The Nevada City Council on Wednesday is expected to vote whether to uphold or reject the appeal of allowing a meditation center in a single-family residential neighborhood.
The Mountain Stream Meditation Center is at 710 Zion St. in Nevada City. It will include the meditation center and – yup – up to 24 parking spaces (16 permanent plus 8 “overflow.”) The agenda and packet material is here.
“R1″ neighborhoods are supposed to be meant for single-family dwellings. However, the zone allows for “uses of the recreational, educational, religious, cultural or public service type” with the granting of a use permit by the planning commission.
Though “R1,” the Piety Hill district is described as “both stable residential neighborhoods and the main service commercial concentration of the city,” according to City Hall. Okey-dokey.
The public hearing is expected to be emotional and heated. Letters submitted with the packet support the meditation center because, for example, “it’s an ideal transition space” between residential and commercial. Two real-estate agents are going to bat for the planning commission decision too.
This discussion comes amid a debate about whether B&Bs should be allowed in residential neighborhoods in Nevada City.
I have yet to see few, if any, elected or appointed public official consistently stand up for “R1″ neighborhoods in Nevada City. “Buyer beware” if you buy a home in an “R1″ neighborhood here.
If I had to bet, I’d predict the approval will be upheld by a narrow margin, without any clear direction about the sanctity of “R1″ neighborhoods, which historically have made towns throughout California so unique. That’s changing though, here and elsewhere, brought on by the slumping economy and professional neighborhood “planners.”
I suspect this is going to be another one of those “wiggle worm,” “feel good” decisions by the Council. The appellants, who apparently are going to be charged on a “pay as you go” basis for filing an appeal, will walk away with the feeling you “can’t fight City Hall.”
And in Nevada City, that’s often the case.
Filed under: Uncategorized
I went online and reviewed the packet. The packet for the appeal is over 150 pages of reports, minutes and other information relevant to the appeal, but why are the appellants being asked to pay for all or even part of it?
The city planner’s six-page report is merely a synopsis of what has happened to date with the project. This is routine information the council needs to have to make an informed decision and doesn’t seem to fall into the area of extra work that warrants a bill to the appellants.
The city attorney’s five-page memo is headed “Procedure for Handling Planning Appeals.” Again, it is a routine memo created to provide the council with guidance for handling the appeal, but it doesn’t seem to be the sort of work product that appellants should be paying for.
No other staff-generated reports are dated after June 3, 2011 –– the date the appeal was filed.
So what did staff do to warrant a bill to the appellants that has already exceeded $600 and is expected to exceed $1,000? Will more reports be issued prior to the meeting but not available for public review until that time?
Budget crunch aside, and R1 non-residential uses aside, this is a bad sign for all citizens wishing to appeal planning decisions. I can only hope that the council — no matter how they vote on the appeal — will at least have the good manners to hold the bill to the appellants in abeyance until an objective policy and fee schedule is determined at some future date.
Staff may want the bill paid now, but the council needs to keep in mind that they set policy and staff carries it out. If the council says “Whoa!” to the bill, then staff will do as directed.
At what point does a homeowner on a major thoroughfare surrounded by commercial development decide that the noise and traffic on that street makes it impossible to enjoy homelife on that street? Wouldn’t it be fair to give property owners on the street the option of going either commercial or residential so they would have some way to redress their grievances?
The General Plan ought not to be considered “written in stone” like some planning bible but instead be a “living” document that can grow and change with the times. I assume that we have a city council and planning commission so they can make these kinds of decisions. We would not need council and planning input if all they did was quote ordinance “scripture”- staff could do that at the front desk of city hall.
OOO! This might be a good one. I might grab a bag of popcorn and watch the verbal barrage….I better get there early so Ican get a good seat!
Out of town,
but as I predicted the appeal is likely to be rejected without any clear direction about the sanctity of R1s.
http://www.theunion.com/article/20110727/BREAKINGNEWS/110729805/1066&ParentProfile=1053