idaho-maryland road / east main street redevelopment study

Idaho Maryland Road / East Main Street Redevelopment Study

1

Idaho-Maryland Road / East Main Street Redevelopment Study

Public Review DraftJanuary 2010

The City of Grass Valley

City of Grass Valley

2

1

The City of Grass Valley

The City of Grass Valley is a fl ourishing small town situated in the

Sierra Nevada foothills of Northern California. Sixty miles north of

Sacramento, the state capital, Grass Valley has preserved its sense of

community and its natural and historic quali es.

The City of Grass Valley has a strong local economy. Its downtown

business district retains the historical character of its gold mining

past, a rac ng visitors and residents with shopping, restaurants, and

municipal and business services. Grass Valley is the center for retail

trade and business ac vity for western Nevada County; there are

a number of business parks and large commercial centers located

within the City limits.

The City’s popula on of about 13,000 people has the poten al to

almost double with annexa ons and development of infi ll loca ons.

The future popula on growth underscores the need for redevelop-

ment of aging corridors of the city in order to maximize economic

growth in Grass Valley.

Idaho-Maryland / East Main – Hills Flat Business District

Idaho-Maryland/ East Main (IMEM) Redevelopment Study Area is

centrally located in the city of Grass Valley, near the historical down-

town business district. The Study Area is composed of 19 acres of

**Grass Valley


3

a variety of commercial and light industrial businesses. Many are

well established businesses ranging from locally owned outdoor

recrea on equipment sales and rental shops, a natural food store, a

pharmacy, and auto related repair shops to na onal chains such as

a Chevron gas sta on and a Sears Appliance store. Single and mul -

family housing are located right outside Study Area.

Auto use is a defi ning feature of the IMEM Study Area. Highway 49

borders the Study Area from east to west and Idaho-Maryland Road

and East Main Street are the loca ons for the highway’s on and o

ramps. East Main Street runs south to north through the Study Area,

serving as an entry to the downtown business district. The two

major through streets, Idaho-Maryland Road and East Main Street,

connect vehicles to residen al areas, business parks, the Glenbrook

Basin retail area and the downtown business district. Furthermore,

this site is visible to drivers from the highway. Idaho Maryland Road

and East Main Street receive high tra c volumes making it Grass

Valley’s busiest intersec on.

Purpose

The goal of the “Idaho-Maryland Road / E. Main Street Redevelop-

ment Study” is to evaluate the feasibility of how vacant or under-u -

lized proper es lying within this area can be developed or redevel-

oped in support of job crea on and business expansion. The Study

Area consists of approximately 19.4 acres and includes 37 proper es.

Due to the reloca on of several businesses over the past several

years, a number of these proper es are now either vacant or under-

u lized. The City wishes to work with property and business owners

to develop a series of strategic steps that would serve to s mulate

the economic health of this area.


4

Figure 3: Study Area Boundary

The public investment and planning in the IMEM Study Area must

therefore prime the area for growth and economic development,

while con nuing to support exis ng vital businesses already located

in the district.

Observa ons

During the Study process the Team met with community members

and sta , toured the area and conducted a public workshop. In this

process several specifi c issues/condi ons were observed, some con-

straints and some opportuni es. They include:

Vacant and underu lized parcels in the Study Area could benefi t

from aesthe c and infrastructure improvements to correct blight

and maximize land use.

Several key parcels are currently underu lized, for sale or lease.

A majority of the current uses in the Study Area are auto ori-

ented

Based on current and projected demand there is no need to

expand East Main Street from two lanes with a center turn lane

into four lanes as iden fi ed in the General Plan. However, there

are signifi cant street improvements necessary to increase safety.

On Scandling Avenue and Idaho-Maryland Road curbs, gu ers,

sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes are insu cient or nonexis-

tent.

Several drainage defi ciencies that cause localized fl ooding have

been iden fi ed on both Scandling Avenue and East Main Street.

Unmarked haphazard parking is common.

Through development and redevelopment there are opportuni-

es to provide addi onal private o -street parking spaces that

will reduce demand for on-street parking.

Within the last two years, to encourage a more intensive devel-

opment pa ern of mul -story mixed-use buildings, many of the

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


5

parcels in the Study Area were rezoned to Neighborhood Center

(NC) and Neighborhood-Center Flex (NC-Flex).

Many of the businesses in the area are auto-reliant. The Study

Area’s desirable loca on adjacent to the freeway and along ma-

jor local and regional travel routes means these condi ons are

not likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Auto related externali es such as noise and environmental pollu-

on are not compa ble with the uses that are encouraged in the

NC and NC-Flex zoning categories.

A number of current property owners are reluctant to revitalize

their proper es under the Neighborhood Commercial zones and

prefer the standard Commercial zoning.

Changing zoning from NC and NC-fl ex to the previous C-2 and C-3

zones may be be er suited for the area.

C-2 zoning will support light commercial oriented uses, while

keeping the visible gateway entrance into the Study Area invi ng

to visitors entering the area and traveling to the downtown busi-

ness district.

In this important community gateway, certain uses, such as typi-

cal chain fast foods, should be discouraged or prohibited.

With a rezone from the NC zone to the C zones there will be a

need to set performance design criteria to ensure some level of

quality design and control of uses (i.e. push parking to rear).

Light-industrial auto oriented uses found along Scandling Avenue

may be more appropriate in an area zoned C-3 which accommo-

dates this type of use.

Owners of small proper es fi nd the City’s development permit

process expensive and me consuming, somewhat disuading

private redevelopment e orts.

State records show two proper es with toxic substance remedia-

on in progress: 568, 582, and 602 East Main Street; and 438

East Main Street.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Recently a roundabout was placed at the entry point of the

IMEM Study Area. This has improved tra c fl ow during peak

hours, and has poten al to be a gateway no fying visitors of

entry into a unifi ed business district.

The Study Area currently lacks a unique iden ty and public im-

provements that are appropriate for this area, one of the City’s

major gateways.

•

•


6

2Public Process

The Team and the City of Grass Valley conducted Stakeholder in-

terviews on June 19, 2009 and, on July 6, 2009, a Public Workshop

with community members to discuss the Idaho-Maryland / East

Main Redevelopment Study Area project. The public workshop and

interviews were held in Grass Valley’s City Hall. Comments from the

community are summarized below:

A rac ng and retaining businesses was a priority. Because this

area is a commercial district, business-related improvements are

emphasized.

Beau fi ca on improvements such as uniform streetscape and

signage are desired.

Some parcels are vacant or underu lized crea ng blight.

Business owners iden fi ed run down commercial proper es that

are in need of rehabilita on.

Infrastructure and street improvements are desired. Business

owners state the lack of curbs, gu ers, sidewalks, and bike lanes

to manage pedestrian, bicycle and auto tra c are safety hazards.

The new roundabout has been unanimously cited as a very posi-

ve tra c calming improvement. Community members would

like to see the roundabout used as a marked gateway to the

district.

Tra c is an issue for drivers accessing businesses. The Study Area

has busy intersec ons and heavy, high speed tra c.

Scandling Avenue is used as a cut-through to avoid the round-

about. This has created high speed tra c on Scandling Avenue.

Parking is a major issue. Too few parking spaces as well as no

curbs cause haphazard parking along streets. Organized parking,

su cient to meet demand, is desired.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


7

Parking and conges on have improved with the reloca on of

Hills Flat Lumber where delivery vehicles were in confl ict with

customer vehicles.

Exis ng zoning is considered a hindrance to business growth.

The city prohibi ng signage visible from the highway prevents

increased adver sement of business in Study Area.

Furthermore, business owners do not feel the area supports NC-

Flex zoning that requires mixed-use residen al buildings because

the area is a concentrated commercial zone and not pedestrian

in orienta on.

Development formulas for many chain stores are not fl exible

enough to accommodate NC zoning standards. Stores will not

support the residen al mixed-use model. Zoning does not allow

for drive-thru restaurants, limi ng poten al business occupan-

cies. Property owners want more fl exible zoning.

Business owners want Scandling Avenue to remain with auto

related businesses and want zoning to support that.

Rain water drainage problem on Scandling Avenue needs to be

addressed.

Team

The Planning Team is composed of Andrew Cassano – Nevada City

Engineering, Inc.; Sally Nielsen - Hausrath Economics Group; Mike

Notes ne - Mogavero Notes ne Associates; Joe Heckel, Tom Last,

and Jeri Amendola - City of Grass Valley; and community stakehold-

ers.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

3Existing Conditions

Loca on, access, and visibility

The Idaho-Maryland / East Main Redevelopment Study Area is cen-

trally located within the City of Grass Valley and the greater Grass

Valley Planning Area. East Main Street, one axis of the Study Area, is

the primary local artery for travel between downtown Grass Valley

and the Glenbrook Basin retail area and the residen al neighbor-

hoods and business parks in the northern and eastern parts of the

City. Vehicles bound to and from Highway 49 also pass through the

Study Area. The high volume of vehicle tra c is a defi ning feature of

the Study Area.

The intersec on of Idaho-Maryland Road and East Main Street is

one of the City’s busiest intersec ons. The intersec on funnels traf-

fi c to and from the Golden Center Freeway (Highway 49) and also

handles local vehicle tra c. Vehicles traveling south on Highway 49

exit the freeway to the new roundabout at the intersec on. The

roundabout also serves as the on-ramp to Highway 49 south. Access

to and from Highway 49 north is just beyond the boundary of the

Study Area o of Idaho-Maryland Road.

Before construc on of the roundabout, tra c fl ow was regulated by

stop signs at all approaches; delays causing long tra c lines to form

were frequent during peak tra c periods, and there were confl icts

between freeway access and local tra c. The city and local business

owners report that tra c fl ow has improved since comple on of the

roundabout.


8

Figure 4: Idaho-Maryland Road and East Main Street Roundabout

Scandling Avenue bisects the eastern half of the Study Area. The

roadway lacks sidewalks, curbs and gu ers and func ons as a cut-o

from Idaho-Maryland Road to East Main Street northbound, avoiding

the roundabout.

Approaching from the north, over Spring Hill from the Glenbrook

area, the en re Idaho-Maryland / East Main Redevelopment Study

Area is visible on either side of East Main Street, anchored at the far

end by the recently completed roundabout. Many of the proper es

in the area are visible from the elevated sec on of Highway 49 that

forms the southern boundary of the Study Area. From the east via

Idaho-Maryland Road, the elevated freeway obstructs views of the

Study Area. From the west along East Main Street heading out of

downtown, the new roundabout punctuates the roadway, providing

a focal point that has the poten al to do more to announce the pres-

ence of a unifi ed business district.

Property and business owners that par cipated in this study were

near-unanimous in their men on of “visibility”, including visibility

from the freeway, as central to the success of this business loca on.

Figure 5: Scandling Avenue lacks sidewalks, curbs, and gutters


9

Characteris cs of Study Area land supply and building space

The Idaho-Maryland / East Main Redevelopment Study Area consists

of 37 parcels covering 19.4 acres. Parcels range in size from about

2,200 square feet to 3.1 acres. The largest parcel is an outlier; it is

more than twice the size of the next largest parcel and includes the

undeveloped hillside above Scandling Avenue. Three parcels totaling

just under one acre (42,250 square feet) have no structures. Two of

these parcels are adjacent and under the same ownership.

There are 60 exis ng structures in the Study Area totaling about

185,000 square feet of building area. The building stock is diverse,

having been constructed over more than 100 years. Many di erent

building types are represented in the area (see Figure 7).

For the en re area, the average ra o of building area to parcel area

is 0.22-to-1. By parcel, the exis ng fl oor-area-ra o ranges from .02-

to-1 for the largest parcel (over three acres, most of which is hill-

side) to .62-to-1. Most parcels have frontage on East Main Street or

Idaho-Maryland Road. Scandling Avenue provides frontage for about

one-third of Study Area property.

Many of the parcels are irregular in shape, and there are numerous

small parcels. Most of the small parcels are developed with even

smaller, older buildings that do not have a lot of exis ng character.

Site assembly will be required to undertake signifi cant redevelop-

ment in these cases. Exis ng ownership pa erns indicate some of

this has already occurred.

14487 sf

12743 sf

11730 sf

9237 sf

8575 sf

8448 sf

6657 sf

6471 sf

6317 sf

6155 sf

5930 sf

5228 sf

4865 sf

4640 sf

4469 sf

4331 sf

3766 sf

3523 sf

3248 sf

3169 sf

3047 sf

2415 sf

2385 sf

2150 sf

2123 sf

2076 sf

1973 sf

1885 sf

1883 sf

1728 sf

1619 sf

1595 sf

1539 sf

1502 sf

1499 sf

1476 sf

1465 sf

1390 sf

1371 sf

1329 sf

1257 sf

1239 sf

1172 sf

963 sf

1114 sf

939 sf

1090 sf

1075 sf

880 sf

844 sf

753 sf

656 sf

540 sf

431 sf

399 sf

373 sf

342 sf

330 sf

172 sf

6 sf

Figure 6: Parcels and Building Area


10

Figure 7: A variety of building types can be found in the Study Area


11

Land use and zoning

The Grass Valley General Plan designates the en re Idaho-Maryland

/ East Main Redevelopment Study Area for commercial land use.

The parcels and land area are rela vely evenly divided among four

zoning designa ons: C-2, C-3, NC, and NC-Flex. See Table 1, Fig-

ures 8 and 9, and Figure 10. Tradi onal commercial, residen al, and

mixed-use development are permi ed in these zones. In the last fi ve

years, the City has approved a number of residen al and mixed-use

projects in NC-¬Flex and C-2 zones, including one project, currently

on hold, adjacent to the Study Area to the west.

The larger parcels are zoned NC-Flex and C-2 and together account

for half of the land area. There are about 5 acres in each category on

six and seven parcels, respec vely. About 40 percent of the parcels

represen ng 30 percent of the land area are in the NC zoning catego-

ry and some of both the smallest and largest parcels—including all of

the vacant parcels—are zoned C-3.

Table 1

Idaho-Maryland / East Main Redevelopment Study Area

Parcels and Land Area by Zoning Category

Number of Land Area

Zoning Category Parcels (acres)

C-2 7 5.05

C-3 10 3.62

NC 14 5.89

NC-Flex 6 4.80

Study Area Total 37 19.36Source: Nevada County Assessor

Source: Nevada County Assessor

Figure 8: Parcel by Zoning Category

Source: Nevada County Assessor

Figure 9: Land Area by Zoning Category


12

Development pa ern

The Study Area building stock is a mix of newer commercial struc-

tures and older single-family wood-frame residen al buildings

converted to non-residen al use. The residen al conversions are

generally developed closer to the street, with parking to the side or

at the rear. Exis ng commercial development generally is character-

ized as strip commercial ranging in vintage from the 1950’s to more

recent new or upgraded buildings. Alongside conven onal o ce and

retail building types, the Study Area also includes a number of shed

or warehouse-type structures and auto-related uses (gas sta on and

car wash). On most proper es, development is generally set back

substan ally from the street with parking in the front and on the

sides.

Many of the parcels are developed with buildings surrounded by

parking lots. There is a limited amount of marked on-street park-

ing. Haphazard on-street parking occurs on Scandling Avenue where

there are no curbs or gu ers, and many of the businesses there do

not o er large parking lots.

Although predominantly a commercial district, the IMEM Study

Area was originally more residen al. To the west, some of the older

residen al neighborhoods in the City share a border with the Study

Area, and there are newer high-density housing developments on

the Berryhill Drive edge of the Study Area.

Figure 10: Existing Zoning


13

Figure 11: Auto Related Uses


14

U li es

Electricity, Telephone, and Cable Television

The area is served by overhead u lity lines with a combina on of

overhead and underground service connec ons. Some poles and

services may need to be relocated if the proposed improvements

are implemented.

There are a few poles that are set in the sidewalk impeding pe-

destrian fl ow. Reloca on of these poles would be prudent.

12KV lines can be found on East Main Street, Idaho-Maryland

Road, Scandling Avenue, Harris Street, and a por on that fol-

lows north along Highway 49 that wraps around to East Berryhill

Drive. There are a few underground taps but most of the prima-

ry facili es in the area are overhead. All primary is three phase

except for the tap on Scandling Avenue. PG&E should be able to

serve the addi onal load but would need a more in-depth review

once there are more detailed plans.

•

•

•

Figure 12: Existing overhead utilities


15

Gas

The exact loca ons of the gas mains and services for the area are

unknown and were not researched as part of this study.

Sewer System

The sewer system is currently func oning well and does not need

replacement at this me.

As part of the roundabout construc on, new sewer service

stub(s) have been installed to serve future users of the former

Hills Flat Lumber property.

The City is not aware of any sewer system capacity problems in

the area and the WWTP should have capacity as well. Of course,

it depends on what is proposed in the area. For example, a 6”

sewer main may not be su cient in size to serve certain uses.

•

•

•

•

Figure 13: Existing Sewer System


16

Storm Drain System and Storm Water Management

The storm drain system within the vicinity of the newly con-

structed roundabout has been completely refurbished as part of

construc on.

The storm drain system from the north end of the roundabout to

Berryhill Drive within the East Main Street corridor is failing and

needs replacement.

Addi onal drop inlets along the west side of East Main Street

would aid in collec ng storm water fl ow as there are only two

drop inlets between Harris Street and Berryhill Drive.

The storm drain system within the Scandling Avenue corridor

could use some refurbishing to add drop inlets as needed to help

control storm water runo coming from the adjacent proper es

as sheet fl ow. There is a large por on of the north side of the

roadway which is graded such that water is trapped un l enough

head is developed to con nue as sheet fl ow.

The storm drain system within the Idaho-Maryland Road corri-

dor terminates at the easternmost driveway entrance to Riebes

Autoparts. The storm drain system would need to be extended to

Scandling Avenue if the proposed road improvements are imple-

mented.

Addi onal drop inlets along the south side of Idaho-Maryland

Road would be appropriate as there are only two drop inlets

between Scandling Avenue and the roundabout.

The concrete channel along Matson Creek (bisects Kubota Trac-

tors and Terrible Herbst proper es) is failing and needs recon-

struc on.

The former Hills Flat Lumber site has localized drainage issues at

the north side of the property.

Runo from the hill slope to the north of Scandling Avenue is

not controlled and fl ow travels down slope through the adjacent

proper es towards Scandling Avenue.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Storm water generated from the Mountain Recrea on/Natural

Selec on parking lot is collected in a storm drain within the trash

enclosure. This should be modifi ed so as to keep poten al trash

from entering the storm drain system.

The majority of runo from the former Weaver’s Auto sales lot

travels as sheet fl ow unimpeded towards Scandling Avenue.

There is a por on of the north side of the parking lot that

does not drain and can collect a large amount of water prior to

breeching the top of the grade to travel as sheet fl ow.

Runo from the dry cleaners on East Main Street is diverted to

the southwest corner of the parking lot where it is semi-detained

in a curbed enclosure. Runo that breeches the enclosure travels

onto the adjacent property.

Runo from the car wash, oil change, and small business building

along East Main Street fl ows to the southwest corner of the park-

ing lot where the fl ow is metered (somewhat) through a hole

in the curbed enclosure. Runo is discharged onto the adjacent

property.

Runo generated along Harris Street (between Matson Creek

and East Main Street) travels along the south side of the roadway

within one to two feet of the adjacent buildings founda ons.

Runo generated in the southern parking lot for the gym on

West Berryhill Drive fl ows unimpeded to the undeveloped area

to the south.

The City has had a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) in

place since 2003 – it is available on the City’s website (h p://

www.cityofgrassvalley.com/services/departments/public_works/

mntn_storm_drains.php ). The SWMP does not address environ-

mental impacts for individual proper es. Individual SWPPP’s are

s ll required for any property of which at least one acre of soil is

disturbed (this could change shortly if the State adopts their new

General Permit for stormwater). Development limita ons could

occur if there are environmental impacts (i.e. wetlands).

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


17

The City’s Improvement Standards (h p://www.cityofgrassvalley.

com/services/departments/engineering/Standard_Specifi ca-

ons_and_Drawings.php ) cover all standard requirements for

stormwater deten on and treatment. Any addi onal require-

ments would most likely be developed through the CEQA process

or when obtaining a SWPPP for a specifi c piece of property.

•

Figure 14: Existing Drainage System


18

Water System

The water system is currently func oning adequately and does

not need replacement at this me.

During construc on of the roundabout, the water mains within

the East Main Street corridor and Idaho-Maryland Road corridor

were connected at the request of the City to help alleviate low

pressure along Idaho-Maryland Road.

During construc on of the roundabout, new services were in-

stalled at the former Hills Flat Lumber property to serve future

users.

•

•

•

Figure 15: Existing Water System


19

Market orienta on

The Idaho-Maryland / East Main Redevelopment Study Area is home

to a range of business ac vi es providing retail products as well as

repair, business, and personal services. The businesses in the Study

Area serve a number of markets: people living and working in the

City of Grass Valley and nearby areas, as well as Nevada County visi-

tors.

Generally, the market orienta on of exis ng business ac vity does

not compete with Downtown Grass Valley or with larger business

and industrial park areas in the City and nearby Nevada County.

There is some overlap in market orienta on with the major conve-

nience and auto-oriented retail shopping centers to the north. The

Study Area businesses share a market with the home and garden

and motor vehicle-related large-scale retail on the other side of the

freeway.

Exis ng business ac vity, employment, and sales

The Idaho-Maryland / East Main Redevelopment Study Area is cur-

rently almost en rely in commercial use. According to Nevada Coun-

ty Assessor’s data, only one property is s ll used as a primary resi-

dence. There were fi ve such proper es as recently as 2004/2005,

but four of those proper es have changed hands in the intervening

years and are no longer so used.

According to City of Grass Valley business license tax data, there are

about 36 businesses currently opera ng in the Idaho-Maryland /

East Main Redevelopment Study Area. These businesses employ 210

– 275 people.1 These businesses represent about two percent of all

businesses in the City and about two percent of all employment in

the City. See Figure 16.

The same business license tax data indicates a total of about 1,800

businesses based in the Grass Valley city limits and a total of about

2,040 businesses doing business in the City. (The addi onal approxi-

mately 200 businesses based in nearby areas that operate in a larger

regional market area that includes the City of Grass Valley, plus

larger corpora ons based elsewhere that have business opera ons

in Grass Valley. Some of these businesses are only doing work on a

temporary or occasional basis in Grass Valley. For others, the Grass

Valley market is part of their normal business opera on.) Total em-

ployment in Grass Valley is about 13,000 to 14,000, according to the

business license tax records. The smaller es mate counts only those

businesses whose primary business loca on is within City limits.

1 The range refl ects the fact that, for the purposes of the business license tax,

most businesses under 30 employees report employment by business size

class: 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, and 26-30. In these cases, the City ap-

pears to record employment at the high end of the size-class range. In other

words, a business of 10 employees will pay taxes in the 6 – 10 size class as

will a business of 7 employees. Each is recorded as having 10 employees.

Adding these unadjusted records overestimates employment. To adjust, HEG

substituted the mid-point of the size-class range for each instance in which

it appeared that the high end of the range was recorded as the employment

count. The estimate of 210 jobs for the Study Area uses the mid-point esti-

mation method, while the estimate of 275 jobs uses the estimate recorded in

the City of Grass Valley data base.


20

Table 2 presents the breakdown of area businesses and employment

in terms of the industrial classifi ca on system used for economic

development and other analy cal purposes related to understand-

ing local, regional, and na onal economies. The table illustrates

the diversity of exis ng business ac vity in the compact Study Area.

Eight of 20 primary industry sectors defi ned by the North American

Industrial Classifi ca on System (NAICS) are ac ve in the IMEM area.

The largest groups, in terms of both businesses and employment, are

retail trade, professional and technical services, and repair and main-

tenance services. Generally, the distribu on of employment follows

the distribu on of businesses, with two excep ons. Retail business-

es are larger than the small professional services businesses located

in the Study Area. The retail sector accounts for about 40 percent of

the businesses but 60 percent of the employment. The professional

and technical services sector accounts for 14 percent of Study Area

establishments and seven percent of Study Area employment.

Figure 16: Businesses in the Study Area


21

Table 2

Idaho-Maryland / East Main Redevelopment Study Area

Establishments and Employment by Industry and Sector

NAICS

2

digit/3-

digit1

Industry Sector and Sub-sectorNumber of

Establishments

Employment

(number of

jobs)

Percent

of Total

Establishments

Percent

of Total

Jobs

23 Construc on

238 Specialty trade contractors 2 6 6% 3%

42 Wholesale trade

423 Merchant wholesalers - durable goods 1 3 3% 1%

44-45 Retail trade

441 Motor vehicle and parts dealers 4 54 11% 25%

443 Electronics and appliance stores 2 11 6% 5%

444 Building materials and supplies stores 1 3 3% 1%

445 Food and beverage stores 1 8 3% 4%

446 Health and personal care stores 1 13 3% 6%

447 Gas sta ons 1 3 3% 1%

451 Spor ng goods, hobby, book, and music stores 3 14 8% 7%

453 Miscellaneous store retailers (o ce supplies, pet supplies) 2 21 6% 10%

52 Finance and insurance

522 Non-depository credit intermedia on (fi nancial services) 1 8 3% 4%

54 Professional, scien fi c, and technical services

541 Professional, scien fi c, and technical services 5 15 14% 7%

62 Health care and social assistance

621 Ambulatory health care services 3 12 8% 6%

72 Accommoda on and food services

722 Food services and drinking places (caterers) 1 3 3% 1%

81 Other services

811 Repair and maintenance 6 33 17% 15%

812 Personal and laundry services 2 6 6% 3%Study Area Total 36 213 100% 100%

1 North American Industrial Classifi cation System, 2007.

Source: City of Grass Valley and Hausrath Economics Group.


22

The businesses in the Idaho-Maryland / East Main Redevelopment

Study Area fall into a few dis nct clusters. Similar businesses are

located nearby further along East Main Street and Idaho-Maryland

Road.

Larger Scale Retail: Building materials, home furnishings, and ap-

pliances

Motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts sales and service

Specialty retail: outdoor recrea on equipment and apparel, pet

supply, sports and games, thri store

Convenience retail: o ce supply, natural food and wine, phar-

macy

Small professional and service o ce: engineering and construc-

on, fi nancial and technical services, personal services

Over the four-and-one-half-year period from FY 2004/2005 through

December 31 of FY 2008/2009, the businesses in the Study Area gen-

erated on average about $30.5 million per year in taxable sales, ac-

coun ng for six to seven percent of total taxable sales in the City of

Grass Valley. Over this same period, the Downtown Area accounted

for seven to nine percent of total sales in the City.

The sales trends and comparison to downtown and city totals indi-

cate that the Idaho-Maryland / East Main Redevelopment Study Area

has had a signifi cant place in the City’s retail market. Note, however,

that Hills Flat Lumber was in opera on in the area during the me

period covered by this data. The reloca on of that business will reg-

ister in more current sales data reports as a substan al drop in sales

ac vity within the Study Area. Nevertheless, the es mate indicates

the rela vely high level of business ac vity and retail sales that have

occurred in the Study Area. The es mates indicate the poten al of

this loca on for a rac ng customers—a poten al also evidenced by

•

•

•

•

•

the interest of prospec ve businesses (e.g., pharmacy and grocery

store) that have expressed interest in opera ng at this loca on.

Real estate market condi ons

In the summer of 2009, there are four vacant parcels in the Study

Area: one is used for parking, one is a former gas sta on, and the

other two are combined as an auto sales lot—park-and-sell—an

interim use.

There are a number of proper es currently for sale for commercial

use, including many of the parcels at key corners or intersec ons

within the Study Area. The “Miller” property on the south side of

East Main Street adjacent to the roundabout is actually two adjacent

small parcels, combined about one-half acre in size, under the same

ownership; one is posted for sale and the other is posted for sale or

lease. Another property posted for sale is the southwest corner of

East Main Street and Harris Street—one of the larger parcels in the

area, this property has commercial frontage on East Main Street and

residen al co ages behind. With the adjacent Tesoro Sierra prop-

erty, this parcel was formerly part of the Cascade Housing proposal

to develop Creekside Village—a 32-unit mixed-use, mixed-income

rental housing development. The two proper es combine to a total

of just under an acre of land area. Across Harris Street, the well-

maintained single-family residence, designated for commercial use,

is being marketed as o ce or investment property. Across East Main

Street, the vacant proper es at the intersec on of East Main Street

and Scandling Avenue (totaling 0.6 acres and men oned above as

the park-and-sell auto sales lot) are also listed for sale.

The former Hills Flat Lumber property remains for lease, a er Long’s

Drug Stores abandoned a proposed re-development of the property.


23

At almost 1.5 acres, this is one of the largest parcels in the district.

Other space available for lease is sca ered at the edges of the Study

Area in a wide-ranging inventory: mul -tenant o ce space, older

retail/general commercial space, warehouse/o ce space, and con-

verted residences. Recent commercial leases and asking rents range

from $0.50 per square foot to $1.15 per square foot.

With the excep on of the proper es for sale noted above, proper-

es in the center of the Study Area, while underu lized in terms of

building footprint and development poten al, are, for the most part,

fully occupied by successful businesses.

In the local real estate market, development opportuni es and leas-

ing opportuni es in the Study Area compete with a supply of vacant

buildable parcels and building space in similar established commer-

cial and heavy commercial districts, outside of downtown Grass Val-

ley (Colfax Highway east of downtown, South Auburn Street south of

the freeway, Glenbrook, and on the other side of the freeway in the

vicinity of Railroad Avenue). The Li on Business Park and Whisper-

ing Pines Business Park are oriented to larger corporate o ce uses.

The Loma Rica and Airport industrial areas appeal to construc on,

produc on, and distribu on sectors—businesses that do not rely

on customer access and visibility. By contrast, the downtown Grass

Valley market is pedestrian-oriented establishments and higher rent-

paying o ce businesses willing to pay the rent premium for a close-

in, visible loca on, in the historic center of the region’s economic

ac vity.

Longer-term, the commercial and business park development op-

portuni es in the proposed Loma Rica Ranch and South Hill Village

plan areas would not be expected to compete directly with Study

Area development opportuni es. By contrast to these new de-

velopment areas that are likely to charge a rent premium for new,

master-planned, campus-type or amenity-rich development, the

IMEM Study Area is likely to con nue to have par cular appeal to

larger-scale, auto-oriented retail and service businesses and o ce

tenants looking for a ordable, close-in space. These are generally

businesses that are par cularly sensi ve to the costs of space: retail

establishments with large inventories or needs for display space, re-

pair opera ons that need indoor and outdoor storage for parts and

equipment; start-ups; and sole proprietors.

Land values

There is some recent informa on on land values in the Study Area.

Review of Assessor’s records for area parcels indicates re-assess-

ments as a result of property transfers. Development proposals

seeking Redevelopment Agency par cipa on supplement these data

points with appraisals and informa on on poten al prices under ne-

go a on. Figure 17 illustrates the range of land values in evidence

over the last fi ve years. The range illustrated in the chart refl ects the

range of property characteris cs (size, loca on, structure and site

condi ons, exis ng use and proposed or poten al use) as well as

vola le expecta ons during and a er a real estate bubble. (At least

three of the observa ons do not refl ect completed transac ons.)

Values range from a low of $4 per square foot of land (completed

transac on for a former residen al property) to a high of $77 per

square foot of land (completed transac on for an ac ve retail use).

The most common values are in the range of $15 to $30 per square

foot. Current o ering prices range from $22 to $33 per square foot

of land.


24

Source: Nevada County Assessor, project proposals, Hausrath Economics Group

Figure 17: Land Value per Square Foot

Grass Valley market context

The City of Grass Valley is the hub for economic ac vity in the re-

gional market area of western Nevada County. As a center for public

and private sector employment and a des na on for shopping and

services, Grass Valley serves a large market area that extends beyond

the boundaries of the incorporated city. Businesses in Grass Val-

ley are a source of jobs for residents of the City and of surrounding

communi es, and retail/commercial areas in Grass Valley are where

those residents go for most of their shopping, services, and ea ng

out. Substan al visitor ac vity supplements this market area de-

mand as visitors to the region support lodging, stores, restaurants,

and recrea on-related businesses.

Land Value per Square Foot

$90

$80

$70

$60

$50

$40

$30

$20

$10

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per Square Foot Value in Dollars


25

At the same me, given the City’s loca on outside the nearest major

metropolitan area, there is and will likely con nue to be out-com-

mu ng, as well as leakage of retail spending to larger shopping areas

outside Nevada County.

The charts on the facing page (page 24) illustrate the signifi cance

of business ac vity and retail trade in Grass Valley and the extent

to which the City func ons as a regional center and magnet for the

commerce that the lower density development in surrounding areas

depends on.

In 2008, there are approximately 13,000 residents in Grass Valley.

This popula on count has remained rela vely stable since the 2000

Census, with some growth in the early part of the decade a ribut-

able to increases in the housing supply as well as annexa on, o set

by recent small declines in popula on. Grass Valley’s housing units

and residen al popula on account for 12 – 13 percent of County

totals.

The rate of housing produc on in Grass Valley since 2000 has been

about 100 units per year. This is below the average annual rate

through for the 2000 – 2020 period forecast in the General Plan:

2,820 housing units transla ng to an average annual rate of 141

units per year over the 20-year planning period.

Not coun ng government employment, there were about 11,000

jobs in 1,100 establishments located in Grass Valley in 2006. Grass

Valley businesses are just over one-third of the businesses in the

County and account for about 40 percent of employment in the

County. Larger businesses are concentrated in Grass Valley. Grass

Valley’s share of County employment has increased over me, as a

result of both annexa on and business growth.

Natural Resources, Mining, &

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale Trade

Retail Trade

Transportation,

Warehousing, & UtilitiesInformation

Finance and Real Estate

Professional and Business

Services/Management

Education and Health

Leisure and

Hospitality

Other Services

Industry Mix in Grass Valley in 2006

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County and ZIP Code Business Patterns

Based on established count by industry; does not include government sector

Figure 18: Industry Mix


26

With $760 million in retail sales in the City in 2007, businesses in

Grass Valley captured half all retail sales in Nevada County.

Figure 18 illustrates the diverse mix of business ac vity in Grass

Valley. In addi on, there are important concentra ons of economic

ac vity in manufacturing, retail trade, informa on and health care.

In all of these industries, Grass Valley’s share of county ac vity is 40

to 50 percent of the total, as shown in Figure 19.

The mix of retail ac vity in Grass Valley is also diverse; rela ve to

other parts of Nevada County (see Figure 20). Grass Valley is par-

cularly strong in convenience retail (supermarkets and other food

stores) and in motor vehicle and related retail (auto, truck, RV sales,

parts, service sta ons) capturing 60 percent of total county sales in

each of these categories. Note that the loss of new car and truck

dealerships in Grass Valley since 2007 is not refl ected in this data.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County and ZIP Code Business Patterns

Based on established count by industry; does not include government sector

Figure 19: Industry Concentration

Source: State of California, Board of Equalization, Taxable Sales in California, and

Hausrath Economics Group

Figure 20: Total Sales in Nevada County

Industry Concentrations in Grass Valley, 2006

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Natural resources & Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Transportation & Utilities

Information

Finance and real estate

Professional and business services

Educational services

Health care

Leisure & Hospitality

Other Services

Grass Valley

Rest of Nevada County

Total Sales in Nevada County, By Jurisdiction and Category: 2007

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

Grass Valley Nevada City Truckee Unincorporated Area

Comparison

Convenience

Eating & Drinking

Motor Vehicles &Related

Other


27

The impact of the Glenbrook Basin annexa on is evident by examin-

ing trends in retail sales star ng in the year 2000, when the unincor-

porated area of the county captured most sales (see Figure 21). As a

consequence of the annexa on as well as growth trends in the Grass

Valley retail market, several retail categories saw substan al growth

in the eight years between 2000 and 2007. Taxable sales in the fol-

lowing categories doubled or more than doubled over this period:

food stores, ea ng and drinking out, building materials and supplies,

service sta ons, and other retail (includes stores selling gi s, books,

jewelry, liquor, spor ng goods, o ce supplies, and farm and garden

supplies).

The City of Grass Valley is clearly the epicenter of retail ac vity for

western Nevada County, relying on the spending of residents and

businesses from outside the city as well as the spending of visitors to

boost the level of retail sales. This is par cularly evident in the com-

parison of total retail sales per capita (see Figure 22). Based on 2007

data, the City of Grass Valley boasts per capita retail sales of over

$40,000 per capita (total sales at retail outlets located in Grass Valley

divided by total number of people living in the City). This is higher

than the per capita average calculated for any nearby area, includ-

ing those areas, such as the ci es of Auburn and Roseville in Placer

County, that also benefi t from substan al capture of retail sales by

non-residents. The Grass Valley average is almost four mes the

statewide average for per capita retail sales (approximately $11,400

per capita).

Market area growth trends and future poten al

The most recent economic and demographic projec ons of popu-

la on and employment growth for Grass Valley, prepared in 2004

– 2006 and reported in the Economic and Fiscal Condi ons Study for

the City of Grass Valley (aka the SDA study) forecast long-term strong

demand for housing and for commercial space in Grass Valley. While

popula on and employment growth rates are expected to slow

over me, the underlying fundamentals of infrastructure access,

concentra on of services, land capacity (assuming planned annexa-

ons), and access to a regional labor force support the conclusion

that Grass Valley can expect to capture at least its historical share of

market area housing and employment growth. Assuming economic

recovery and renewal of the housing market at some point in the fu-

ture, local land use and annexa on policies as well as market trends

support this development pa ern centered on the City.

Popula on-serving businesses (retail trade, construc on, health

care, personal services), smaller entrepreneurial produc on, tech-

nology, or professional and fi nancial businesses, and the visitor

sector are likely to con nue to be the backbone of the Grass Valley

economy. The macro-economic factors and industry-specifi c condi-

ons that have translated to current signifi cant sluggishness and de-

cline in the housing market and in levels of retail and other business

ac vity are beyond the ability of local policy and people to control.

Nevertheless, Grass Valley is well-posi oned within the market area

for economic development. Loca on, established diversity of busi-

ness and retail ac vity, cri cal mass, and quality of life are all factors

that favor the City for recovery.

A Summary of the Study Area assets and liabili es

Physical site characteris cs and market factors suggest infi ll oppor-

tuni es for the IMEM Study Area. The area has a number of physical

and economic assets that provide a basis for conclusions about mar-

ket niche. The area also has some liabili es that can be addressed

by public and private redevelopment e orts.


28

Source: State of California, Board of Equalization, Taxable Sales in California, and Hausrath Economics Group

Figure 21: Taxable Sales in Grass Valley

Taxable Retail Sales in Grass Valley, 2000 - 2007 (in constant 2007 dollars)

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

All Other Outlets

Other Retail

Service Stations

Motor Vehicles and Parts

Building Materials

Home Furnishings/Appliances

Eat & Drinking

Food Stores

General Merchandise

Apparel


29

Source: State of California, Board of Equalization, Taxable Sales in California, and Hausrath Economics Group

Figure 22: Total Retail Sales Per Capita

Total Retail Sales Per Capita

Grass Valley and Nearby Areas Compared to State

Average: 2007


30

Assets

The Study Area’s loca on near downtown, but not part of down-

town, provides some of the advantages of a central business district

(proximity to services and the greatest density of local business

ac vity) without the higher cost premium associated with in-town

loca ons. O ce and retail space and residen al units in the Study

Area can be marketed as a ordable and rela vely lower-cost.

Major arterials for local and regional tra c defi ne the Study Area,

and there is direct access to and from the freeway at the round-

about. These condi ons, combined with the visibility of sites and of

the en re district from the freeway and adjacent elevated terrain,

provide a built-in market for retail and service businesses and are

important advantages for marke ng. Evidence of this is the fact that

some of the most important sales revenue generators in the City of

Grass Valley have been located in the Study Area.

A number of moderately-sized vacant or underu lized parcels o er

opportuni es for commercial or mixed-use buildings, see Figure 23.

With the notable excep on of the area’s largest parcel that covers

the hillside north of Scandling Avenue, all parcels are rela vely level

and not constrained by the steep terrain that limits the development

poten al of many of the other vacant infi ll sites in Grass Valley.

Sewer, water, and roadway infrastructure are available, and there

have been recent upgrades in loca ons near the roundabout. The

lack of infrastructure and the high cost to provide it are signifi cant

constraints a ec ng development poten al in some other infi ll areas

and in the Special Development Areas proposed for annexa on to

accommodate long-term future growth in the city. Figure 23: Development Opportunity Sites


31

A core of long- me and/or mo vated property and business owners

are commi ed to the district and to Grass Valley. There are rela vely

few absentee owners, and disinvestment is not a pervasive problem

in the Study Area.

The presence of an exis ng cluster of parts, supplies, sales, and

repair establishments for cars, motorcycles, engines, and other ma-

chinery is an asset to be nurtured. These types of businesses are not

suited to all commercial or mixed use loca ons because they depend

on auto tra c rather than a pedestrian orienta on, they may require

outdoor storage, and the repair opera ons can generate noise and

fumes. It is important to retain and support these types of busi-

nesses because they provide services that are in demand throughout

the business cycle as well as a steady source of both entry-level and

skilled employment.

Long-term demand factors favor economic growth in Grass Valley be-

cause it is the center of a prime foothills loca on that will con nue

to a ract residents and businesses over me.

Liabili es

The downside of the excellent access to the Study Area is that an

uninterrupted fl ow of vehicle tra c can make it di cult to enter

and exit from businesses located on Idaho Maryland Road or East

Main Street. Furthermore, because of adjacent freeway on- and o -

ramps, much of the tra c in the Study Area is through tra c travel-

ing at rela vely high speeds. The high tra c volumes mean that the

district is not a rac ve to pedestrians and therefore to businesses

that have a pedestrian orienta on.

Many parcels are small, and the street grid and freeway right-of-way

have created a number of irregulari es. These condi ons can com-

plicate site design and require site assembly to achieve feasible new

development. Some poten al development sites have contamina-

on that is likely to be costly to remediate.

With the excep on of the vicinity of the roundabout, storm drainage

improvements are needed throughout the Study Area. Runo and

drainage problems are concentrated on Scandling Avenue, where

pavement condi ons are notably poor.

Curb, gu er, and sidewalk improvements are inconsistent—missing

along the frontage of about 15 parcels (40 percent of Study Area

parcels), see Figure 24. For example, the frontage to one of the busi-

est establishments in the district has no curb or sidewalk. While this

allows the en re street frontage to act as a driveway to storefront

parking, the resul ng arrangement exposes both customers and

through tra c to safety hazards.


32

4Implementation

Conclusions about redevelopment implementa on ef-

forts and infi ll opportuni es

The preceding analysis has described the IMEM study area and the

larger market context in which it operates. From that assessment, it

is possible to defi ne the market niche for the study area—the types

of uses that benefi t from area loca on characteris cs and compe -

ve advantages. From the citywide economic development perspec-

ve, it is also possible to iden fy a market niche that builds on some

rela vely unique assets of the IMEM area, laying the founda on for

net addi onal economic ac vity in the City.

The IMEM study area is dis nguished today by its high level of acces-

sibility to customers and clients arriving by car or truck. Large-scale

retail (businesses that sell large items or bulk materials requiring

showrooms for display and or parking and loading areas for pick-up

or delivery) and repair services depend on this kind of business en-

vironment. Within a rela vely compact area, the IMEM study area

already boasts some well-established des na on businesses that in-

clude some of the largest retailers in the City and a notable cluster of

auto-related parts, supplies, and repair businesses, as well as several

recrea on-related businesses. The study area o ers an a ordable

loca on for retail, service, and fi nancial, professional, technical, and

health-related o ce businesses, and poten ally for housing as part

of longer-term new development.Figure 24: Missing Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk


33

The recommended implementa on program has three phases, but

is actually a con nuum. The fi rst phase uses the current recession

as a me to focus on business reten on, marke ng, process im-

provements to lay the founda on for expedited development when

the economy recovers, and, as resources allow, ini al investment in

infrastructure and public improvements. The recession could also

prove to be a me when willing sellers might come forward o ering

opportuni es for strategic property acquisi ons. The second phase

sees an increase in public and private investment, and the third

phase would focus on more intensive public par cipa on in opportu-

nity site development.

Short-term implementa on program

In the near term over the next three years, business reten on and

expansion and process improvements to expedite private invest-

ment should be the fi rst focus of implementa on e orts. Given the

generally depressed state of the economy, it makes most sense now

to build on exis ng strengths and successful business clusters. The

following ac ons would implement this program:

Capitalize on study area visibility for business and district-wide

marke ng: establish the Hills Flat Business District for marke ng

purposes and poten ally longer-term as the basis for a business

improvement district to provide supplemental funding for area

public improvements. Use the Business District as a forum for di-

alog regarding public-private partnerships in the plan area—how

public ac ons to encourage development and invest in the public

realm require commensurate private investment to achieve the

goals of business development and economic growth.

Use core of exis ng successful businesses (retail, repair, mainte-

nance, and personal services, and small o ce businesses) as a

business recruitment tool.

•

•

Implement a “branding” program to defi ne the Hills Flat Business

District. This could include public investment in signage matched

by private investment in joint adver sing and joint promo on

at community events. An example of joint adver sing would be

combining forces for a full page or more adver sing spread in

Nevada County Gold (where many exis ng study area business

already adver se). This same theme and joint adver sing cam-

paign could be duplicated in newspaper inserts and other media.

Establishing such a district and poin ng to the successful busi-

nesses already opera ng there and collabora ng in a mutually

benefi cial and not too labor-intensive way would be a business

recruitment hook that could be used in City, Chamber of Com-

merce, or Economic Resource Council e orts.

Revise zoning to provide more fl exibility and to streamline the

process for new investment, thereby encouraging expansion of

exis ng businesses, re-investment that leads to more e cient

opera ons, or addi ons of similar types of businesses, see Figure

27. As a part of this process there will be a need to limit uses that

can impose future confl icts to either the tra c pa erns or busi-

ness growth such as drive-throughs, fast-food or outside stor-

age. The recommenda on to change some proper es from C-3

zoning to C-2, as shown on Figure 27, will likely generate opposi-

on from property owner that believe they have more fl exibility

under the C-3 zone. However, certain uses allowed in the C-3 are

inappropriate in this area, a gateway into the community.

Update the City’s Community Design Guidelines to include a

sec on that specifi cally addresses the design and development

goals of this study area (“the Hills Flat Business District”). Chap-

ter 7 of the Design Guidelines contain “Special Planning Areas”

that note the importance and unique design considera ons for

di erent areas. The City can fold the recommenda ons of this

•

•

•


34

study into another sec on of the Guidelines. One important ele-

ment to keep in mind is that this area serves as a gate-way to the

community and it will be important for the “corners” of this area

(i.e. the proper es surrounding the roundabout) to have some

level of enhanced of architectural and design treatment.

Implement CEQA streamlining. If the City opts to implement

the streetscape improvements and rezoning as recommended

in this Study the City should conduct an environmental review

for these ac ons that an cipates a magnitude of development

that maximizes implementa on opportuni es. With this level of

environmental assessment in hand, project specifi c reviews could

be limited to project specifi c impacts not an cipated in this ini al

assessment.

Install centerpiece at roundabout as fi rst phase of gateway fea-

ture improvement project (See Figure 25).

Encourage and direct private investment in façade, signage, and

landscape enhancements and the screening of outdoor storage

areas.

The Redevelopment Agency should work with area property

owners/businesses to further evaluate the op ons and incen-

ves available for assembling and/or adjus ng property bound-

aries with the inten on to be er maximize all buildable areas.

Design uniform streetscape treatments; implement enhance-

ments as resources permit (many are rela vely low-cost) (See

Figures 29-46).

Invest in drainage improvements and circula on/tra c calming

improvements in support of exis ng businesses and to lay the

groundwork for longer-term opportuni es for more intensive

development.

Take advantage of any strategic property acquisi on o ers from

willing sellers.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Mid-term implementa on program

As the economy recovers with employment growth and growth in

consumer spending over the three to seven year mid-term planning

horizon, implementa on could shi to planning and preparing for

more intensive development in the study area. Public e orts would

focus on more signifi cant investment in infrastructure improvements

and streetscape enhancements,and assistance with site assembly,

reloca on, or fi nancial par cipa on to enhance development fea-

sibility may also emerge as opportuni es during this second phase.

In this phase, the beginnings of a moderate amount of renovated,

reconstructed, or expanded commercial space could be expected

in the plan area. This level of private investment would depend

not only on market factors but also on the commitment of public

resources—both funding and process improvements. In addi on,

an appropriate redevelopment agency ac on during this mid-term

phase would be land-banking key opportunity sites in an cipa on of

higher-density development poten al at some point in the future.

The following ac ons are scaled to a more aggressive public invest-

ment program (infrastructure and street beau fi ca on) appropriate

to a second phase redevelopment e ort designed to leverage private

investment and capture the benefi ts of economic recovery for this

well-located plan area:

Complete streetscape and gateway enhancement program

Complete drainage improvements

Implement trail improvements

Pursue strategic property acquisi ons

Provide reloca on assistance

Undertake site improvements, such as building demoli on and

hazardous materials remedia on

Develop marke ng plan for opportunity sites and issue request

for development proposals. Consider land-banking key oppor-

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


35

tunity sites to take advantage of longer-term higher intensity

development poten al.

Establish on-going source of funding for maintaining public im-

provements. As area businesses benefi t from economic recovery

and public investment, the public-private partnership begun dur-

ing the fi rst phase could be enhanced with implementa on of a

Business Improvement District to supplement public funding for

infrastructure maintenance and public services in the plan area.

Long-term implementa on program

As indicated above, implementa on is a con nuum, with public

investment tailored to available resources but also required to jump-

start private investment. Over the longer term, more ac ve public

par cipa on in development scenarios may be required. Higher-

density development might be feasible on some key corner sites,

adding more commercial space or new housing units to the plan

area. Longer-term implementa on ac ons focus on development

assistance:

Undertake site improvements, such as building demoli on and

hazardous materials remedia on (public/private investment)

Prepare circula on/parking studies and implement needed im-

provements

Invest in capital improvements on opportunity sites (public/pri-

vate investment).

•

•

•

•


36

Implementa on Ac on Responsible Party Cost and Funding

Short-term (1 – 3 years)

Implement zoning revisions City (Planning) General Fund

Inves gate stream-lined permi ng process City (Planning) General Fund

Inves gate CEQA stream-lining City (Planning) General Fund

Establish Hills Flat Business District City, property owners, businesses General Fund/Redevelopment Tax Increment

Design and implement Business District marke ng campaign

and business recruitment plan City, property owners, businesses General Fund/Redevelopment Tax Increment

Design and install Business District signage City and Business District Redevelopment Tax Increment / Private Investment

Implement more fl exible sign regula ons for the business

district City General Fund

Inves gate Business Improvement District and/or

assessment district to supplement funding for public

improvements City and Business District General Fund/Redevelopment Tax Increment

Install centerpiece at roundabout City (Public Works) Redevelopment Tax Increment: $60,000 (2009/10

budget)

Develop and implement tra c-calming enhancements City (Planning and Public Works) Redevelopment Tax Increment

Develop and implement streetscape enhancements City (Planning and Public Works) Redevelopment Tax Increment

Design and implement drainage improvements City (Public Works) Redevelopment Tax Increment

Invest in façade, signage, and landscape enhancements Property owners / business owners Private Investment

Screen outdoor storage areas Property owners / business owners Private Investment

Ini ate strategic property acquisi ons from willing sellers City (Redevelopment Agency) Redevelopment Tax Increment

Provide reloca on assistance to enhance development

prospects for opportunity sites

City (Redevelopment Agency) Redevelopment Tax Increment

Table 3

Implementa on Matrix


37

Implementa on Ac on Responsible Party Cost and Funding

Mid-term (3 – 7 years)

Complete streetscape enhancements City (Planning and Public Works) Redevelopment Tax Increment

Complete drainage improvements City (Public Works) Redevelopment Tax Increment

Implement trail improvements City (Planning and Public Works) General Fund / Redevelopment Tax Increment

Con nue strategic property acquisi ons City (Redevelopment Agency) Redevelopment Tax Increment




Undertake site improvements, such as building demoli on,


City (Redevelopment Agency)/Property owners Redevelopment Tax Increment / Grant Funding

Develop marke ng plan for opportunity sites and issue

request for development proposals. Consider land-banking

key opportunity sites.


Long-term (7 – 10 years)




Undertake circula on/parking studies and implement sug-

gested improvements


Undertake site improvements, such as building demoli on,


City (Redevelopment Agency)/Property owners Redevelopment Tax Increment / Grant Funding

Invest in capital improvements on opportunity sites City (Redevelopment Agency)/Property/busi-

ness owners

Redevelopment Tax Increment/Private Investment

Note: Implementation actions in bold are identifi ed in the Grass Valley Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan (2004/2005 – 2009/2009)

Table 3 - Con nued

Implementa on Matrix


38

Figure 25: Gateways Figure 26: Potential Trail


39

Figure 27: Proposed Zoning


40

5Building Development Scenarios

/ Job Creation and Economic

BenefitAbsorp on scenarios

In addi on to the tradi onal obstacles faced by redevelopment areas

(underinvestment in the public realm, infrastructure defi ciencies,

small lots and ine cient parcels, small exis ng buildings, hazard-

ous materials contamina on), the prospects for business growth in

the plan area are infl uenced by a severe recession and the resultant

shake-up in the retail industry. There are massive retail vacancies in

the mall proper es and shopping centers built in response to the last

decades’ surge in residen al construc on and consumer spending.

In their August 2009 2nd Quarter Knowledge Report – Retail Out-

look, Colliers Interna onal concludes that it will be more than two

years before there is any improvement in the Sacramento-area retail

real estate market. Furthermore, many na onal chain retailers have

gone out of business, face signifi cant restructuring, or are unlikely

to resume the extreme pace of expansion communi es have come

to expect. Analysts point to local operators and smaller franchises,

familiar with local preferences and able to be more nimble decision-

makers, as bright spots in the economic recovery for retail (Retail

Tra c and Colliers Interna onal).

As documented in the preceding economic analysis, Grass Valley will

remain the economic center for the Western Nevada County region,

there is growth poten al in the region, and the plan area is extreme-

ly well-located to capture a share of that economic growth.

Table 4 shows the poten al of some redevelopment op ons for the

study area opportunity sites iden fi ed in Figure 23. These sites are

centrally-located, have good visibility and access, directly benefi t

from roundabout improvements, and are currently underu lized.

These sites represent a total of about nine acres of land area. Exist-

ing low density development totals about 36,000 square feet—for

an average development density of less than 10 percent of land

area. Over the next 10 to 15 years, a moderate scenario for rede-

velopment (without parcel assembly to maximize buildable areas)

would result in incremental modest expansion on many of these

sites. Under this scenario, there would be in total another 40,000

square feet of commercial building space in the district—a doubling

of the space to accommodate business ac vity. As is currently the

case, this space would be developed in a number of smaller building

footprints. New buildings would be similar in scale to exis ng devel-

opment, generally ranging from 2,000 square feet to 8,000 square

feet. One larger structure of just over 14,000 square feet is possible

on the Pardini/Old Lumber Yard site.

The moderate absorp on scenario is well-matched with the fol-

lowing conclusions about likely candidates for occupancy of new

development in the study area, based on the Consultant’s economic

analysis, property condi ons, demographics, and other inves ga-

ons conducted for this study:

Convenience shopping (grocery and pharmacy/personal care)

and services, as well as larger-scale retail (appliances, home elec-

tronics, sports and recrea on, home and garden supplies, furni-

•


41

Table 4

Opportunity Sites

Development Poten al Es mate for Modest Expansion Scenario

Assessor’s Parcel Number

Property Owner/Parcel Iden fi ca onLotSize

(sq. .)

Exis ng Commercial

sq. .

Poten al New

Commercial sq. .1

09-190-07 Johnson/Vacant 16,988 - 4,247

09-191-39 Newell/Cedar Home Bldg2 135,036 1,458 -

09-210-03

Spadaro/Bella Casa Granite/Window & Door

Store 11,325 2,753 7809-210-06 Bishop Home 10,454 - 50009-210-28 Riebe/Co age Lot 12,632 - 3,15809-210-29 Riebe/Co age Lot 15,681 - 3,92009-210-32 Topolinksi/Mark’s Cycle 8,286 1,452 62009-210-33 Pearson/Pearson’s Engine Repair 8,712 2,860 -

A09-210-21 Klauer/Kabota Tractor3 14,374 10,325 -48009-210-22 Tesoro Sierra Proper es 17,424 - 4,35609-210-23 Hurtado/Motor Electric/A Perfect Game 24,829 7,519 -

B 09-210-24 Sand Group/Park and Sell 15,245 - 3,81109-210-25 Sand Group/Park and Sell 10,018 - 2,505

C 09-230-21 Chamberlin/Millers An ques 12,632 2,245 91309-230-22 Chamberlin House 10,454 - 1,562

D 09-210-39 Lewis/Sear’s Grass Valley 22,215 8,377 -09-230-23 Pardini/Old Lumber Yard4 57,499 - 14,375

TOTALS 403,804 36,989 39,565

1. Assumes building expansion to equal 25 percent of lot area. If existing coverage greater than 25 percent, no expansion assumed.

Incorporates existing parking standard of 4 - 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of fl oor area. The assumptions are consistent with the City’s

Development Code

2. Assumes steep hillside will be developed residentially at about 10 units per acre.

3. Assumes building will be reduced in size to provide parking in front

4. Assumes existing buildings will be razed in the future

Source: Nevada City Engineering and Hausrath Economics Group.


42

ture, o ce supplies, auto-related) are good prospects for new

development in the study area, given the central loca on with

respect to local and regional tra c pa erns. However, due to

community concern, it is likely that fast food restaurants or other

establishments requiring drive-thru access would be discouraged

from this loca on.

Local operators and smaller na onal chains or franchises are

both poten al prospects for development sites in the plan area.

Site constraints and the need to provide adequate parking will

limit prospec ve businesses to smaller opera ons, e.g., less than

10,000 - 15,000 sq. . There are other loca ons in Grass Valley

•

be er able to accommodate larger footprint retailers (e.g., Glen-

brook Basin and the proposed SDAs).

Rela vely simple buildings with appropriate considera on for

storage and display needs, parking, pick-up and delivery would

meet the needs of the types of retailers likely to be a racted to

this loca on.

A ordability will likely remain an important loca on factor for

small independent businesses that do not place high value on a

downtown loca on: medical o ces, personal services, contrac-

tors, sole proprietor professional services, small scale produc on

and repair: upholsterers, cabinet makers, bakeries and other

food produc on such as caterers, furniture repair, computer or

other technical repair.

•

•

Table 5

Land use, industry sector, and employment density representa ve of exis ng condi ons in the IMEM Redevelopment Study Area

Employment Density

Land use NAICS 2-digit Industry Sector (gsf per employee)

Low density High density

Retail 44-45 Retail trade 1,100 400

Offi ce 23 Construction (contractors) 760 300

52 Finance and insurance

54 Professional, scientifi c, & technical services

62 Health care and social assistance

Service (other

commercial)81 Repair and maintenance 1,500 500

81 Personal services

Study area average, over all businesses 800

Mid-point, for higher density scenario 400

Source: Hausrath Economics Group based on study area land use and business characteristics provided by the City of Grass Valley.


43

Employment es mate calcula ons

Moderate development scenario:

40,000 net addi onal sq. .

÷

800 sq. . per employee (overall average exis ng employment

density, per Table 5)

=

50 jobs

Higher density development scenario for corner sites:

65,000 sq. . total new development

÷

400 sq. . per employee (mid-point of higher densi es, per

Table 5)

=

160 jobs

-

20 exis ng jobs on these parcels

=

140 net addi onal jobs

•

•

Employment es mate calcula ons

Moderate development scenario:

40,000 net addi onal sq. .

÷

800 sq. . per employee (overall average exis ng employment

density, per Table 5)

=

50 jobs

Higher density development scenario for corner sites:

65,000 sq. . total new development

÷

400 sq. . per employee (mid-point of higher densi es, per

Table 5)

=

160 jobs

-

20 exis ng jobs on these parcels

=

140 net addi onal jobs

•

•

Residen al use could be viable over the longer-term in mixed-

use development (perhaps in those parts of the study area most

distant from the roundabout), given the proximity of exis ng

residen al use, central loca on, successful implementa on of

streetscape and tra c calming improvements, and a rela vely

a ordable market orienta on.

As noted above, the mix of business types that could be expected

to absorb this moderate growth scenario would be very similar to

the mix that now exists in the study area. Retail stores less than

10,000 square feet, repair, maintenance, and personal services, and

small o ce businesses. At employment densi es at the average of

those currently exhibited by retail, service, and o ce businesses in

the area (see Table 5), this new development would accommodate

about 50 addi onal jobs.

If higher density development became more feasible over the lon-

ger-term, the corner sites iden fi ed as A,B,C, and D in Table 4 would

be the more likely prospects for these development e orts, given

their loca on and ability to benefi t from public investments. With

parcel assembly and at higher development densi es than assumed

for the moderate development scenario (building development

equal to 33 percent of lot area), these sites could accommodate a

total of 65,000 square feet of building space, assuming the exist-

ing development of about 28,000 square feet were demolished and

replaced. In addi on, there could be housing development po-

ten al on the hillside above Scandling Avenue (adding in the range

of 30 new units, assuming 10 units per acre). Assuming all of the

65,000 square feet were developed for commercial use (some hous-

ing would also possible) and employment densi es higher than the

current average, which would be consistent with a higher intensity

of development (more o ce ac vity, less retail and repair) about

• 160 jobs would be accommodated in this amount of space. City data

indicate that 20 people work at exis ng businesses on these parcels,

so the net result of redevelopment would be an addi onal 140 jobs

for the study area.

The box below sets out the employment es mate calcula ons, using

the development poten al described above and the employment

density factors from Table 5.


44

Job Crea on and Economic Benefi t

As is currently the case in the Study Area, this business mix would

o er jobs for workers with varying degrees of educa on and train-

ing. Table 6 and Figure 28 show the mix of occupa ons for selected

business sectors that are currently opera ng in the Study Area and

have the poten al to expand and grow there. Of course, given the

generally small scale of the parcels and business opportuni es in the

Study Area, we would not expect to see the fully-integrated array of

business func ons and associated occupa ons represented by the

statewide data. Nevertheless, this business mix and these par cular

industry sectors do provide that substan al range of job opportu-

ni es, making them important from both business reten on and

business expansion perspec ves. Management, professional, sales,

administra ve, repair, and entry-level produc on, maintenance, and

cra occupa ons are well-represented.


45

Table 6

Occupa ons by Industry Sector, California in 2006

SOC code 1 Major occupa onal group (adapted)2

Professional

and Technical

Services

(O ce)3

Auto-

related

Retail4

Other

Retail5Repair6

11 Management/managers or supervisors 12% 17% 13% 11%

13-29 Other business, fi nance, professional, and technical 54% 0% 2% 4%

31-39 Service 3% 0% 6% 1%

41 Sales and related 2% 40% 48% 5%

43 O ce and administra ve support 26% 9% 15% 10%

45-47 Construc on and resource (skilled) 1% 0% 0% 0%

49 Installa on, maintenance, and repair (skilled) 0% 23% 1% 32%

51 Produc on (skilled) 1% 1% 4% 7%

53 Transporta on and material moving (skilled) 0% 0% 0% 0%

Operators and drivers 1% 7% 2% 1%

Laborers and helpers 1% 3% 8% 28%

100% 100% 100% 100%

1. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Standard Occupational Classifi cation System, 2 -digit codes for 23 major groups.

2. Adapted to include managers and supervisors with management occupations and to separate skilled from less skilled occupations in construction, production, and

transportation occupation groups. Operators, drivers, laborers, and helpers are less skilled occupations found in construction, production, and transportation activities.

3. For the following industry sectors (NAICS codes): accounting and bookkeeping (5412), architectural and engineering (5413), specialized design (5414), and other

professional and technical services (5419).

4. For the following industry sector (NAICS code): auto parts, accessories, and tire stores (4413).

5. For the following industry sectors (NAICS codes): furniture stores (4421); home furnishings stores (4422); electronics and appliance stores (4430); building materials and

supplies stores (4441); and lawn and garden supply stores (4442); grocery stores (4451);p specialty food stores (4452); beer, wine, and liquor stores (4453), sporting goods

and musical instruments stores (4511); and offi ce supply, stationery, and gift stores (4532).

6. For the following industry sectors (NAICS codes): automotive repair and maintenance (8111); electronic equipment repair/maintenance (8112); household goods repair/

maintenance (8114).

Source: State of California Employment Development Department, California Industry-Occupational Matrix, 2006 - 2016 and Hausath Economics Group.


46

Figure 28: Occupation by Selected Industry Sector, California 2006

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Professional

and

Technical

Services

Auto-related

Retail

Other Retail Repair

Laborers and helpers

Operators and drivers

Transportation and material moving

(skilled)

Production (skilled)

Installation, maintenance, and repair

(skilled)

Construction and resource (skilled)

Office and administrative support

Sales and related

Service

Other business, finance, professional, and

technical

Management/managers or supervisors

Occupa ons by Industry Sector, California in 2006


47

6Streetscape and Traffic Calming

EnhancementsEast Main Street, Idaho-Maryland Road and Scandling Avenue are al-

ready well-used streets. They accommodate rela vely heavy vehicu-

lar tra c. Idaho-Maryland Road between Scandling Avenue and East

Main Street accommodates an average of 9,380 vehicles per day;

while East Main Street between Scandling Avenue and Berryhill Drive

accommodates an average of 19,547 vehicles.

The exis ng condi on of the streetscape is not very pedestrian or

bike friendly; sidewalks are narrow and commonly inaccessible or

non existent; tra c speeds are unacceptably high; truck loading ar-

eas create unsafe tra c situa ons; street trees are absent; and other

street ameni es such as bus shelters are non-existent.

Streets in the area should be safe and pleasant for all users. Improve-

ments should encourage walking and bicycling. To the extent fea-

sible they should also be beau ful and green (greening the area has

proven to be di cult due to limited right-of-way widths).

The following plans show proposed improvements within the City-

controlled right-of-way. The street is only a start, however, and the

success of any streetscape project also depends on the land uses and

general economic condi ons of the en re neighborhood.


48

Figure 29: Proposed Scandling Avenue Enhancements

Scandling Avenue enhancements include:

Completed Curb, Gu er and Sidewalk on both sides of the street

Colored Bicycle Lanes in both direc ons

Parking on the south side only

ADA Curb Cuts

Colored Crosswalks at East Main Street and Idaho-Maryland Road

•

•

•

•

•

Scandling Avenue

Two Speed Tables (a very long and broad speed hump typically

3-3 ½ inch high)

Bulb out on the south side of Scandling Avenue at East Main

Street

Install Streetlights consistent with those found at the roundabout

Screen outdoor storage

See Figures 30-33 for typical enhancements

•

•

•

•


49

Figure 30: Speed Table – Typical Figure 31: Colored Bike Lanes – Typical

Figure 32: Colored Crosswalks – Typical Figure 33: Bulb-Out – Typical


50

East Main Street

Figure 34: Proposed Berryhill Drive and East Main Street Enhancements


51

East Main Street enhancements include:


Colored Bicycle Lanes in both direc ons

Parking on the west side only

llow Rolled Curbs at exis ng parking areas between sidewalk

and building façade only

ADA Curb Cuts

Colored Crosswalks at both Scandling Avenue and Berryhill Drive

where they intersect East Main Street

Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing

New Pedestrian Crossings at Berryhill Drive

Pedestrian Refuge at Scandling Avenue and Berryhill Drive

Pedestrian Pockets at Berryhill Drive

Tree Wells with deten on

Install direc onal signage


Install bus shelters

See Figures 36-39 for typical enhancements

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Figure 35: Proposed Mid-Block crossing on East Main Street


52

Figure 36: Mid-block Crossing – Typical Figure 37: Pedestrian Refuge – Typical

Figure 39: Streetlight at RoundaboutFigure 38: Pedestrian Pocket – Typical


53

Idaho – Maryland RoadIdaho-Maryland enhancements Include:


ADA Curb Cuts


Eliminate right turn lane from Idaho-Maryland Road onto Scandling

Avenue

Install bus shelters

Roundabout and On-ramp/O -ramp enhancements include:

• Enhanced landscaping of On-ramp/O -ramp

• Entrance Monument in Roundabout

• Complete Wolf Creek Trail system

Roundabout and On-ramp/O -ramp

Figure 40: Idaho-Maryland Road/East Main Street Roundabout Figure 41: Formal Gateway Element – Typical


54

Figure 43: Proposed Street SectionsFigure 42: On-ramp/Off-ramp Landscaping – Typical

Street Sec ons


55

Figure 44: Proposed Streetscape and Traffi c Calming Improvements

Composite Plan

idaho-maryland road / east main street redevelopment study

Documents