Nevada County 2003-2004 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (14)

📋Follow-up

118 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋September 27, 2004 — Correctional and Holding Facilities in Nevada County Reason for Investigation California Penal Code Section 919(B)

19 pages 5 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: The WBCF was opened in 1992 and designed to accommodate 223 inmates - 7 females, 216 males, and 5 medical cells.

F2: Since its construction, the number of female inmates held at the facility has been increasing and is currently averaging 20 to 30. At the time of the inspection, WBCF had a total population of 166 inmates - 145 males, and 21 females.

F3: All inmates are assigned to housing units and activities using California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 15 Classification Plan. Classification is based on sex, age, criminal sophistication, seriousness of crime charged, physical or mental health needs, assaultive/non- assaultive behavior and other criteria which will provide for the safety of the inmates and staff. Housing unit assignments are accomplished to the extent possible within the limits of the available number of distinct housing units or cells in the facility.

F4: Due to space limitations and the current numerous inmate classifications requirements, the female population is being housed in the minimum-security dormitory style area of the WBCF.

F5: The staff of WBCF has initiated an in-house training academy for new correctional officers. This training, which meets the state standards, has reduced the expense of training and has been made available to neighboring counties. Truckee Substation

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff should expend every effort to see that the changing mix of housing needs at WBCF are in compliance with CCR Tile 15.

R2: The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff must begin making plans for the long-term expansion of WBCF to meet the future requirements.

R3: In the interest of public safety, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff, must ensure that the open carport at the Truckee Substation be secured with a physical barrier.

R4: The Sheriff should have the new Nevada County Courthouse Holding Facility radios placed into service as soon as the frequency testing is completed.

📋June 30, 2004 — Rebuilding the Dream: Solving California’s Affordable Housing Crisis makes this observation: “Two fundamental problems

11 pages 9 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: Review of the prior housing element: a. Grass Valley has made progress in the last three years to accommodate its regional housing needs allotment, with the following projects: • Cedar Park Apartments (under construction), 65 low-income units, and 16 very low-income units • Glenbrook Apartments (approved), 41 low-income units, 11 very low-income units b. From January 2000 to January 2003, Grass Valley built about 38% of their regional housing allotment. However, no housing units were built for households of moderate-income levels and about 10% of housing units allocated to very low- income households were built. Housing units constructed/under construction/approved are shown in the table below. Progress in Meeting Housing Allocation (Units Constructed/Under Construction/Approved January 2000 - January 2003) Income Level Housing Units Remaining Allocation Allocation Very low 274 27 241 Low 261 106 145 Moderate 333 0 333 Above 580 417 163 Moderate Total 1,448 550 898 Source: City of Grass Valley (definition of income levels not provided in Housing Element)

F2: Housing needs assessment: According to the Sierra Planning Organization (SPO), Grass Valley is responsible for accommodating 1,448 additional housing units between 2001 and 2009, of which 535 units should be affordable to very low, and low-income households. This represents approximately 37% of Grass Valley’s total share of regional housing needs. The table below shows the number and percentage of housing units allocated for the planning period 2001 through 2009 by income category. Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Number of Income Category Units Percentage Very Low (below $29,500) 274 19% Low ($29,500 to $47,200) 261 18% Moderate ($47,200 to $70,800) 333 23% Above Moderate (above $70,800) 580 40% Totals 1,448 100% Source: SPO and California Department of Housing and Community Development

F3: Constraints on housing: a. According to the Housing Element, governmental regulations, local policies and regulations are putting constraints on affordable housing that impact price and availability. However it also states, “Perhaps one of the greatest constraints to the production of housing affordable to lower-income households is the chronic shortage of state and federal financial assistance for such housing.” b. Permit and mitigation fees affect housing costs. The fee structure for Grass Valley is shown in the table below. Government Fees Single Family Home 1200 sq. ft. Building Permit $1,200 City AB 1600 Fees (Fire, Police, Parks & Recreation, 2,150 etc.) Regional Traffic 630 School Mitigation 2,572 Sewer Connection 7,860 Water Connection 3,300 Total $17,712 Source: City of Grass Valley - December 2003

F4: General topics: “Many unique circumstances face our community and the provision of adequate housing for all residents is dependent upon creating a program that adequately addresses these issues. Grass Valley has experienced a substantial rise in housing costs since the late 1990’s; however, median household income in the City continues to fall well short of that in the rest of the County, including Nevada City and Truckee. The community also has a much higher percentage of rental housing than the County, and must ensure that new programs meet the needs of both future homeowners and renters alike.” Income statistics are shown in the table below. Jurisdiction Median Household Income Nevada County $45,864 Grass Valley $28,182 Nevada City $36,667 Truckee $58,848 Source: Census 1990, 2000

F5: Local housing program goals: Housing goals and policies are established to guide the development, rehabilitation and preservation of housing to meet the needs of the city. Grass Valley has proposed 28 housing programs to help increase the affordable housing stock within the city. Seven programs depend on general fund monies, nine programs are funded from state and federal grants, six programs are funded from fees, five programs are funded from a combination of grants and fees, and one program is funded from Tax Exempt Bonds. As an example, Program 13 (The Density Bonus) is to be revised by December 31, 2005 to offer a 25% increase in density and at least one other financial or regulatory incentive whenever a developer proposes a residential project that meets the program requirements. CONCLUSIONS

F6: Implementation of the housing policies proposed by Grass Valley would requires funding from a broad base of funding sources that include the city’s general fund (25%), state and federal grants (28%), application fees (21%) and a combination of grants and fees (18%). This “even” spread of funding sources could help to ensure the production of affordable housing units.

F7: The Grass Valley permit and mitigation fee structure adds an additional $17,712 to the cost of a 1200 sq. ft. housing unit. These fees provide benefits to the City as a whole, but they also work to raise the bar of affordability for low and moderate-income households.

F8: The proposed housing density bonus could serve to encourage the construction of affordable housing. However, the mood of the community, as expressed at three recent public hearings, favors a reduction in housing density for any given housing project.

F9: Secondary Units are the only category where there appears to be any possibility of implementation, and these must be rentals.

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grass Valley City Council should direct the Department of Community Development to follow their Workforce Housing Study (Program 12), and apply the results of that study to address the problem of housing for low and moderate-income families.

R2: The Grass Valley City Council should direct the Department of Community Development to look beyond the planning stage of affordable housing, and focus on the actual building of affordable housing.

R3: The Grass Valley City Council should direct the Department of Community Development to pursue additional state and federal grants that would increase the affordable housing stock in the city.

R4: The Grass Valley City Council should adopt a Below Market Rate (BMR) Ordinance and/or revise the present density bonus to require a fixed percentage of affordable housing units in all new single-family housing developments.

R5: The Grass Valley City Council should direct the Department of Community Development to consider a waiver or reduction of permit and/or mitigation fees to encourage the development of affordable housing. RESPONSES Grass Valley City Council by October 4, 2004

R6: The Nevada City Council should adopt a Below Market Rate (BMR) Ordinance to require a fixed percentage of affordable housing units in all new single-family housing developments. The Nevada City Council should direct the Planning Commission to examine other housing programs such as the Grass Valley Workforce Housing Project and apply the best features of these programs to Nevada City's housing needs.

R7: The Truckee Town Council should direct the Department of Community Development to continue the policy of waiving permit and mitigation fees for housing projects that qualify for the Town's incentive programs. RESPONSES Town of Truckee Town Council by October 4, 2004 \gamma_{i_1} = Y . 1

R8: The Nevada City Council should direct the Planning Commission to waive and/or reduce permit and/or mitigation fees to encourage the development of affordable housing. RESPONSES Nevada City, City Council by October 2, 2004 . 4 - 22 Town of Truckee Affordable Housing 1 * (4) ٠ ŉ X . ı ķ )) × ĺ è 1 5 8 1 - 92

R22-32: 150 150 120 Secondary Units Source: Housing Element 5. Constraints on housing: a. "Historically, small second units in single-family homes were interspersed in the City's neighborhoods. These second units blended in well with the diversity of housing types typically found in each neighborhood. In 1978, a City survey was taken in order to install water metering throughout the town. At that time, 61 second units were identified. Over the years, several of those units were lost, usually because new owners chose not to continue them. In 2003, the City bills for water and/or sewer 41 homes with seconds units and five homes with two second units each (sic)." b. Secondary units have a maximum range of 300 to 640 square feet, must have one parking space, and when the unit is sold or no longer rented to moderate/low income residents, the owner will be required to pay all the deferred fees, in some cases with interest. c. Permit and mitigation fees affect housing costs. The fee structure for Nevada City is shown in the following table. * * 1 12

R33-37: 11-13 11 - 12 11 - 12 Multi Family Units 101-110

📋June 30, 2004 — Affordable Housing in the Town of Truckee Reason for Investigation Last year the Grand Jury investigated the status of

9 pages 6 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Review of the prior housing element: a. The Town of Truckee has taken significant steps to achieve goals and objectives set in the previous Housing Element, which was adopted in 1996. These housing goals, and the Town’s success in meeting them, are summarized in the following table. Previous Housing Element Objectives for the Various Income Levels Program Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate 1994 New Housing Construction Goals 60 100 200 500 Actual Production 1994 to May 2003* 100 100 50 1,577 *Town of Truckee Community Development Department, June 2003; Department of Finance, Housing and Population Estimates, January 1994 to June 2003. b. The Town of Truckee met or exceeded its very low, low, and above moderate income housing production objectives. Truckee did not meet its moderate-income housing goal partially due to the absence of new unsubsidized multifamily rental construction and escalating prices that placed most new “for sale” homes out of reach of moderate-income households.

F2: Housing needs assessment: The Sierra Planning Organization (SPO) developed the regional housing needs allocation for the Town of Truckee. The housing allocation covers the planning period from January 2001 to June 2009. All new units in the Town of Truckee may be counted towards the housing allocation; there is no requirement that these units be for year-round occupancy. The total units allocated to the Town of Truckee by SPO are further divided among each of the four income categories. The housing needs allocation is shown in the following table: Truckee Regional Housing Needs Allocation January 2001 to June 2009 Income Category* Number Percent of Total Units Very Low - below $29,500 324 18.6% Low- $ 29,500 to $47,200 309 17.7% Moderate - $47,200 to $70,800 408 23.4% Above Moderate – above $70,800 704 40.3% Total 1745 100% Source: Regional Housing Needs Plan, Sierra Planning Organization, 2002 *Area Median Income for the Truckee area is $59,000 for a household of 4

F3: Free-market forces appear to be a major deterrent to the production of housing affordable to people in very low, low, and moderate-income levels. For these households, single-family home ownership will remain an unfulfilled dream unless the Town of Truckee becomes an advocate for the production of affordable housing.

F4: General topics: a. In the Town of Truckee, people with special needs include seniors, the disabled, single female heads of household, and seasonal workers. These people need access to housing and will be competing with other low-income groups for affordable housing. Meeting the Town’s housing needs will depend, in large part, upon the availability of private funding sources and funding levels of state, federal and county housing programs. b. The Town recognizes that many market rate housing developments have been built at densities below their allowed density. The Town plans to encourage developers to achieve their allowed densities within medium and high-density residential zones. The Town has also developed a density bonus program (program H.1.2.3) to encourage the development of affordable housing.

F5: Local housing program goals: a. Housing goals and policies are established to guide the development, rehabilitation and preservation of a balanced inventory of housing to meet the needs of present and future residents of the Town. Truckee has proposed 44 housing programs to help increase the affordable housing stock within the Town. Thirty-five of the programs depend on general fund monies. Seven of the programs are funded from state and federal grants and two programs are funded from tax financing. b. The Town of Truckee provides development incentives for affordable housing. For example, a qualifying residential project will receive a waiver or reduction of planning application fees, building permit fees, and mitigation fees. CONCLUSIONS

F6: The Town of Truckee Housing Element notes: “The common perception of affordable housing by the public is that it is undesirable in their community. This may constitute a constraint on a local jurisdiction’s ability to approve otherwise appropriate projects. Long- term education, superior project design, and economically integrated projects, may help alleviate these constraints.”

Additional Recommendations 7

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Truckee Town Council should direct the Department of Community Development to continue to pursue state and federal grants that would apply to increasing the affordable housing stock in the Town of Truckee.

R2: The Truckee Town Council should direct the Department of Community Development to research the possibility of funding some portion of their housing programs from a more broad-based system rather than depending so much on general fund monies.

R3: The Truckee Town Council should direct the Department of Community Development to prioritize the housing programs that depend on the general fund for implementation to ensure the most beneficial programs survive budget pressures.

R4: The Truckee Town Council should direct the Department of Community Development to seek out the state and federal housing subsidies that would help renters and homebuyers to become first-time homeowners.

R5: The Truckee Town Council should adopt a Below Market Rate (BMR) Ordinance and/or revise the present density bonus to require a fixed percentage of affordable housing units in all new single-family housing developments.

R6: The Truckee Town Council should direct the Department of Community Development to examine other housing programs such as the Grass Valley Workforce Housing Project and apply the best features of these programs to Truckee’s housing needs.

R7: The Truckee Town Council should direct the Department of Community Development to continue the policy of waiving permit and mitigation fees for housing projects that qualify for the Town’s incentive programs. RESPONSES Truckee Town Council by October 4, 2004

📋June 22, 2004 — California Conservation Camp Washington Ridge Reason for Investigation California Penal Code Section 919(B) requires

2 pages 9 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: The Washington Ridge Conservation Camp began operations in 1961. Although some of the buildings are over 40 years old, the entire camp was found to be clean, well maintained, and in good condition.

F2: Wards housed at Washington Ridge Camp are between the ages of 18 and 25. Wards stay at the camp from four months to two years, with the average being 10 months.

F3: Washington Ridge Camp currently has two fully trained fire fighting crews, which assist the CDF and other area fire departments during the fire season.

F4: When not involved with fire fighting, Washington Ridge camp ward crews, under the supervision of a CDF captain, work providing low cost labor while learning skills. Examples of groups and agencies that they have worked with are the Nevada County Fairgrounds, Senior Center, Master Gardeners, and Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park.

F5: There has been a decrease in the number of juveniles sent to CYA during the past few years. One of the reasons for the decline is due to judges referring fewer youths in favor of more localized and less restrictive methods of rehabilitation for "non-violent" offenders.

F6: The number of wards in the camp ranged from 76 in October 2003 to 41 in January

F7: The educational facilities and methods of instruction were reviewed and found to comply with state and county standards. Wards are required to attend classes with the objective of obtaining a high school diploma or a GED.

F8: The camp provides appropriate recreational facilities and learning opportunities for the wards that offer them both mental and physical outlets.

F9: Events in mid-2003 caused the relationship between CDF and CYA to become strained. The Grand Jury was informed that both agencies are now expending energy to improve cooperation to provide better services. CONCLUSIONS The Washington Ridge Conservation Camp is a benefit to both the wards and to Nevada County. The wards have the opportunity to develop employment skills and complete their education, while various groups in the county benefit from access to an economical source of labor. In addition, during the fire season, an efficiently run operation at the Washington Ridge Camp is a vital resource for fire prevention and suppression. RESPONSES None required

May 15, 2004 — Safety is No Accident Nevada County Safety Program Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury, as an advocate for the

4 pages 11 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: The Risk Manager’s responsibilities are to oversee the purchase of General Liability and Worker’s Compensation insurance and review the County’s claims.

F2: The Risk Manager, in the role of Safety Officer, is responsible for coordinating the monthly Safety Meetings and annual safety inspections of each department using a State designed, generic checklist.

F3: Records indicate there is consistently less than 100% attendance at these county safety meetings. In addition to these county safety meetings, individual departments are required to hold monthly safety meetings, however some departments are not in compliance.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Executive Officer to make compliance with the Safety Program a performance goal of every county employee and to actively promote a safe work environment and workplace.

R2: The BOS should direct the CEO to establish and fund a full time position of Nevada County Safety Officer.

R3: The BOS should ensure that the safety checklist is updated to address the specific needs of each department.

F4: In accordance with the 1991 California Labor Code, section 6400, Nevada County has a safety manual titled the Nevada County Safety Program. The manual is updated as needed.

F5: Nevada County has a web based safety-training program that started in 2003. This is a self-study program with 106 safety programs. Some subjects are also available in Spanish. County employees can go online and study safety programs pertinent to their job. At the time of the Grand Jury investigation, over 600 employees had registered for the safety courses with over 300 employees completing one or more of the subjects.

F6: As part of the new employee orientation process, new employees are required to review the IIPP. Additional and ongoing safety training is the responsibility of the department heads.

F7: The County has a claims review system in place. This review begins with the department safety officer then progresses through managers, supervisors, department heads, risk manager, and finally the CEO.

F8: The County participates in a statewide insurance pool with other counties of similar population as a cost containment measure.

F9: Worker's Compensation claims that average $1,417,872 annually have been paid over the last three years. The number of injuries resulting in claims has averaged 147 per year. over that same period. (These figures do not include the shooting incident of January 9, 2001.) Incurred costs and numbers of Claims per Year for Worker’s Compensation Worker’s Compensation 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Incurred Costs of Claims $2,045,612 $1,084,530 $1,123,474 Number of Claims 175 132 134

F10: Over the past three fiscal years, the General Liability and Excess Liability premiums have increased from $5,004 to $296,787. Insurance Premiums Paid Insurance Programs 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 General Liability and Excess Liability $5,004 $105,966 $296,787 Worker's Comp $1,691,876 $2,006,396 $2,768,746

F11: Because of the increase in claims and losses, the County lost dividends and credits from the insurance pool that totaled $156,226 over the same three-year period. CONCLUSIONS

April 06, 2004 — Code Compliance in Nevada County Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received citizen complaints that the Code

14 pages 10 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: The Code Compliance Manual states: "Potential violations can come to the attention of Code Compliance through the public, community groups, other agencies, and Board of Supervisor referrals. Code Compliance works with communities and neighborhoods to resolve key enforcement issues; it is Code Compliance's sole authority to decide complaints or violations to pursue based on the priority system and staff resources. Code Compliance is strictly a complaint driven process. Compliance is the goal; enforcement is to be used after all other options have failed."

F2: The 2001-2002 Grand Jury report found that code compliance in Nevada County is strictly complaint driven except in cases that involve health and safety issues. This is still true.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Grand Jury continues to recommend that the Board of Supervisors: A. Streamline the process to correct a violation of any non-permitted building B. Encourage all Nevada County employees to file official complaints if they observe code violations C. Increase amounts for mandatory fines and penalties to punitive levels

F3: The 2001-2002 Grand Jury report found that there were 11 separate notices/letters used to serve notice of building code violations. Included in the notices is a "Warning Notice of Violation" which states that infractions are punishable by a mandatory fine of $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second, and $500 for the third and subsequent violations within a 12-month period, plus penalty assessments. The BOS did not agree or disagree with this finding because the Code Compliance Manual was still in draft form and not yet presented to the BOS for consideration.

F4: The current Grand Jury noted that the 2004 Procedural Guidelines of the Code Compliance Department now contains 13 separate letters/notices, which can notice a violation of non- permitted building.

F5: The 2001-2002 Grand Jury report found that if a property owner builds without a permit, and no complaint is filed, property taxes on improvements are not collected. In addition, mitigation fees and other development fees are not collected. This remains a true statement. In response to this Grand Jury finding, the BOS partially disagreed stating “un-permitted construction is sometimes observed and reported by building department officials during performance of their official duties.”

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: If the County cannot resolve a violation, a lien should be placed on the property to cloud the title, or add this assessment to the property tax bill.

R3: The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Board of Supervisors move away from the hands-off policy that exists today. Stop the County’s loss of fees, fines and levies resulting from the continued unreported building taking place within the county by promoting CODE ENFORCEMENT policies that require everyone to "pay their fair share" of construction and development-related fees.

F6: When building permits are issued, the County receives fees. In addition, schools and fire districts receive separate funds from building permit fees. For example, the property owner of a 2200 sq. ft. home in Penn Valley paid $9,279.81 for the following fees: • County fees: Nevada County Grading Permit $64.73 Nevada County Plan Site Review 472.89 Nevada County Inspection Permits 2,113.07 Total $2,650.69 • Other fees: NID hookup $700.00 PG&E hookup 750.00 Penn Valley Fire District 1,054.52 School Mitigation 4,124.60 Total $6,629.12

F7: The 2001-2002 Grand Jury report found more than 1000 open code violation cases. As of the date of this report, the code compliance department acknowledges approximately 600 open code violation cases.

F8: The 2001-2002 Grand Jury report found that the Assessor's Office does not actively communicate with the CDA regarding non-permitted building. The BOS responded that the Assessor allows CDA access to printed records and the Assessor and CDA communicate with each other on an as-needed basis. The current Grand Jury found little, if any, improvement in this process.

Related Recommendations (1)

F9: Other counties use law enforcement to ensure full compliance with existing codes. This was a finding of the 2001-2002 Grand Jury and remains true today. The BOS response to the 2001-2002 Grand Jury report states: "Some other counties most likely do use stricter code enforcement to compel compliance with their codes, just as other counties may not be as strict as Nevada County in seeking code compliance."

F10: The Grand Jury notes that Placer County takes a more active approach to code enforcement: “It shall be the duty of the Placer County Sheriff, the planning director, the chief building official, and/or the health officer and the employee(s) designated by the above officials as code enforcement officers to enforce the provisions of the County Code1 as specified.” CONCLUSIONS

📋October 07, 2003 — Franchise Operations Nevada County General Code Reason for Investigation

13 pages 14 findings 14 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 14 findings

F1: In late 2002 and early 2003 two franchise utilities were audited by outside consultants at a cost of $20,000. The audit of USA Media for the period 4/99 through 6/02 has since resulted in additional revenue of $23,899. The audit of AT&T Broadband (now Comcast), for the period of 10/98 through 9/02 yielded additional revenue of $79,636.35.

F2: California State Law (Broughton Act) sets forth a complex formula by which public gas and electric utilities calculate the amount of franchise fees due local governments. The County accepts without verification and on a good faith basis the components used by the utilities in calculating the franchise fees.

F3: After several prior extensions of Board Orders, on October 7, 2003 the BOS again extended the deadlines for completion of the Franchise Code update and for implementation of a regular franchise fee audit program to June 30, 2004.

F4: The Grand Jury was informed that a new franchise agreement, more favorable to the County and with a straightforward assessment formula was negotiated with Waste Management for the disposal of solid waste in western Nevada County. This new agreement went into effect January 1, 2004.

F5: Because the franchise contract for eastern Nevada County with Tahoe Truckee Disposal Company is terminating, the BOS requested the Auditor-Controller to conduct audits of this franchisee for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 to determine that the proper fees had been paid. In a status report at its April 6, 2004 meeting, the BOS was advised that the Tahoe Truckee Disposal Company audit was not completed but should be done by June 30, 2004

F6: The Grand Jury was advised that a renewal agreement, currently being negotiated between the County and Comcast, will serve as the basis for the cable TV franchise code in Western Nevada County. This cable TV code will be presented to the BOS for approval sometime in June 2004.

F7: The Grand Jury was also advised that a schedule has been set up in the Auditor- Controller’s office to audit all cable franchisees every 3 years.

F8: The franchise fees collected for the past five years are shown in the following table: FISCAL YEAR CABLE TV ELEC/GAS SOLID WASTE TOTAL 98/99 $ 173,056.18 $ 220,999.73 $ 258,861.65 $ 652,917.56 99/00 1 48,184.04 2 46,193.61 2 46,077.53 6 40,455.18 00/01 1 63,520.99 2 43,160.96 2 23,222.35 6 29,904.30 01/02 1 54,833.50 3 34,085.04 3 09,350.15 7 98,268.69 02/03 1 52,410.39 3 44,818.42 3 01,711.68 7 98,940.49 TOTAL $ 792,005.10 $ 1,389,257.76 $ 1,339,223.36 $ 3,520,486.22 CONCLUSIONS

F9: At its July 23, 2002, meeting the BOS heard testimony from the Scientific Coordinator and various local planners and participants in the study. When asked by the BOS the estimated value of the work and data that had been compiled to date, one of the scientists who performed the peer review estimated that "the GIS1 work alone would have been in the $300,000 to $500,000 range and the fieldwork was in the $250,000 range." 1 Geographic Information Systems.

F10: Nevada County reported $167,195 in expenses and $146,805 in staff time for a total of $314,000. Sierra Business Council's contribution to the project was $650,055 that covered wages, benefits, mapping, verification, meeting costs, publications, and related expenses.

F11: Over 35 volunteers from forestry, agriculture, business, development, recreation, etc. collaborated to develop recommendations for the project.

F12: The final product of the amended project is the 600-page Natural Resources Report (NRR) detailing Nevada County's natural resources, watersheds, a GIS database and aerial photographs. The report is currently available on the county web site2.

F13: On August 12, 2003, the BOS, by a 3-2 vote, passed resolution 03-384 that qualified use of the data gathered, stating: "The NRR and associated GIS data is not to be used as a sole source when preparing baseline environmental documentation" for items such as land use or other county projects or for updating the General Plan. In addition, the resolution stated: "No further county funds or other resources... are to be used in updating or maintaining the currency of data and information in the NRR."

F14: Resolution 03-384 also directed County staff to place the following disclaimer on the County website NRR, all unsold hard copies and discs, and on any reports generated from the NRR, and to have adhesive labels printed and disseminated to all who had previously received NRR documents: "DISCLAIMER: THERE HAS BEEN NO FORMAL ACCURACY ASSESSMENT TESTING PERFORMED ON THE NRR GIS LAYERS AND THERE IS NO STATISTICAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS OF ACCURACY FOR INDIVIDUAL DATA THEMES." CONCLUSIONS

Additional Recommendations 14

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Again, the Grand Jury strongly urges the Board of Supervisors to instruct the County Executive Officer, County Counsel and the Auditor-Controller to finally complete the update to Nevada County General Code Chapter II: Franchises.

R2: The Auditor-Controller should develop a plan that will ensure that staff is provided with appropriate training to establish written procedures for regular internal audits of monies received from all franchisees. RESPONSES Board of Supervisors September 27, 2004 Auditor-Controller August 30, 2004 This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com. The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.

R3: This goal was to be accomplished "by conducting a county-wide biotic inventory and developing a habitat and open space management plan with specific implementation measures, governance mechanisms and funding options." Once completed, the project was to "serve as the primary vehicle for implementing many of the County and perhaps the Cities' open space and resource protection objectives." The stated intent was to "maintain or enhance: the diversity of plant and animal communities in Nevada County, with an emphasis on special status plant and animal species or species of concern; Nevada County's working landscapes - those lands which support the County's forestry, farming and ranching economy; open spaces for passive outdoor recreation activities, such as walking, biking, . fishing, photography, etc.; watersheds, floodplains and other areas needed to protect public health and safety; and the public's awareness of natural resource values and stewardship • opportunities in Nevada County."

R4: If the NRR report is updated and maintained, it could be used when the county is required to update the General Plan, its habitat management plan, or similar county studies in order to avoid unnecessary additional cost to the taxpayers.

R5: The project goals were also that priority be given to ensuring that the final plan: "is scientifically sound and ensures long-term protection of natural habitats, 0 plant and animal species diversity and open space resources in the County; can be incorporated into the County General Plan and day-to-day planning decisions; emerges from an inclusive and accessible process, with mechanisms for • meaningful involvement and input by all interested citizens; earns widespread public support; engenders positive working relationships between the County and other • agencies, local government entities and collaborative groups in the County and Sierra Nevada region."

R6: As set forth in the MOU, $700,000-800,000 was the estimated cost for the two and-a- half year project. These costs were to be split between Nevada County and the Sierra Business Council, with the County's financial obligation to be "no less than 33%" of the total cost.

R7: At its meeting on May 7, 2002, the BOS voted unanimously to amend the project's work plan. These amendments resulted in ending the project, except for completion of the NRR report by July 31, 2002, and adding a requirement that "the scientific data would be peer reviewed by qualified scientists."

R8: The data was peer reviewed periodically during the project by a seven-member Scientific Advisory Committee established by the MOU. There was extensive field checking, and comments were received from at least another eight scientists, biologists, and local field technicians who had reviewed the five biological documents on the County's website.

R9: At its July 23, 2002, meeting the BOS heard testimony from the Scientific Coordinator and various local planners and participants in the study. When asked by the BOS the estimated value of the work and data that had been compiled to date, one of the scientists who performed the peer review estimated that "the GIS1 work alone would have been in the $300,000 to $500,000 range and the fieldwork was in the $250,000 range." 1 Geographic Information Systems.

R10: Nevada County reported $167,195 in expenses and $146,805 in staff time for a total of $314,000. Sierra Business Council's contribution to the project was $650,055 that covered wages, benefits, mapping, verification, meeting costs, publications, and related expenses.

R11: Over 35 volunteers from forestry, agriculture, business, development, recreation, etc. collaborated to develop recommendations for the project.

R12: The final product of the amended project is the 600-page Natural Resources Report (NRR) detailing Nevada County's natural resources, watersheds, a GIS database and aerial photographs. The report is currently available on the county web site2.

R13: On August 12, 2003, the BOS, by a 3-2 vote, passed resolution 03-384 that qualified use of the data gathered, stating: "The NRR and associated GIS data is not to be used as a sole source when preparing baseline environmental documentation" for items such as land use or other county projects or for updating the General Plan. In addition, the resolution stated: "No further county funds or other resources... are to be used in updating or maintaining the currency of data and information in the NRR."

R14: Resolution 03-384 also directed County staff to place the following disclaimer on the County website NRR, all unsold hard copies and discs, and on any reports generated from the NRR, and to have adhesive labels printed and disseminated to all who had previously received NRR documents: "DISCLAIMER: THERE HAS BEEN NO FORMAL ACCURACY ASSESSMENT TESTING PERFORMED ON THE NRR GIS LAYERS AND THERE IS NO STATISTICAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS OF ACCURACY FOR INDIVIDUAL DATA THEMES." CONCLUSIONS

📋July 14, 2003 — Rebuilding the Dream: Solving California’s Affordable Housing Crisis makes this observation: “Two fundamental problems

13 pages 9 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: Advisory Review Committee: Nevada City has an added layer of bureaucracy to the Planning Commission in the form of the ARC. Nevada City Council Resolution No. 89-36 gave the ARC authority to implement the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, including AB 3180. The ARC is composed of the Planning Commission Chairman, the City Planner and a member who may change from one meeting to another based on availability. This committee is the first step in the approval process for an applicant. The ARC makes their decisions regarding an application and brings them to the Planning Commission. Attendance at the ARC meetings is not mandatory, and often there is only the Chairman and one other member.

F2: Review of prior housing element: Nevada City previously adopted a Housing Element in 1986. Although the next update was due in 1992, Nevada City did not publish a new Housing Element document until 2003. Regional Allocation Housing Goals performance 1992-2000 Very Above Program Low Low Moderate Moderate Total 1992 New Housing Construction Goals 0 16 42 101 159 Actual Production 1992 to June 2003 0 13* 21 38 72 Source: Housing Element * “Sweat Equity” housing – Providence Mine Court In 1993 and 2001, public hearings were held on two Subsidized Project Applications. Although there was some public apprehension, both applications were denied without any attempt to work with the applicants regarding the concerns.

F3: Housing needs assessment: a. Despite an abundance of “tables” in the Housing Element, Nevada City did not give actual numbers, only estimates and target figures. Nevada City Regional Housing Needs Allocation Target Total Very Low Low Moderate Above Year Units Total Total Total Moderate Total New Units to be created 2001- 200 38 36 46 80 2008 Permits for new homes 2001- 16 1* 0 3 12 June 2003 New units to be created June 184 37 36 43 68 2003-2008 Source: Housing Element * As of June 2003, the City entered into agreement with Habitat for Humanity. The Planning Commission approved a rezone to create one home for a very low-income buyer. b. The following table shows greater detail on the “target” numbers for the time period 2001 to June 2003. Note that the numbers are of housing units approved for construction, not the actual number of units built. These units are to be owner- occupied and/or rentals. Nevada City Target 2001-June 2003 Income Category Target Percent of Total Units Actual Number Number Very Low 38 19% 1* (Below $29,500) Low 36 18% 0 ($29,500 to $47,200) Moderate 46 23% 3 ($47,200 to $70,800) Above Moderate 80 40% 12 (Above $70,800) Total 200 100% 16 Source: Housing Element * As of June 2003, the City entered into agreement with Habitat for Humanity. The Planning Commission approved a rezone to create one home for a very low-income buyer.

F4: Resource inventory: Site Inventory and the Regional Housing Needs Plan Maximum potential Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Multi-Family Units 16 16 17 49 Single Family Units 8 16 49 169 Secondary Units 120 150 180 120 Estimate of Actual Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Multi Family Units 11-12 11-12 11-13 33-37 Single Family Units 5 10-11 29-31 101-110 Secondary Units 120 150 150 22-32 Source: Housing Element

F5: Constraints on housing: a. “Historically, small second units in single-family homes were interspersed in the City’s neighborhoods. These second units blended in well with the diversity of housing types typically found in each neighborhood. In 1978, a City survey was taken in order to install water metering throughout the town. At that time, 61 second units were identified. Over the years, several of those units were lost, usually because new owners chose not to continue them. In 2003, the City bills for water and/or sewer 41 homes with seconds units and five homes with two second units each (sic).” b. Secondary units have a maximum range of 300 to 640 square feet, must have one parking space, and when the unit is sold or no longer rented to moderate/low income residents, the owner will be required to pay all the deferred fees, in some cases with interest. c. Permit and mitigation fees affect housing costs. The fee structure for Nevada City is shown in the following table. Estimation of Public Agency Fees for New Housing Unit Est. cost for Est. cost for 640 Est. cost for Item Description 1,600 sq. ft. sq. ft. Second 1,000 sq. ft. Unit Single Family Unit in 4-plex Environmental Review N/A N/A 140 Architecture Review 100 N/A 25 Site Plan/Public Hearing N/A N/A 400 Nevada City Mitigations 7,750 6,300 6,300 Regional Transportation Mitigation 475 475 475 School District Mitigation 2,400 1,370 2,140 Nevada City Water Hook-up 1,130 N/A 280 Nevada City Sewer Hook-up 1,250 N/A 310 Nevada County Building Dept. Plan Review & Inspection 1,100 600 700 Total $14,205 $8,745 $10,770 Source: Nevada City Staff & Nevada County Building Department

F6: Local housing program policies & goals a. The following strategy was adopted by the General Plan Committee to meet Nevada City’s housing needs during the Housing Element update period: • “…conserve existing older homes by a careful demolition policy • “…preserve small homes in Nevada City • “…require new subdivisions to include 30% homes under 1,500 square feet and 20% second-unit rentals under 640 square feet affordable to moderate income and lower income residents • “…encourage second units that meet zoning requirements and defer required fees for as long as the owner agrees to rent at moderate/low income ranges b. Goals (Nevada City Housing Element): • “Nevada City is basically a city of single-family homes, all within a reasonable walk from the center of town. A goal of the City is to preserve this quality, yet recognize that new forms of housing can offer economies in both housing cost and land requirement.” • “In addressing the question of housing, the City shall seek means to preserve its residential neighborhoods and to maintain the diversity of people and of economic strata within each neighborhood.” • “The multi-family areas of most cities are near the city center. In Nevada City, the single-family areas are at the very edge of the central commercial area. Multi-family housing should have a minimum impact on the perception of the downtown area.” c. Policies: “The city shall consider a mix of housing types within a development designated Planned Development.” The Housing Element lists 22 policies/programs to be implemented. The listed sources of funding for these programs are General Fund, application fees permit applications, grants, non-profits, banks and other agencies. The majority of time frames listed are “ongoing,” “in response to…,” “keep a list.” No actual dates are indicated. CONCLUSIONS

F7: Although Nevada City considers itself “unique” in many respects, this “uniqueness” must not be used to exclude the City from following state requirements.

F8: The “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) school of thought appears to be the theme of the Nevada City Housing Element. This is demonstrated in the table that shows a “target” housing figure of 200 units from 2001 to June 2003. Of the 200 “target” units, only 16 units were approved. There is no indication that any units have been built.

F9: Secondary Units are the only category where there appears to be any possibility of implementation, and these must be rentals.

Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Nevada City Council should direct the Planning Commission to be more user friendly to new housing applicants and develop a process that is easier to navigate.

R2: The Nevada City Council should direct the Planning Commission to publish a Housing Element that is useful to readers.

R3: The Nevada City Council should eliminate the ARC. There is no justifiable reason for having more than one layer of planning commission.

R4: The Nevada City Council should direct the Planning Commission to be proactive in the building of affordable housing.

R5: The Nevada City Council should direct the Planning Commission to be consistent in their decision making process and to make decisions based on rationale other than regulations/requirements.

R6: The Nevada City Council should adopt a Below Market Rate (BMR) Ordinance to require a fixed percentage of affordable housing units in all new single-family housing developments.

R7: The Nevada City Council should direct the Planning Commission to examine other housing programs such as the Grass Valley Workforce Housing Project and apply the best features of these programs to Nevada City’s housing needs.

April 02, 2003 — To Charter or Not to Charter Reason for the Investigation Newspaper articles this past year in both The Union and The

19 pages 12 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: In 1998, the TTUSD granted a K-12 charter to the PCCS. PCCS was a nonprofit public benefit corporation that was organized to operate and manage the charter school.

F2: The initial enrollment was projected to be 125 students. By the end of June 1999, enrollment had grown to approximately 300 students. Based upon the FCMAT report, 2001-02 site based enrollment was 306 and Independent Study enrollment was 962 for a total PCCS enrollment of 1,268. The charter school operated both within and outside the boundaries of the TTUSD in accordance with existing state law.

F3: When revenue and expenditure projection errors of $1.5 million were discovered in the fiscal year 2001-02, the TTUSD and the PCOE became concerned with the PCCS financial viability. During this same period, the charter school became indebted for approximately $4 million.

F4: In April 2002, the Placer County Superintendent of Schools requested FCMAT to review PCCS and the fiscal impact PCCS had on TTUSD, its sponsoring agency.

F5: The charter for PCCS states, “The Advisory Council shall consist of 1 student, 1 parent, 1 teacher, 1 local community representative, and a School District representative.” Duties of the Advisory Council include budget review and approval as well as approving budget changes greater than 5% of the total Average Daily Attendance. The TTUSD left its position on the Advisory Council vacant on or before the fall of 2001.

F6: FCMAT determined that PCOE and TTUSD had difficulty interpreting the charter’s financial statements because the PCCS reports lacked clarity and accuracy and were not prepared using the same account and code structure as the district. In addition, PCCS did not always file financial reports and interpretations in a timely manner to the TTUSD or the PCOE. PCCS had a pattern of upward spiraling debt in 2001-02.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The TTUSD should require any future charter to: • enter into a detailed agreement with the district regarding the financial accountability standards and systems that will be used by the charter school and the financial information that the district wants to review, • have the same fiscal reporting system as the district and the County Office of Education, • identify the geographical area in which students will be served as well as identifying either the maximum number of students that will be enrolled or the maximum annual increase in enrollment, • establish the format, frequency, and scope of district oversight activities, and • identify which entity (the district or the charter school) is responsible for providing student services should the charter school cease to operate. Services should include notification to the school district that may be responsible for providing education services to the former charter school student, transferring student records, and ensuring that compulsory education laws are met.

F7: In April 2003, the Governing Board of TTUSD renewed the PCCS’s charter. However, due to the district’s concerns in areas in which PCCS had encountered operational difficulties, TTUSD added a list of issues to be addressed. These items included out-of- district students, facilities, growth, liability, student performance, conflict resolution and communications, business services, audits, administrative costs, oversight, and the fiscal viability of PCCS.

F8: Between the charter renewal in April 2003 and the charter revocation in August 2003, numerous meetings and communications took place in an attempt to agree upon a Memorandum of Understanding between PCCS and TTUSD to resolve the identified areas of concern.

F9: In August 2003, the TTUSD Governing Board revoked the PCCS charter due to continuing fiscal mismanagement and failure to follow generally accepted accounting principles.

F10: Upon revocation of the PCCS charter, the TTUSD temporarily supported an employee of PCCS to process student records that were requested from receiving districts. Student records were transported from PCCS to TTUSD in November 2003.

F11: No education entity interviewed by the Grand Jury has been able to state that all Nevada County students previously enrolled in the PCCS are meeting California compulsory education laws.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The TTUSD should proactively assume responsibility for ensuring that the former PCCS students residing in Nevada County are meeting compulsory education laws.

F12: As of February 2004, the TTUSD did not have a board policy or any criteria in place should they be approached to authorize a request for a new charter school. CONCLUSIONS

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: TTUSD should have in place board policy that defines the relationship between the district and any new charter school. The criteria should include the 16 elements [Ref. Education Code §47605(b)(5)(A-P)] required to be addressed in the petition, as well as information regarding the proposed operation and potential effects of the charter school, including, but not limited to: • the facilities to be used by the charter school, • the manners in which administrative services are to be provided, • potential civil liability effects, if any, upon the charter school and the school district, and • financial statements that include a proposed first-year operational budget, including start-up costs and cash flow and financial projections for the first three years of operation.

January 01, 2003 — Wastewater Treatment in Western Nevada County Reason for Investigation Recent local newspaper articles have covered

22 pages 20 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 20 findings

F1: All wastewater treatment plants that discharge to surface waters are issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that sets specific discharge requirements to ensure protection of public health and water quality. These permits are renewed every five years by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards. At each renewal, the permit renewal process may incorporate new treatment objectives and discharge regulations that might require upgrades or modifications to the facility.

F2: In the last year, testing of effluent (output) at wastewater treatment plants within Sanitation District No. 1 has revealed levels of contaminants that exceed CTR water quality criteria.

F3: Regional Water Quality Control Board Orders implement EPA standards and require all treatment plants within Nevada County to meet a higher quality of water discharge to maintain their permits. Current plants will not remove trace contaminants as required by the new standards. Failing to meet discharge requirements may subject the plants to fines.

F4: The LAFCO report indicates that given the current land use patterns and projected growth areas, it is impracticable to have one centralized regional wastewater system within Nevada County.

F5: The report also states that it is inefficient and costly for the wastewater agencies to service projected growth through a series of small “package plants” and agencies/zones as has been done in the past. 6. “Package plants” must also meet the same water quality standards as large plants and, as a result, typically have higher costs and charges for property owners. The government structure is also affected. Since adoption of an ordinance in 1982, Nevada County has required some wastewater systems be operated by a public agency or to annex to an existing public agency. The result has been that either a very small district is formed or annexation to a public agency is required. A majority of the annexations has been to the Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1, which now operates some systems with comparatively few customers.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should direct the Department of Transportation and Sanitation to address wastewater processing in western Nevada County with a master plan. Efforts to address individual wastewater treatment upgrades that are not cost-effective should be abandoned once the master plan is implemented.

R2: The Board of Supervisors should evaluate the LAFCO report’s recommendation that: “The western Nevada County wastewater agencies should also consider ways to provide regional wastewater services either through an informal group or a long-term, legal arrangement such as a joint powers authority (JPA). Even if existing systems could not be shared, regional services that could be shared or coordinated might include developing approved standards lists, standardizing specifications and drawings, and agreeing on design manuals in order to have a standardized regional system. Wastewater providers could also act as a single unit for lobbying, funding/grant efforts, preparing master plans, and outsourcing services such as engineering, legal services, information services, lab testing, printing, insurance, audits, landscaping, billing, and vehicle purchase/maintenance in order to realize costs savings.”

F7: LAFCO’s report also noted that “package plants” cannot achieve the economies of scale required for efficient and cost-effective processing of wastewater.

Related Recommendations (2)

F8: The western Nevada County review commissioned by LAFCO estimated the current cost to meet CVB’s discharge requirements for Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1, including only Lake Wildwood, Lake of the Pines, Penn Valley, and Cascade Shores, at over $12 million.

F9: Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1 projected maintenance and capital improvements at a higher cost than LAFCO. The cost for maintenance and capital improvement to meet CVB’s revised standards in Lake Wildwood (LWW), Lake of the Pines (LOP), Penn Valley (PV), North San Juan (NSJ), Cascade Shores (CS), Gold Country (GC), and Mountain Lake Estates (MLE) was estimated in May of 2003 to be in excess of $15 million, and in April of 2004, in excess of $23 million, as shown in the following chart. Estimates for Eden Ranch (ER), Dark Horse (DH), and Higgins Village (HV) were not included in either total. Fiscal All Zones LWW LOP PV NSJ CS GC MLE E D H Total Year R H V 2003/04 $284,592 $317,000 $526,700 $26,006 $5,000 $22,000 $4,000 $3,000 $1,188,298 2004/05 $1,256,515 $782,696 $30,000 $5,000 $78,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,159,211 2005/06 $843,315 $6,758,472 $8,000 $5,000 $429,500 $4,000 $3,000 $8,051,287 2006/07 $5,560,000 $5,974,109 $8,000 $5,000 $229,500 $4,000 $3,000 $11,783,609 Total $284,592 $7,976,830 $14,041,977 $72,006 $20,000 $759,000 $16,000 $12,000 $23,182,405 Source: Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1, April 16, 2004

F10: The Lake Wildwood Wastewater Treatment Plant currently discharges into Deer Creek, which during many months of the year has little or no flow below the Lake Wildwood Dam. CTR standards must be met at the point of discharge. The consultant’s

F11: The Lake Wildwood plant must comply with a new discharge permit by 2007. To have facilities constructed and operational by that time, the Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1 projects that it must select a treatment and disposal alternative, establish a new fee structure, start environmental studies and documentation, begin engineering during 2004, and complete design of those facilities by early 2005.

F12: The current proposal for Lake Wildwood would require a minimum upgrade to the treatment facility and would encapsulate Deer Creek’s flow for much of the year in a pipe at a cost estimated at $5 million. The effluent would be transported around Deer Creek and thus conform to CVB’s current point of discharge rule.

F13: Lake Wildwood individual sewer charges are projected to increase from $315 to $843 per year in order to comply with CVB’s new requirements.

F14: The current proposal to meet the long-term needs of Lake of the Pines is to upgrade the treatment plant at its current location. The upgraded facility will discharge year-round to Magnolia Creek but provisions will be made to resume seasonal pastureland dispersal should it become desirable in the future.

F15: Estimates for sewer charge increases to fund the Lake of the Pines wastewater treatment plant upgrade are not firm at this time. The estimated construction costs to upgrade the Lake of the Pines wastewater treatment plant could cause individual sewer charges to increase from the current $315 to $1035 per year in 2006/07.

F16: The Cascade Shores wastewater treatment consists of a stream discharge system into Gas Canyon Creek. Built in 1996, it met the effluent discharge requirements then in effect. The wastewater discharge permit is up for renewal and requires the treatment plant be upgraded by 2006 to meet the new CVB requirements. In March 2004, Cascade Shores’ charges increased from $910 to $1795 per year by order of Nevada County Board of Supervisors acting as the Board of Directors of the Sanitation District in ordinance No. SD-46. Proposed disposal options are still being evaluated.

F17: The County is handing the cost of meeting toxic rule requirements to those communities that have separate water treatment plants.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Supervisors should vigorously assert their influence with state and federal legislators as to the financial impacts to county residents as cities and counties and especially smaller treatment plants react to meet the more stringent requirements for wastewater treatment.

F18: Nevada County is charging for wastewater treatment improvements on residents' tax bills. The California Attorney General warns that such charges do not have a "direct relationship to property ownership." There is legal uncertainty in the State as to whether such charges constitute a tax increase (forbidden by various propositions) or a permissible fee for service assessment.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Board of Supervisors should evaluate alternative ways of recovering the costs of wastewater treatment services, e.g., attaching the charges to water bills as some percentage of water used.

F19: Grant funds were reported by County-employed consultants to be unavailable on September 16, 2003 at a Lake Wildwood community outreach meeting. An article in The Union on November 20, 2001 alluded to an $85,000 grant requested by the Nevada County Resources Conservation District of the David and Lucille Packard Foundation. The grant had been turned down due to a lack of 50 percent matching funds. On January 27, 2003, The Union reported that the Yuba Watershed Council “had received $1.2 million in grants from the $1 billion Clean Water Act passed in 1996.” On March 8, 2003 The Union reported that Nevada City was “applying for a U.S. Department of Agriculture rural development grant” to improve their wastewater treatment plant. The same consultants reported grant funds to be under study on March 9, 2004.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board of Supervisors should direct the Department of Transportation and Sanitation to seek out grant money to assist in meeting the challenges facing the County with renewal of treatment plant permits.

F20: Funding to meet these requirements is unbudgeted. If the county cannot obtain federal or grant funding, the current plan is to pass on the costs of each project to the property owners served.

F21: The United States Code, previously cited, states that it is the national policy that Federal financial assistance would be provided for wastewater treatment plant upgrades. CONCLUSIONS

Septic Systems Inquiry in Nevada County Reason for Investigation Over the past several years local newspaper articles

15 pages 12 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: The 1967 Porter-Cologne Act established the State Water Quality Resource Control Board (SWB) and California Regional Water Quality Control Boards as principal state agencies responsible for water quality control.

F2: The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVB) has the authority to regulate any wastewater system within a jurisdiction that includes western Nevada County. While the Porter-Cologne Act requires that any person discharging or proposing to discharge waste, even individual septic systems for single-family residences, file a report with the regional offices, it has been CVB’s practice since the early 1950s to regulate/monitor only systems with more than 99 connections. Recently the CVB has decided to regulate some systems in Nevada County with fewer than 99 connections where the proposed system design did not appear to protect water quality and meet existing standards.

F3: More stringent statewide requirements for the permitting/operation of on-site systems may be required as a result of Assembly Bill 885 (AB885), but no regulations or standards have been promulgated as of the date of this report.

F4: Beyond the policies and requirements of the regional water quality control boards, there are currently no statewide requirements for minimum lot sizes, placement, or use of on- site wastewater systems. California does not have statewide laws for pre-sale inspections or for regular inspections of on-site systems after initial construction. Requirements addressing these issues are left to the discretion of individual county health departments.

F5: Nevada County has established regulations for setbacks and replacement areas for on-site systems. Regardless of the zoning, all new parcels created in Nevada County that plan to use an on-site system must be large enough to accommodate the required system and an on-site system reserve/replacement area. The reserve area, required to be the same size as the primary septic system, is protected to the same extent as the primary septic system area.

F6: The LAFCO report states … “while on-site systems are often cited as a source of water quality degradation, there is little documentation to substantiate that claim. AB885 may require that the SWB adopt regulations for the permitting/operation of on-site systems.”

F7: County tracking of septic tank problems and leakage is only complaint-driven. Complaints are received and filed according to parcel number in manila folders in a records storage room. Older parcel data is stored on microfiche. To obtain a consolidated report of septic tank complaints, one would have to go through the parcel folders and microfiche and extract the complaints one-by-one. Without consolidated reports, the County lacks reference points to determine if the number of complaints is growing (and at what rate), staying the same, or decreasing.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should make certain that any new computer systems have the data required to provide essential management reports related to on-site septic system complaints, failures, testing, and maintenance.

F8: In response to a letter dated January 11, 2002 from the Alta Sierra Property Owners Association (ASPOA), the County Department of Transportation and Sanitation in September of 2002 conducted an investigation of sewage disposal in the Alta Sierra area. The study, based on a review of 309 randomly selected developed parcel files (with no on-site physical inspection), statistically estimated that over 40% of the septic tanks have not been pumped in the last 15 years compared to a recommended average pumping interval of 3-5 years. The study also concluded that no evaluation of ground water quality or health risks could be made as the study was done from historical data and lacked field-testing for bacteria.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Supervisors should direct Environmental Health to assist ASPOA and similar communities to locate an affordable testing and pumping provider for residents’ septic systems.

F9: A report prepared for the Nevada County 1992 General Plan update noted: “Septic tank and leach field system problems have evolved in localized portions of western Nevada County for a variety of reasons including soil conditions, slope, small lot sizes and inadequate permit and construction practices … (and) areas such as the Alta Sierra subdivision and La Barr Meadows have a history of failing leach fields.”

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should direct Sanitation and/or Environmental Health to commission a master plan to address on-site system testing and maintenance countywide and to educate the public about related health concerns.

F10: Regular testing of wells can determine if groundwater is contaminated. The LAFCO report states…“all wells be tested regularly.” Anecdotal information indicates that generally 27% of wells tested show levels of coliform bacteria in excess of acceptable levels. While wastewater disposal may be the primary cause of high coliform levels, a causal relationship between failing septic systems and high coliform levels in wells has not been established. Coliform bacteria are ubiquitous in soil and are only “indicators” of potential water contamination.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Board of Supervisors should establish an ongoing periodic licensing and testing program for all wells within the County to determine if the groundwater is contaminated. RESPONSES Nevada County Board of Supervisors – August 30, 2004 This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com. The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.

F11: The LAFCO report also states: “It may not be possible for all new development to connect to centralized, public wastewater systems; however, a series of larger sub- regional, centralized facilities may reach economies of scale not available with on-site systems. A method of evaluating the economic and environmental impacts of the various treatment options and providing direction to reduce the long-term reliance on on-site systems should be developed.”

F12: The County is developing a new computer system called “Encompass.” Encompass is expected to provide consolidated reports for parcel data that is entered into the system. It is not clear, however, that older parcel data stored on microfiche will be included. Older septic systems might be expected to be more problematic than newer systems constructed using longer-lasting materials CONCLUSIONS

📋Nevada County Natural Resources Report Reason for Investigation To assess the efficiency and effectiveness of using

4 pages 14 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 14 findings

F1: The BOS passed resolution number 00-218, authorizing execution of the project MOU, on May 9, 2000. The vote was 4-0 with one member absent.

F2: The stated goal of the project was “to develop a comprehensive strategy to identify, manage and protect natural habitats, plant and animal species diversity, and open space resources in Nevada County.”

F3: This goal was to be accomplished “by conducting a county-wide biotic inventory and developing a habitat and open space management plan with specific implementation measures, governance mechanisms and funding options.”

F4: Once completed, the project was to “serve as the primary vehicle for implementing many of the County and perhaps the Cities' open space and resource protection objectives.” The stated intent was to “maintain or enhance: • the diversity of plant and animal communities in Nevada County, with an emphasis on special status plant and animal species or species of concern; • Nevada County's working landscapes - those lands which support the County's forestry, farming and ranching economy; • open spaces for passive outdoor recreation activities, such as walking, biking, fishing, photography, etc.; • watersheds, floodplains and other areas needed to protect public health and safety; and • the public's awareness of natural resource values and stewardship opportunities in Nevada County.”

F5: The project goals were also that priority be given to ensuring that the final plan: • “is scientifically sound and ensures long-term protection of natural habitats, plant and animal species diversity and open space resources in the County; • can be incorporated into the County General Plan and day-to-day planning decisions; • emerges from an inclusive and accessible process, with mechanisms for meaningful involvement and input by all interested citizens; • earns widespread public support; • engenders positive working relationships between the County and other agencies, local government entities and collaborative groups in the County and Sierra Nevada region.”

F6: As set forth in the MOU, $700,000-800,000 was the estimated cost for the two and-a- half year project. These costs were to be split between Nevada County and the Sierra Business Council, with the County’s financial obligation to be “no less than 33%” of the total cost.

F7: At its meeting on May 7, 2002, the BOS voted unanimously to amend the project’s work plan. These amendments resulted in ending the project, except for completion of the NRR report by July 31, 2002, and adding a requirement that “the scientific data would be peer reviewed by qualified scientists.”

F8: The data was peer reviewed periodically during the project by a seven-member Scientific Advisory Committee established by the MOU. There was extensive field checking, and comments were received from at least another eight scientists, biologists, and local field technicians who had reviewed the five biological documents on the County’s website.

F9: At its July 23, 2002, meeting the BOS heard testimony from the Scientific Coordinator and various local planners and participants in the study. When asked by the BOS the estimated value of the work and data that had been compiled to date, one of the scientists who performed the peer review estimated that “the GIS1 work alone would have been in the $300,000 to $500,000 range and the fieldwork was in the $250,000 range.” 1 Geographic Information Systems.

F10: Nevada County reported $167,195 in expenses and $146,805 in staff time for a total of $314,000. Sierra Business Council’s contribution to the project was $650,055 that covered wages, benefits, mapping, verification, meeting costs, publications, and related expenses.

F11: Over 35 volunteers from forestry, agriculture, business, development, recreation, etc. collaborated to develop recommendations for the project.

F13: On August 12, 2003, the BOS, by a 3-2 vote, passed resolution 03-384 that qualified use of the data gathered, stating: “The NRR and associated GIS data is not to be used as a sole source when preparing baseline environmental documentation” for items such as land use or other county projects or for updating the General Plan. In addition, the resolution stated: “No further county funds or other resources…are to be used in updating or maintaining the currency of data and information in the NRR.”

F14: Resolution 03-384 also directed County staff to place the following disclaimer on the County website NRR, all unsold hard copies and discs, and on any reports generated from the NRR, and to have adhesive labels printed and disseminated to all who had previously received NRR documents: “DISCLAIMER: THERE HAS BEEN NO FORMAL ACCURACY ASSESSMENT TESTING PERFORMED ON THE NRR GIS LAYERS AND THERE IS NO STATISTICAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS OF ACCURACY FOR INDIVIDUAL DATA THEMES.” CONCLUSIONS

Air Quality in Nevada County Cutting Through the Haze Reason for Investigation Measurements of air pollution in the

7 pages 16 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 16 findings

F1: Pollution monitoring data show that levels for ozone have increased in Western Nevada County. Since 1997, there has been a steady increase of the number of days and hours when ozone levels have exceeded the State air quality standard. The exceedances3 usually occur in the late afternoon and evening, which indicates ozone and its precursors are transported from upwind (source) area4. (See sources numbers 1 and 2.)

F2: Ozone and PM10 & PM2.5 particulates are the primary contributors to air pollution in Nevada County. Ozone concentrations are typically low in the winter months but rise 3 The term “exceedance” means the ambient levels of ozone or particulate matter have risen above the applicable Air Quality Standards. 4 “Transport” is the movement of pollutants from an upwind (source) area (Sacramento Valley and Bay Area) to a downwind (destination) area (Nevada County), due to the prevailing Southwest winds. (See source no. 2). dramatically during the summer season. Concentrations of particulates typically increase during the winter months.

F3: Ozone levels above the Federal air quality standard aggravate the health of people with sensitive and /or compromised pulmonary systems. Ozone is a powerful oxidant that can damage the respiratory tract causing inflammation and irritation, and induces symptoms such as coughing, shortness of breath and worsening of asthma symptoms.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Air Quality District should continue the public awareness programs that illuminate the health risks due to long-term exposure to pollutants such as ozone and PM10, PM2.5 particulates.

F4: PM10 & PM2.5 particulates are contained in smoke from wood stoves and open burning of all types: residential burning; prescribed fire (forest management, wild-lands vegetation management); land development clearing; hazard reduction; agriculture; and road maintenance. These small size particulates get by the natural filtration systems of the nose and throat and lodge deep in the lungs. People most sensitive are those with chronic lung or cardiovascular disease, those with influenza, asthmatics, the elderly and children. Air Quality Index (AQI) vs. Health Hazard (This table used courtesy of Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District) AQI Health Categories Ozone Fine Particles PM2.5 Particles PM10 300 Active children and adults, People with respiratory or heart People with respiratory Very and people with respiratory disease, the elderly and disease, such as asthma, Unhealthy disease, such as asthma, children should avoid any should avoid any outdoor should avoid all outdoor outdoor activity; everyone else activity; everyone else, 201-300 exertion; everyone else, should avoid prolonged especially the elderly and especially children, should exertion children, should limit limit outdoor exertion outdoor exertion 200 Active children and adults, People with respiratory or heart People with respiratory Unhealthy and people with respiratory disease, the elderly and disease, such as asthma, disease, such as asthma, children should avoid prolonged should avoid outdoor 151-200 should avoid prolonged exertion; everyone else should exertion; everyone else, outdoor exertion; everyone limit prolonged exertion especially the elderly and else, especially children children, should limit should limit prolonged prolonged outdoor outdoor exertion exertion (106 ppb - NAAQS)* 150 Active children and adults, People with respiratory or heart People with respiratory Unhealthy and people with respiratory disease, the elderly and disease, such as asthma, for disease, such as asthma, children should limit prolonged should limit outdoor Sensitive should limit prolonged exertion exertion Groups outdoor exertion (85 ppb - NAAQS)* 101-150 100 Unusually sensitive people Moderate should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion None None 51-100 50 Good 0-50 None None None * Measurements are in parts per billion (ppb). 85 ppb is the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups.” 106 ppb is the NAAQS for “Unhealthy” category. Any 8-hour average greater than 85 ppb is considered harmful to the public health. Measurement information provided by Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Air Quality District should continue the public awareness programs that illuminate the health risks due to long-term exposure to pollutants such as ozone and PM10, PM2.5 particulates.

F5: Pollution monitoring sites continuously record the levels of pollutants (ozone, PM10, PM2.5) at various locations within the Air Quality District as well as to the south and west of Nevada County. During 2002 at the Grass Valley monitoring site, there were 22 days with exceedances of the 8-hour Federal Air Quality Standard for ozone. There were 80 hours on 20 separate days exceeding the State 1 hour Air Quality Standard for ozone.

F6: The hot, stagnant days during July 2002 in the Broader Sacramento Area contributed to record high ozone levels as measured at the Grass Valley monitoring site. This ozone was later transported into the Air Quality District on the prevailing southwest winds.

F7: According to the State Air Quality Board, Western Nevada County’s impending designation as a Federal non-attainment area for ozone is a result of overwhelming air pollution transport from upwind (source) urban areas that include the Sacramento Valley and Bay areas. This graph shows ozone concentration over a two-day period, measured at three locations. The graph shows the transport of ozone from the upwind (source) areas of Sacramento and Folsom into the foothills of Nevada County. As the peak values decrease in the upwind (source) areas, the ozone level rises in the foothills blown in on the prevailing winds. Graph provided by Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.

F8: The State Air Resources Board opposes the EPA plan to make Western Nevada County part of the Sacramento ozone area. Nevada County and other downwind (destination) counties have their own pollution control agencies and have “air basins” distinct from their more urban counterparts.

F9: Improvements in Western Nevada County air quality, with respect to ozone, will depend largely on the success of air quality programs in upwind (source) areas such as the Sacramento Valley and the Bay Area. (See source no. 2.)

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors (BOS) must continue to enlist the support of the California Air Resources Board and state and federal legislators to create Nevada County’s own air pollution non-attainment district. Western Nevada County should be designated as its own non-attainment district with recognition by the EPA and California Air Resources Board that Western Nevada County is subjected to overwhelming transport ozone pollution from upwind sources in the Sacramento Valley area.

F10: Until the upwind (source) Broader Sacramento Area makes substantial gains in its ozone precursor reduction program and State and Federal implemented control programs come into effect, the Air Quality District expects to see continued violations of both Federal and State air quality standards in Western Nevada County. Ozone transport - Air Pollutants generated in the Sacramento Valley are transported to the Nevada County foothills by the prevailing southwest winds causing ozone levels in Western Nevada County to exceed the national 8 hour air quality standard.

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: The BOS and legislators should oppose reduction in funds for the improvement of local district air quality.

R3: The BOS should seek to establish additional ozone and continuous particulate monitoring sites, equipped with a full range of meteorological sensors, on the Western edge of Nevada County (Penn Valley or Lake Wildwood area). These monitoring sites would provide information about transport ozone and particulates blowing from the Sacramento Valley into Penn Valley, North San Juan, and areas North of the Yuba River.

R4: The BOS and legislators must urge the EPA to limit any sanctions imposed on Nevada County to those addressing only the causative factors over which the county has some control or that actually improve air quality in our County.

F11: The Air Quality District reports that The Town of Truckee and Quincy currently exceed the State air quality standard for PM10 particulate matter. Wood stoves, open burning of all types, and windblown road sand/dust are the main sources of particulate matter causing violations within the district.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: The Air Quality District should continue their community programs that reduce pollutants, encourage vehicle trip reductions, reduce the need for open burning, and encourage woodstove change-outs.

R7: The County Department of Transportation and Sanitation should continue working with the Air Quality District and CalTrans and The Town of Truckee to focus on transportation solutions for reducing vehicle generated emissions and road dust created by winter sanding.

F12: PM2.5 particulates are found in smoke from woodstoves and open burning within the county and from agricultural burning in the Sacramento Valley.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Air Quality District should continue their community programs that reduce pollutants, encourage vehicle trip reductions, reduce the need for open burning, and encourage woodstove change-outs.

F13: The Air Quality District has programs in place to mitigate vehicle exhausts, industrial/equipment emissions, particulate pollution, etc. The Air Quality District has supported the leaf-burning ordinance, green waste pickup, and has done educational outreach programs to residents and schools.

F14: A small sampling of community programs supported and/or sponsored by the Air Quality District include the curbside greenwaste pickup, woodchipping, free compost bins, Master Composter program, the ban on leaf burning, woodstove change-out, purchase of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses and low emission (Hybrid) vehicles, public air quality alerts, and a public “hot line.” As an example, since the ban on leaf burning went into effect, the Air Quality District reports a 75% decrease in smoke-related health complaints.

F15: The EPA is seeking to restructure air quality boundaries by folding Western Nevada County into the six county Sacramento region non-attainment area, despite opposition by the State Air Resources Board.

F16: The State Air Resources Board recognizes that portions of the Air Quality District exceed State Air Quality Standards due to transport of pollutants from upwind (source) areas. As a result, the state has designated Nevada County as non-attainment due to overwhelming transport of ozone from upwind (source) areas. As such, the Air Quality District is required to develop an Attainment Plan to maintain emissions from within the Air Quality District to levels below which violations would occur in the absence of the transport contribution. CONCLUSIONS