Planning commission recommends 10-year extension for Harmony Ridge development agreement

The Nevada County Planning Commission voted unanimously on Aug. 13 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors extend the Harmony Ridge development agreement’s vesting tentative final map expiration by 10 years, moving the expiration date to Dec. 8, 2039. Commissioners recorded ayes from Commissioner Foley, Commissioner Garst and Chair Millman.

Zachary Bridal, an associate planner with the Nevada County Planning Department, told the commission the application seeks only to extend the current agreement’s expiration and does not change the previously approved tentative final map. “The project area spans approximately 271 acres,” Bridal said, and staff concluded the request does not trigger subsequent CEQA review under CEQA guidelines section 15162 because there is no change to the project’s location, design or intensity.

Applicant representative Andy Casano, of Nevada City Engineering, said the developer, Mark Smith with Ridge Top Holdings LLC, has recorded eight lots and built several houses, and that additional infrastructure work (including roadway improvements and a left-turn lane design) remains before more lots can be developed. “We’re at the point right now where, the 8 lots that were created already, most all but 1, I think, have houses on them now,” Casano said, describing on-the-ground progress that staff has documented.

Several commissioners pressed the applicant and staff on the slow pace of build-out — roughly six to eight homes built in about 17 years — and whether a shorter extension would better serve the county’s housing goals. Commissioner Garst suggested a five-year extension could be considered; other commissioners and the applicant argued that the developer’s self-financed, incremental approach and changes in road standards and market conditions support a longer extension to preserve investments already made.

After discussion, Commissioner Garst moved that the Board find the original environmental document adequate and that no further environmental review is required; the motion passed. The commission then moved to recommend the 10-year extension and passed the motion unanimously. The commission’s action is a recommendation; the Board of Supervisors will make the final decision at a future meeting.

If the Board does not approve the extension, staff said the map would expire in 2029 and a new tentative map would have to be filed to subdivide the property further. The commission asked staff to clarify whether additional extensions could be requested in the future; staff said it would check the precise process and report back to the Board if needed.