Planning commission approves CND equipment‑yard expansion with modified screening and mitigation requirements

The Grass Valley Planning Commission on Nov. 18 approved a development review permit allowing CND to expand its equipment yard at 928 Taylorville Road, adopting a tiered mitigated negative declaration and several modified conditions of approval after more than an hour of public comment.

City staff told commissioners the application covers grading and a proposed 43,000‑square‑foot expansion involving about 13,406 cubic yards of imported fill; the use itself is consistent with the site’s M‑1 (light industrial) zoning but required development review because of the volume of grading. Staff said the initial study went out for public review and that the Department of Toxic Substances Control requested testing of any imported fill because of a documented hazardous‑materials site nearby.

Martin Wood of SCO Planning & Engineering, representing the applicant and owner Charlie Faber, said the project would not add new operations but would provide room to store equipment more safely and reduce internal congestion. “It isn’t an expansion of business, if you will. It’s really to give some more breathing room in his yard, where he has a lot of equipment,” Wood said. He noted the business has operated at the site since the 1950s and employs more than 50 people.

Residents who live on Berryman Loop urged tighter screening and expressed concerns about nighttime light, early‑morning machinery noise and loss of views. “If this project happens, it will take away our view,” said Katie Stephan, who said the proposed pad would abut the back of her yard. James Clark and other neighbors described recurring backup beeper noise and late‑hour activity.

An online commenter, Matthew Colter, alleged an unauthorized pipe from the existing yard discharges to Berryman Creek and said that “for this company to be dumping pollutants down that pipe into a creek is, criminal.” The applicant responded that the expansion includes an updated drainage plan with oil/sand separators and that the site’s existing storm‑water infrastructure was reviewed by a certified biologist and city engineering; staff said the applicant’s drainage design will be subject to city engineering review and applicable MS4 requirements.

Development Review Committee conditions originally called for an 8‑foot masonry or decorative wall along the western property line to screen the neighbors; the applicant argued a masonry wall would be unnecessary because the neighborhood sits about 30 feet above the proposed pad. After discussion, staff and the commission modified conditions to require a 5‑foot wire no‑climb fence along the western edge as shown in the applicant’s updated exhibit (with incorporated plant material to achieve screening over time) and a 6‑foot chain‑link fence with privacy slats along Taylorville Road. Condition language and the staff recommendation were read into the record before the vote.

Staff recommended adopting the tiered mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act and adopting the associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP); commission members voted to adopt those documents. The motion to approve the development review permit as modified carried 3‑0.

The commission’s approval includes mitigation measures and monitoring; staff noted DTSC’s comment requiring testing of imported fill and the requirement that storm‑water and drainage plans be approved by city engineering. Condition 9 (a code standard) remains in place, which states that stored materials generally may not be higher than the approved perimeter fence unless a use permit authorizes otherwise.

The commission thanked the many residents who attended and commented. The applicant may still need building permits and other ministerial approvals before construction; the record at the commission meeting shows the approvals are limited to the development review and environmental findings discussed at the hearing.