📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Nevada County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
Rebuilding the Dream: Solving California’s Affordable Housing Crisis makes this observation: “Two fundamental problems
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 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.
Recommendations 8
-
R1The 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.
-
R2The Nevada City Council should direct the Planning Commission to publish a Housing Element that is useful to readers.
-
R3The Nevada City Council should eliminate the ARC. There is no justifiable reason for having more than one layer of planning commission.
-
R4The Nevada City Council should direct the Planning Commission to be proactive in the building of affordable housing.
-
R5The 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.
-
R6The 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.
-
R7The 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.
-
R8The 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
Conclusions 9
-
CL1 Page 6The ARC is made up of members of the Planning Commission. There is no justifiable reason to have two committees made up of the same people.
-
CL2 Page 6Project applicants would be subjected to a less complicated process if they dealt with just the Planning Commission.
-
CL3 Page 6Nevada City has demonstrated their contempt for following guidelines. For example the state guideline (cited in “Background”) clearly states that the Housing Element is required to be updated every five years. Nevada City had 18 years between updates.
-
CL4 Page 6Although Nevada City considers itself “unique” in many respects, this “uniqueness” must not be used to exclude the City from following state requirements.
-
CL5 Page 6The “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.
-
CL6 Page 6Secondary Units are the only category where there appears to be any possibility of implementation, and these must be rentals. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends: 1. 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.
-
CL7 Page 6The Grand Jury found the Nevada City Housing Element to be poorly organized and badly written.
-
CL8 Page 6Nevada City’s Housing Element pushes the state requirements to the maximum and provides little effective and/or useful information. The Housing Element creates confusion by referring the reader from one table or section to another with little specific content.
-
CL9 Page 6The Nevada City Housing Element consistently uses words and phrases that make no clear commitment to take any action, i.e., “consider,” “target,” “can,” “proposed.” The Housing Element clearly makes few promises of actually building affordable housing.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Nevada City
City