RQC volunteers worked to form what is now the South Nevada County Concerned Citizens, probably one of the County's most viable community associations.
Once organized and staffed with elected officers, the new group sought the assistance of the RQC to respond to the Dark Horse project. The issue with the generally conservative community was not so much the project as it was the project's impacts and whether they would be adequately identified and mitigated to the extent feasible.
Despite appeals from the community, countered by the arguments of the developer's representatives, the 1997 Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors allowed the project to proceed without an Environmental Impact Report. Outraged, the community asked the RQC to lead them in both a referendum on project approval, so that it could be voted upon by residents, and in litigation against the County for violations of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Back)
RQC members from throughout the County jumped at the chance to help South County neighbors. Referendum petitions were prepared and over 6,000 signatures (only 3800 were required) were gathered in three weeks at the County Fair and at card tables at shopping centers. The petitions were accepted by the County Clerk, and the Board of Supervisors was given the choice of rescinding its approval or letting the voters decide.
At the same time, a settlement meeting was held between attorneys for the developer and the RQC to determine if the suit could be settled out of court. The RQC's attorney made it clear that the suit would be dropped if, (1) the developer agreed to reimburse the County for the hiring of a consultant to prepare an adequate Environmental Impact Report on the project; and (2) the RQC was reimbursed by the developer for its legal and administrative costs. The developer agreed to fund the County's hiring of a consultant to prepare an EIR and to reimburse the RQC for its legal costs. The Board of Supervisors, at the request of the developer, rescinded its approval of the project, the suit was dropped and the referendum became moot.
Once the EIR was completed, the RQC assisted the community in ensuring that the EIR was adequate in identifying impacts and providing the best impact mitigation measures available. When the EIR was certified, the project moved forward to approval with no community objections. Construction of the project is currently underway.
Fortunately, few projects have required the huge commitment of time from so many. But the good news is that RQC members established new friendships with a great bunch of South County residents we might never have had the opportunity to meet otherwise. In addition, County staff and decision-makers quickly realized that the public would not tolerate avoidance of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Back)
The RQC was called upon to help another South County neighborhood with two, separate large subdivisions with the total potential for 323 new lots served by Lime Kiln Road and Duggan Road, west of Highway 49.
The tentative map of Quail Lake Estates proposed 93 clustered lots on 809 acres on the north side of Lime Kiln Road. The project application included an Environmental Impact Report prepared by a consultant under contract to the County. The neighborhood was generally satisfied with the project but wanted additional analysis and impact mitigation for traffic and required road improvements, the centralized community septic tank/leach field system and its potential noise emissions and effect on their ground water wells, protection of Wolf Creek, and assurances that the project would be provided with piped NID water for both irrigation and domestic use.
The neighborhood was satisfied with the mitigation measures finally applied to the project by the Planning Commission. Construction of the project has not started, and it is understood that the property and its project approvals may be up for sale. (Back)
The tentative map of the adjoining Wolf Creek Ranch Estates, proposing 230 clustered lots on 691 acres, has not gone as well. The primary objection of neighbors on Duggan and Lime Kiln Roads is the one house per three acre density of the project in a community zoned for minimum parcel sizes of five acres and larger. The project also included an Environmental Impact Report, prepared by the County's consultant. The document identified a number of significant and unmitigable impacts including loss of agricultural land; increase in traffic volumes on Highway 49 that is already operating at below acceptable service levels; traffic noise; air quality; loss of oak woodlands, wetlands and sensitive habitats; and overcrowding of high school facilities.
The cattle ranch on which Wolf Creek Ranch Estates is proposed was one of the properties awarded higher densities by the previous Board of Supervisors with the 1995 General Plan. Previously zoned for 10 acre minimums under the 1980 General Plan, the parcel is traversed by Wolf Creek and is rich with riparian habitat and oak woodlands. Neighbors questioned the adequacy of some aspects of the EIR, that had been approved by the Planning Commission, and ultimately took a successful appeal to the Board of Supervisors.
Currently, at the direction of the Board, additional work was done on the draft EIR, and it has been rumored that some project redesign may be underway. Based on previous public testimony before the Commission and Board, it can be assumed that neighbors would be more supportive of the project if the density were reduced and the project was redesigned to provide protection for Wolf Creek and greater avoidance of oak woodlands. (Back)
The Higgins Center Commercial Development Project (aka, Conkey Project) brought the RQC back to the South County again in response to requests from many area residents concerned about a new shopping center on six acres on the southeast corner of Combie Road and State Highway 49. The project, accompanied by an EIR, proposed a commercial center consisting of five buildings totaling 33,050 square feet. Included would be:
Public water would be provided by the NID, and sewage disposal would be by an off-site centralized community system since the Lake of the Pines Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently at capacity.
It's accurate to say that whether the community even wants another shopping center is highly debatable. Testimony was offered on both sides of the question. The 1995 General Plan clearly provides for a significant amount of commercial, office and multi-family residential development along the congested Combie corridor from Highway 49 to the entrance to Lake of the Pines. But the biggest issue to most, including the Planning Commission, was what the project was going to look like. (Back)
RQC Land Use Committee member Brian Bisnett, planner and licensed Landscape Architect, volunteered his services to develop an alternative to the unimaginative site plan submitted by the developer. Bisnett's plan aimed for compliance with General Plan Policy that designated the project area as a pedestrian-friendly Village Center with office and commercial services oriented toward a community plaza that would invite community rest and interaction opportunities. The alternative plan also provided for more enhancement of Ragsdale Creek that lies between the center and Combie Road.
A subcommittee of the Planning Commission ultimately worked with the developer and the community to arrive at a plan patterned closely after Brian Bisnett's alternative and much more in keeping with the Village Center concept required by the General Plan. (Back)
The Ridge View Woodlands subdivision map proposed the subdivision of 128 acres into 25 lots (consistent with the Agricultural, one unit to five acre zoned density) clustered on 88 acres. The remainder of the parcel would be retained in undisturbed open space to protect some oak trees, wetlands and riparian habitat. Water would be supplied by individual wells and sewage disposal by individual septic and leach fields. The parcel was located on the south side of the Rough and Ready Highway, off South Ponderosa Way, adjacent to an established residential neighborhood. The developer of the forested parcel was the Menasha Corporation of timberland renown.
When the project's neighbors called the RQC, they stressed that they were not opposed to the project if there were assurances that the construction of 25 new homes would not adversely impact their streets, wells and the environmentally sensitive resources on the site (blue oak woodlands, landmark oak trees, deergrass meadow, wildflower fields and Humboldt lily population). The issue of well impacts was particularly important to residents because ground water had already proven to be limited.
To address the well-impact issue, the developer had submitted an outdated report from a geologist providing only vague information on ground water availability in the area. The biologic report clearly indicated that some of the environmental resources would be impacted by home building and a project redesign was necessary. In regard to impacts on area streets, the County had only looked at the direct impact of the project and not the cumulative impact of the project along with other future projects that could occur based on area zoning. (Back)
Despite cogent and reasonable input from the neighborhood, the Planning Commission approved the subdivision and the Board of Supervisors denied the residents' appeal. Well, the County ignored the wrong neighborhood, and the RQC representative found that the residents were very quick learners. Two attorneys lived in the area directly impacted, and, with the RQC's assistance, a lawsuit alleging violations of CEQA and the 1995 General Plan was immediately filed against the County and the developer.
When a land use approval lawsuit is filed, State law requires a settlement meeting between the plaintiff and defendant within 30 days. It gives the plaintiff the opportunity to sit across the table from the defendant and outline exactly what it will take to persuade them to drop the lawsuit. In this case, the suit was dropped when the developer agreed to some minor redesign and road improvements, and, most importantly, to bring in a raw water irrigation line from the NID ditch for each of the new lots so ground water wells would only have to be used for domestic purposes within the new houses. The developer also reimbursed the neighbors for the cost of the lawsuit and legal expenses. The lots in the beautiful new subdivision went on sale recently, and advertisements in the newspaper tout the availability of piped raw water for irrigation to each lot in the subdivision. (Back)
Eskaton is a senior housing and apartment project on 42 acres lying south of Ridge Road immediately east of Nevada Union High School and north of Sierra College. The project is bordered by long-established residential neighborhoods to the north and east along Ridge Road, Via Colina, Ridge Estates, Evergreen and Glenwood Roads.
The RQC was contacted for assistance in responding to the project before it was scheduled to go before the Grass Valley Planning Commission. Neighbors were generally pleased that the 267-unit project (137 apartments and 130 detached houses) would be limited to seniors but were concerned about traffic on their residential streets, tree loss, the huge size of the three-story apartment building (600 feet long facing the high school) and buffers and setbacks from their adjoining homes.
This was another neighborhood of quick learners. They immediately contacted the developer and asked for a pre-Planning Commission meeting to discuss some design changes felt to be necessary by neighbors whose homes border the project. The developer agreed and the meeting was well attended and productive with some design changes resulting. (Back)
Another concern has been Grass Valley's failure to require that some percentage of all new housing be affordable. In the incorporated territory, the County requires that 10% of new housing projects be affordable, and Nevada City is looking at a higher percentage. A recent study commissioned by the County Department of Housing and Community Development revealed a severe shortage of affordable senior housing which could have been alleviated if each of the new senior projects in the City (Highgate, Quail Ridge, Hilltop and Eskaton) were required to make at least a small contribution to affordable senior housing.
There are disappointments with the Eskaton project that is currently under construction. Loss of most of the vegetation because of the intensity and density of the project is unfortunate and very obvious in views from the college and high school. No signal was required on Ridge Road, raising concerns about the safety of turning movements for seniors, employees and neighbors. At least one neighbor has sold the family home and moved because of the project. Other neighbors accept the project and look forward to attractive fencing and landscaping which should buffer the project somewhat from their homes to the east. (Back)
The RQC was asked for help on Grass Valley's 1999 General Plan and the City's 20-year plan for annexations filed with the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). The request came from a group of both City and County residents concerned that the City's ambitious development schedule would kill the historic downtown and lead to unnecessary urban sprawl.
In 1963, the State Legislature adopted new legislation requiring each county to establish a LAFCo to oversee the formation and boundary adjustments of cities and special districts. Simply described, the goals were to avoid overlapping services, or a decline in public services, and to ensure that annexations to cities avoided premature conversion of agricultural lands and preserved open space. In other words, one of the LAFCos' responsibilities is to prevent urban sprawl by ensuring that agricultural and open space lands are not annexed to cities, provided with urban services, and converted to intense urban land uses, unless there is no land within the existing city limits which can fill the land use demand.
Consistent with State regulations, Nevada County's LAFCo is made-up of seven regular members including two city representatives, two County Supervisors , representatives from two special districts, and one public representative selected by the remainder of the LAFCO Board. Each member has an alternate who serves in his or her absence.
In order to ensure that cities and special districts have a plan for annexations, LAFCos require that each entity prepare a Sphere of Influence Study and Master Services Element that identify the area the entity intends to serve within a planning horizon (certain time frame), and how services will be provided and funded.
Nevada County's Local Agency Formation Commission has current adopted Policies and Procedures that require that cities and special districts have a 20-year plan for annexations, divided into five-year horizons. The Policy manual requires that "...area growth patterns indicate that the areas in each five-year horizon require urban services and are likely to be developed for urban use within five years. (Back)
RQC representatives in cooperation with both County and City residents made comprehensive and compelling presentations to LAFCo, encouraging that the City's annexation plans be modified to reflect the City's market demands for additional lands and land uses rather than the development expectations of individual property owners. LAFCo was reminded that Grass Valley's own 1999 General Plan required that the City develop specific measures to facilitate and encourage in-fill development as an alternative to the development of agricultural and open space lands currently outside the City's boundaries. General Plan Goal 2-LUG specifically states that the City, "Promote infill as an alternative to peripheral expansion where feasible."
To date, there is no indication that the City has developed a strategy to promote infill over peripheral expansion. In fact, the City's Sphere of Influence proposal anticipates annexation of some 1500 acres in the first five years, with no demonstration that those lands will be needed to meet urban land use market demands.
Background information presented by the City's consultant during preparation of the 1999 General Plan (Land Use Allocations and Alternatives, Draft #1, February 2, 1999), under the heading of Land Use Demand and Infill Potential, Infill Supply and 20 Year Demand, stated that
Retail/commercial land availability within the City limits is sufficient to meet the 20 year demand (71 acre supply, 70 acre demand) ... Similarly, Manufacturing/Industrial infill potential within the City is a little over one-half the projected demand (55 acres available, 91 acres projected demand, for a 36-acre shortfall....
The study indicated, however, that potential shortfalls for Manufacturing/Industrial may be alleviated (or even eliminated) by the availability of vacant land in existing business parks including Whispering Pines Business Park (40 acres vacant) and the new Litton Business Park (110 acres).
Figure 3-3 from the City's 1999 General Plan shows that Employment Generating Land Uses (commercial and industrial) will not be used within the 20 year planning period. To the contrary, the Plan and its Background Report clearly indicate that most of the City's land use needs for commercial and industrial can be met within the existing City limits. (Back)
In its testimony before LAFCo, RQC representatives and other members of the public reminded both City representatives and other LAFCo members of the findings in the Environmental Impact Report prepared to address the impacts of the 1999 Grass Valley General Plan. The EIR concluded that annexations and development provided for in the new General Plan will have unmitigable, significant adverse impacts, including:
Despite RQC and public testimony, LAFCo approved the City's desired annexation plan, opening the door for major expansion of the City's current boundaries consistent with the new Plan. It should be understood, however, that each annexation proposal will still be subject to environmental review, public hearings and specific approval by the City and LAFCo. (Back)
The City's l999 General Plan land use map pretty much reflects the land use promises made with the City's previous 1982 Plan and the County's 1995 Plan. Because both plans were driven by property owner demands rather than visionary and prudent planning, the City's new Plan provides for significant amounts of residential, commercial and industrial growth despite significant adverse environmental effect warnings in the Plan's Environmental Impact Report.
The 20-year Plan clearly reflects Grass Valley's desire to grow and reinforce its position as the regional hub of Western Nevada County. The Plan identifies the City's intent to expand its current incorporated land area from some 3,000 acres today to 9,894 acres in 20 years and has identified land use designations for that entire Planning Area (area to be annexed). City officials are confident that major growth and development opportunities are favored by the vast majority of City residents, regardless of environmental impacts.
The Plan provides for new housing opportunities that will allow a population potential in the Area of 23,395 in 2020. Today there's about 16,000 people, with 10,000 in the existing City limits and 6,000 in the still-unincorporated territory). Land use designations and densities provide enough land to meet the projected 20 year residential demand for 1,551 single-family homes and 1,269 multi-family units (2820 new units, bringing total in ultimate City limits to 10,203 homes). The ultimate build-out of the Plan, however, (build-out meaning if all property were developed to the maximum intensity allowed by the Plan) provides for 11,029 housing units and a population of over 28,000. (Back)
The Planning Area currently contains 307 acres of commercially-developed land and 101 acres of office development. The proposed Plan provides for 628 acres of commercial and 162 acres of office, plus:
It should be noted that a new shopping center/business park site is proposed at LaBarr Meadows, just south of the existing McKnight Interchange. The application for the project, known as Southhill Village, was filed with the City of Grass Valley.
The application for the 175 acre parcel proposes
Grass Valley's General Plan will provide for an increase in industrial and business park development in the Planning Area from 302 acres of existing development to 534 acres plus:
It is obvious that the Plan provides for far more commercial and industrial /business park development than the City (or even the whole of Western Nevada County) will require in the next 20 years. The overabundance of commercial and industrial lands would not be so troublesome if the City, with approval from the LAFCo, had not opened the door for annexation of the entire 9894 acres in the next 20 years. (Back)
It is important to understand that the 1995 Nevada County General Plan purposefully provides that urban-intensity land uses be placed in Community Regions (Nevada City, Grass Valley, Penn Valley, Lake of the Pines and Truckee). To that end, the Community Regions in both the western and eastern portions of the County are designed to provide enough residential, commercial and industrial land supply to provide an adequate balance of land uses in both areas.
The Plan clearly did not provide that all Western Nevada County's residential, commercial and industrial land uses would be provided for in the Grass Valley Community Region, but rather that they would be provided in five distinct Community Regions. The theory, of course, is that if a balance of residential, commercial and industrial can be provided in each Community Region in the Western County, no one Community Region would have to accept traffic from throughout the western County.
The following is a summary of Commercial/Office and Professional, and Business Park/Industrial, reflected on the County General Plan for the other Regions in Western Nevada County:
| Community Region | Build-out Population | Commercial/ Office&Prof. | Industrial/Bus.Prk. |
| Nevada City | 6,785 | 148 acres | 302 acres |
| Lake Wildwood | 8,190 | 18 acres | 0 acres |
| Penn Valley | 6,035 | 80 acres | 59 acres |
| Higgins/Lake of the Pines | 7,555 | 70 acres | 50 acres |
| Total Other Regions | 28,565 | 326 acres | 411 acres |
| Grass Valley | 30,650 | 815 acres | 1770 acres |
| Total Five Regions | 59,215 | 11,141 acres | 2,118 acres |
The RQC is optimistic that information provided with individual applications for annexation and development will shed light on specific environmental and financial impacts. Neither the City General Plan, or the City's Sphere of Influence Study/Master Services Element, provides City decision-makers and the public with the fiscal analysis of public service costs compared with the revenues generated by development. The City clearly has, to date failed to analyze how it will provide the linkages between improvement schedules, annexations and improvement financing. (Back)