The meeting critiqued two related planning efforts for alleged CEQA and process shortcomings. It argues that extensive pre-application work and city resources were used before a complete CEQA review, with inconsistencies in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, fee timing, and external pressure from housing programs, signaling a need for a lawful, transparent CEQA process amid de novo appeals and public hearings. In Nevada City, residents opposed an 80-unit, three-parcel project due to mass grading, steep slopes, stream setbacks, tree loss, traffic, and infrastructure concerns, urging smaller, site-specific planning and questioning variances and notices, while stressing preservation of the town’s character and heritage. Overall, the text centers on CEQA compliance, public participation, environmental and historic preservation, and balancing affordable housing with safety and community character.

Full Transcript of the Video:

As you recall last September, the applicant came before you and asked the city to be a partner in security branch for an A unit project and you unanimously declined.

After that meeting, the applicant continued his quest to find a different partner making application for home funds with a non-profit organization.

In November 2000, the applicant had a formal pre-application meeting with the full staff who were familiar with this Erikson property site.

The city had approved a four-way parcel slip and the alignment of Chief Kelly Drive in 1998.

And improved a 62 assistance living facility on this site in 1998.

In the year 2000, the city approved a 20-mile subdivision on A-A-GRS.

And it also approved the development transfer general plan amendment and the site performance zoning mandating an affordable project component on the subject property.

So staff decided to process this application in the same manner as these other applications had been processed with a mitigated negative declaration.

And required that several professional reports be prepared for that document.

Now in December I prepared a letter that was carried through a few of the staff members and the letter specified the application requirements and identified the required project fees including a $1,040 environmental review fee for the mitigated negative declaration.

Originally, the applicant had intended to have an application in on a goal, I mean on January 3rd this year.

However, after reviewing the materials that we received in December, it became increasingly clear to me that the applicants needed to be, should be given further direction.

So because the preliminary site plan and the architecture, for example, did not seem responsive to the staff concerns that were in the December letter.

So on January 22nd, an ARC meeting was held in advance of the completed application.

And it seemed like a good time to be putting a certain CEQA guideline to the test.

That CEQA guideline encourages preparing CEQA documents as early as feasible in planning processes to enable environmental considerations to influence the project and the design.

Now on the Friday, before the January 22nd ARC meeting, that was the move in week into the new city hall.

And an agenda was prepared for that ARC meeting, but unfortunately, the legislature was not fully, did not get posted on that day.

In March, the applicant finally submitted the application along with several new reports.

It was clear that a new ARC meeting must be held for a variety of reasons.

A completely revised negative declaration was prepared, which included every mitigation that staff could identify up to that point in time.

And the ARC meeting was very well attended.

It was held on April 6th of this year.

And that was the document that was later approved by the planning commission.

The January document was now entirely superseded.

In fact, it was not even distributed to the planning commission.

With the new negative declaration, new application regents started to arrive at city hall over the following weeks.

And throughout this process, the applicant was clear about one thing.

They wanted the application processed in such a manner that it could be appealed to the city council by June 11, 2001.

And I believe the applicant came here to the council in April and told you that this was the schedule that was key to their eligibility for their home funds grants.

So in a good faith effort undertaken by the entire city staff, the application was processed.

And I even understand that the city staff went so far as to request special attention from the union publisher to public notice this meeting tonight so that it could occur.

The planning commission held two nights of public hearings and the actions it took were mixed.

The motions to approve the negative declaration and the lock merger, the variance to the steep slope and the variance to the streambed setbacks were approved.

The tree removal was approved with a condition that staffs from questions, in terms of numbers, be addressed and agreement be reached as to how many may be removed.

Architecture was approved.

The certain details should be worked out by a special committee involving two commissioners and the city planner.

And these would be committee meetings which will be public noticed as required.

The site plan was denied.

A new version of the plan had recently been submitted to the city hall three days prior to this meeting, the May 10th meeting.

And it was unclear to many people, and including at least one swing vote on the commission, is how it was different from previous versions.

And that brings us to this phase, the appeal phase.

At this point, I think the city attorney will be making remarks.

However, before I close, I do wanna say something briefly on my own behalf.

There is one appeal among the eight in which comments are directed squarely on me.

This appeal alleges breach of contract by me and worse.

You have received a memo from the city attorney stating that much of the content of this appeal has no bearing on the work you have to accomplish that is in front of you.

And I certainly agree with that.

My concern is that if I let these allegations unanswered, my ability to continue my service as a city planner would be under a questionable cloud.

And so I prepared my own memorandum which I distributed to each of you earlier today.

My memo provides a detailed response to all the questions that were raised by the appellate.

At this point, I will simply say that from the very beginning when the applicant for this project came through the door at the New York Hotel where we were located at the time.

I have worked closely with the city manager, the city attorney, the city engineer and others up to the present day in a matter of cooperation, as I'm expecting to do for every application.

When you consider my memorandum, I think you'll agree that there are no extraordinary measures that may be made by me either for or against this project.

My invoices describe my level of involvement processing this application.

My letters to AHGC and others in the file indicate my attempts to collect fees and provide information.

The agendas in the file indicate my efforts to comply with the Brown Act.

And so, in closing in these opening remarks, I will again repeat the request I included in my memo, but request that you take a decisive look and action on that appeal that I'm speaking of as a first order of business tonight.

And thank you and Jim, I guess it's up to you.

>> Would you state briefly that we have consulted with law firm out of the Bay Area on some of the various issues raised on appeal.

And we just today received a little memorandum from that law firm indicating that they feel that the negative decoration that's before the council tonight is not sufficient for several reasons.

For one reason, they're indicating that the negative decoration is not making clear what the significant features of the project are and certain things that have changed as the project is going on.

And certainly the applicant has tried to address the staff concerns, public concerns, but the cause of that, that project has changed on a fairly regular basis to the point where the firm feels that the project is described in the negative decoration is significantly different from the project you have today.

They're also concerned that the negative decoration defers evaluation potentially significant environmental impacts until after the preparation of the negative decoration which is not allowed under the law.

For minor things you can defer in the first significant matters to be dealt with in the negative decoration in terms of what the mitigation should be.

And then they're also concerned in even leaving those problems aside that the project as it stands now could have significant effects that have not been dealt with in the negative decoration.

So for those reasons, the firm is suggesting that the council should hire a consultant who's very familiar with dealing with environmental issues.

And that consultant could meet potentially with city staff and potentially with the public to look at some of the concerns and then either do an additional negative declaration or do an EIR depending on what that person's recommendation is.

So that's the legal opinion we have tonight from the attorneys.

Mr.
Judd, sitting beside me this evening to speak to that becomes necessary at a later time to deal with the details at this point, I think it's up to the council.

I wonder about dress and handle this matter at this point.

>> Well, I would hope that we are not suggesting that we just cost everything I've done to this point out the window.

Since we've noticed this in the public, we've made room for three nights of our input and the public's input.

And so I would hope that we would stay on track and follow the procedures that we've already set forward.

>> That's going to be up to the council on how you want to handle it.

Somebody indicating that's their opinion and their suggestion is to go back and relook the firm in Washington and start again when it's up to the council on how to handle it.

>> Well, like I said, I already did what I said.

I think that we need to give the people their chance to speak.

And I certainly would support.

>> [APPLAUSE] >> There's a lot of people here.

We've got a lot of testimony here and we do not need the outburst of applause.

So if you want to applaud to yourself in your mind, that's fine.

Please not help out.

Thank you.

>> I would have to agree that we've got a room full of people.

The fields have been filed.

I think that at least for this evening, we should listen to your fields and take it from there.

>> Well, I would keep it open mind as far as how the evening progresses.

And if there does appear to be something that could be accomplished at the end of this evening, I would even open an opportunity for that.

If in fact it looks like we need to have the other two meetings, I'll open it up.

>> As for myself, I got a copy of that memo that when I arrived, the chief opened the doors into the office so I could go get my copy out.

It was not to bore anybody, but I worked midnight till 8 in the morning, so I'd go to sleep all day.

And so I just got that memo as I walked in the door.

I hadn't even read the thing.

I just glanced at it and I appreciate the city attorney's synopsis of what's in there.

I hope that it doesn't prejudice anything that we're going to do.

It certainly sends a pretty clear message to people before they ever go to the microphone about what legal advice is, so I'm not sure what purpose is going to be served by the next three nights.

And certainly willing to proceed and we'll work our way through it.

It's new news to me.

>> Well, the general way that this is usually done is the appeals are heard in the order in which they are received.

And well, if I carry on, I appreciate it Paul's memo, which I did see this morning on my way home and his comments.

I'm not sure, I just want to make sure I understand what it is you're requesting.

You're requesting that we change the order instead of 1221.

To hear the second appeal first.

>> The first one is AHDC.

So, but you have a like action on the appeal that I was speaking of.

>> Mr.
Pembroke, okay.

>> Well, it's not.

>> If I could just comment for you, I think a ruling.

I heard Paul's comments.

I'm not going to read between the lines, but I did hear Paul's comments.

What I heard him say, correct me if I'm wrong Paul, but I think I heard you say it was that if you don't have the support of your counsel, why are you bothering to sit at this table?
And that since there have been allegations made against your professional ethics and your method of billing and various other things, that if we can't resolve that issue, you're wondering whether you have the support of the folks you're supposed to advise.

Is that a fair interpretation what you said?
>> I think that's pretty fair.

I think it's also, counseling and the, just to take the cloud, that this appeal has, may have created in certain people's minds just to hear the counsel make a judgment on it.

>> I'm going to ask you a question about before my advice is given.

>> Well, the memo that we received from Mr.
Anderson indicated that that appeal is actually, that appeal was on the, the declaration.

And the remainder of the material in that particular document fell into the category of personnel issue.

And I don't think the city has a personnel issue that's between the city manager and staff.

And I think that's where we'll be analyzed.

>> Well, that's correct.

I do have two letters that I have received from Mr.
Pepperton.

And I did have correspondence back to them.

And so I am attempting to make any applications.

And those letters, as it's meant to handle it as a personnel matter.

So I try to put it in the direction of counsel, but it is a personnel matter mostly.

I see a term of defense that is mental to you to indicate that there are proportions of the appeal that are of a personnel nature.

And that is to be handled as a personnel matter, which we refer to, which fall as an employee that is under the city manager.

>> I would agree with that.

That there's a couple things where he talks on actual procedures and the process of whether the ARCD was proposed to department.

If you already spoke to that and things like that.

That in reading it, I would say there's a lot of overlap in these appeals on the various types of variances that were granted.

Things like that.

So I'm not sure that I'm going to be sitting here thinking that we shouldn't be asking anything.

We wouldn't put weight into it.

I think it's a little, what we're trying to figure out is when Mr.
Pepperton comes up to the mic on his appeal.

How much time is this going to be up before, and what we'll have to do is just guide it and make sure that it doesn't get into a personnel issue.

>> He will be able to address the mental defecation problems that he stated.

Other than that, you know personnel discussion.

So that's the reason why I don't know that it's still necessary for us to move.

That's the first word in which they were being brought in as a generalist.

>> I think I'm fine with the format that was decided on earlier.

I feel more comfortable understanding that personnel issues will remain personnel issues and will not become public hearing issues.

And as long as we stay on subject and on message here, I will feel comfortable.

>> All right.

We'll move that up.

Then we will begin with the first denial, or the first appeal, which is dealing with the denial of the Project Site Plan, submitted by AHDC Incorporated, the Phil Spannan representative.

Mr.
Spannan, would you like to come up to the table and keep in mind that our last council meeting, we agreed that the council would have 15 minutes to which to get their case.

I'll give you a two minute warning.

>> Just for clarification, will I also have an opportunity to speak in terms of the other appeals?
Or to respond?
>> We will hear all of the appeals and then as time allows, we will have rebuttals this evening.

The agenda actually indicates that concluding remarks by the opponents are on Wednesday night.

But depending on how much time we have this evening, we could do rebuttals this evening.

>> Okay, great, thank you.

>> Well, thank you for the opportunity, Mayor, Mr.
Council members.

My appeal is based upon the lack of reasons for denying the site plan and the new Planning Commission meeting.

And today, I still do not know what the reasons were in terms of the staff report documentation that was provided to me on Friday from the city and from indicating all findings on all of the actions that were taken.

There still is no findings provided for the reason for the denial of the site plan.

So it's kind of hard to be able to speak in terms of what am I appealing, but I don't know what the decision was.

So in light of that, because of the information that was provided, states under architectural standards and under site plan standards questions, I felt the only thing that I could probably do at this point is to respond how I feel that our project responds and addresses each of those questions.

So that will be the purpose of the following discussion.

First of all, under architectural standards, number one, the Planning Commission approved the project's architecture.

And here again, I don't know why architectural standards are under site plan review, but a separate action of the Planning Commission was to improve the architecture of the project with mitigating measures.

So I'll try to not bore you with these details, but specifically under architectural standards, like I said, the Planning Commission approved the project's architecture.

However, we feel the following adequately addresses questions raised by staff with regard to the project's architectural design.

First of all, the question was asked about steep pitched roofs, or roofs on our project or steeply pitched at 6 o'clock.

High-quality party board and lapsed siting is being used.

We brought a material board with us this evening so that you can see the type of material that's being proposed.

This replicates lapsed siting that was traditionally used in historic times in the area.

The project provides covered porches, entries, covered porches and entries to continue at Nevada city architectural tradition.

Multi-pane windows, vertical pop-out windows will be utilized with variation.

Local architect Gary Har has incorporated several modifications to our design.

To create a design that is reminiscent of the city within Nevada city's older homes.

Such features include open picket fence, type railings for decks and patios, staircase landings that have been added to provide contrast to our standard staircase, roof modifications including steep pitched dormers and walked off in the middle of the street.

This is a very important feature for the city.

In this case, roof modifications including steep pitched dormers and walked off ends to the roof give the project that's seen Nevada city appeal.

Mr.
Har's improvements have added texture, shadow, contrast and interest which are reminiscent with Nevada city's older homes.

And these are just direct responses to the questions that were asked in the mitigating configuration.

Under site plan standards, ample building setbacks are utilized to buffer the visibility project from Highway 49 and West Broad Street.

Retention of native vegetation is a part of our proposed landscape plan along Highway 49 and West Broad Street.

All existing native vegetation within the building setback for both Highway 49 and West Broad Street will be retained with the exception to meet other mitigation measures of the project such as the site distance visibility from Highway 49 to West Broad Street.

Significant portions of the site will be retained in its natural intervening land forms.

Virtually the entire frontage area of the project will be retained as it now exists with the exception of the proposed emergency road access on West Broad Street which by the way was essentially the same place of exit on Broad Street for the previously approved Prestige care facility.

In addition to streams, wetlands, rock formations, steep slopes, trees and historical areas adds to the preservation of a significant portion of the site.

The project's landscape plan calls for the planting of a high number of large trees, 15 gallon or larger, that will result in the site having more trees after construction than currently exists.

We will work with staff and the neighbors to locate trees in areas that provide proper screening for our neighbors.

The landscape berms are incorporated into the plan as to minimize the visual and noise impact of the project.

We incorporate the use of single-story building elements along the entrance of the Highway 49 West Broad Street Scenic corridor.

This is done in order to minimize the project's visual impact on the scenic corridor.

In retrospect, the thinking back to what happened at the Planning Commission and perhaps one of the reasons why there was a decision to deny it, we feel that it would be beneficial to give the visual demonstration or visual representation of what one of the retaining walls would be because there is concern as to the massive nature of some of the retaining walls, one perception of being 22 feet in height.

So we asked Gary Hart if he could give us a rendering that would identify where this retaining wall would be located.

And at this point, essentially at this point here is where the steepest or the tallest portion of this retaining wall is located.

And it's hard to, unless you really go out and see where the side is, where this is going.

Let me show you on the side.

The area that we're talking about is right along here.

Well, the only visible direction that you're going to see that retaining wall is essentially from this property.

Currently this is another developed site.

It's a multi-family zone.

Probably have a four-plex or something like that in the future.

The view from there of that retaining wall will be evident from this piece of property.

But from the rest of the property, the version will not.

The depiction that's given here in this color rendering is from Broad Street at about the area where the entrance from Chief Kelly Drive is located.

But the view is elevated.

As you can see, we're looking down on the first buildings there.

So from the road, you're not going to see that retaining wall.

The only place you're going to see where that retaining wall is from is these properties here.

This is rental.

This is rental.

This is, I believe, private ownership or private residence.

And the purpose for this 22-foot wall of the location is right in this area where there's a ravine.

The elevation of this site is essentially the same elevation that has what will be the finished grade of the paved area and buildings.

So we'll be looking directly across from one another, not looking down or looking up at our development, but essentially across from one another.

And in between is a ravine in the undisturbed.

And our proposal, our suggestion, if the visibility of the retaining wall is the issue, then we can improve that by location of trees, young trees that will be back there, and IV and whatnot can be added to the landscape.

We're certainly willing to do that, or the staff work with the neighbors to minimize the vision impact that we came from.

Where are you looking from, I guess?
Where is that picture?
Sure.

This picture here is essentially being taken from this angle, looking this way.

Which bridge?
That bridge?
Which bridge?
That bridge would be this bridge, actually.

So I'm sorry, just looking in this direction.

These buildings, the lower, the single-story buildings.

Where in here?
Show me that retaining wall.

What is that?
My retaining wall is here.

How come there's building on both sides of it?
On both sides of the retaining wall?
You see, but that's-- Yeah, right there's building.

What would you see?
That's the building right here.

It's right there in this building here.

It's kind of at an oblique from up here in your Chief Kelly Drive.

You couldn't really look down Chief Kelly Drive to see that.

No, you're not.

No, you could not.

That's not where it looks like.

If you're elevated, if you're on a tall ladder at Chief Kelly Drive, looking down over the project, that would be the perspective that you would see.

But you're right, if you're standing down here on the road, looking across, you're not going to see the retaining wall.

Here again, these are the only issues that I can think to raise without having specific findings denying the project.

And because these were the items that were identified in the staff report, this is all that I have to go on.

At this point regarding the site plan, I do have other feedback and information I'd like to provide that I'm not sure if this is the proper time to do so, given the limited time that we have to present our appeals.

But we have been in communication with staff concerning recent reports and studies that have been conducted regarding the city's ability to provide sewer water service.

And we have made the overtures and offers to staff and the city manager in terms of how we would participate and be willing to help accommodate the city in dealing with those issues.

I would like to provide that information, but again, I don't know if this is the proper time because we're now talking about the site plan, I don't know if the sewer and water is an issue related to the site plan.

Could I get some direction from staff as to whether or not this is the appropriate time to discuss that or?
I would think that perhaps when the city engineer makes his presentation on the infrastructure, he has a copy bill of your letter, the last letter that you gave to me.

Yes, okay.

He would make reference to that letter at that time.

Okay, I think that's okay.

Oh, that's perfect.

Yeah, I appreciate it.

Would it be fair to assume in the absence of findings denying the site plan, which you're having a problem with and being able to address the issue in regards to that, that perhaps one of the reasons or the main reason that the site plan was denied was because it was a modified site plan that had only been received three days before.

There wasn't adequate time to actually detail, study the site plan, and therefore, it was denied.

There could have been findings added to that since.

I'm not sure about that.

Entirely possible.

I think that needs to be brought up just that the fact that it was dropped on the planning commission three days prior to their having to make the city.

And if I could respond to that, please.

The change that we made to the site plan was extremely low.

The changes that we made were to move a few buildings on the average three to five feet to move them out of the 25-foot stream bed setback.

When we first created the site plan, we wanted to create as much space as possible.

And we, perhaps not realizing the importance of the stream bed setback, did not take every measure possible to move buildings outside of that.

So we did have encroachments in that 25-foot setback to be sent to three to five feet for a few buildings.

As things progressed, as communication with staff continued, as opposition gained against the complex of the project, I expressed to our engineer that I felt it was important that we move air rebuilding out of that stream bed setback as best that we could.

And so those were the changes that were made.

They were not substantial in any way, shape, or if it was merely to move buildings in a few feet out of that setback area.

They are essentially located in the same general area of the site plan.

And those were the changes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

My recollection of that was that they provided us with a site plan to revise it two to four days ahead of time with a retaining wall.

We never had a retaining wall in the initial.

And then had 50,000 cubic yards of grading.

So they revised it down to have 18,000 cubic yards.

That's for the old ones.

And then after that, after that time, We can't hear you back here.

We might have after that time, on the night of the meeting, they were doing another site plan.

It goes to the main.

There's three of them.

Just as a procedural matter, this is the one appeal for which there's no one designated to reply.

And I'm wondering if the long-saul of those other seven.

I see Gary raised his hand.

That's not a shock me.

But among the other seven, the problems, whether you've gotten together and decided which of you is going to rebut this particular appeal.

Yes, we have.

You have.

Okay.

Mr.
Cottrell, I'd like to spend 30 seconds to a minute on thick HDC use for 15 minutes.

And I'd like to supplement.

Now they had about a one minute left.

So I'll give you a minute.

I'll give you a minute.

We cannot hear you.

I will be there.

City council, staff, legal council.

I'm Ronald Jones from Hanford, California.

I'm the first of the HDC.

And I think your council would be disgusted with and both agree that what we have here tonight, And you probably would advise on this one, I want to make sure it's clear on the record.

There is a, in effect, a proceeding de novo.

That is, you're looking at this theoretically just the way the planning commission did.

As it was, as it could be the very first time.

Given that it's a proceeding de novo, you have the opportunity to accept additional evidence.

And information and planning changes and reports and all the information that's going to be coming to you.

Over the next three nights.

And so you're not locked in to what may or may not have been available.

And you're not locked in to the findings that may or may not have been made previously.

You're allowed to consider the new evidence and you're allowed to make your own findings.

And I'm going to have that at the forefront of your mind as we're going through this proceeding.

Thank you.

Does Mr.
Anderson and Mr.
Jack concur?
I do.

Okay, thank you.

Next appeal is Pete Pemberton.

Proceed.

And that is on the.

.

.

Negative declarations.

What you get addressed in some.

.

.

Well if I get off track, you just let me know.

Yeah, I do.

I'm Pete Pemberton.

I'm a retired 16414 communal place in the United States.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

You read my appeal and you know I've opposed this project and what I have a serious concern regarding the procedures followed throughout the course of the applicant's efforts to gain approval for the opinion and complex.

While I have concern regarding actions of some city officials involved in this process, these are personal opinions that don't have any place in tonight's discussion.

It is important to me that my comments and my concerns not being dismissed by this council as being unbound of accusations or character attacks on individuals.

There are no procedural irregularities to be found in the public record associated with this project, particularly regarding the preparation and approval of Medicaid and AgDAC, that I can meet my personal opinions at home tonight.

I do believe, however, that it is impossible to consider any process without considering the actions of the people who are involved.

Specifically, the pre-application process and environmental review aspects of the project are of concern.

The guidelines recommend the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, in Article 5, Section 15060, preliminary review, states that the co-evident agency shall begin the formal environmental evaluation project after accepting an application as complete and determining the project as subject to CEQA.

In the case of the ACC project, formal application fees, and amount of $3,295, were not submitted until March 21, 2001.

However, the unit of city planners invoiced resources to the city and engaged the pre-application meeting of the applicant and reviewed the proposal began in June, 2009.

This pre-application process continued through November without the applicant paying any pre-application fees until November 11, 2009, $560.

Further review revealed that the city planner invoiced the city for environmental review of this project in December, 2000, January, 2001, beyond the applicant finding of invoices.

The applicant paid no environmental review fees until April 19, 2001, and that was an amount of $1,140.

By this time, the city planner prepared the initial study, revised it, prepared two versions of the mitigated data deck, and held two advisory review committee meetings.

That was on January 22, table 6.

These activities also involved other staff to align with meetings and preparation staff reports.

These activities required expenditure to the city resources.

The city fee schedule plainly states that "beings or consultations with staff in advance of formal application be charged after the cost of estimated fees be paid in advance.

"
That is fee scheduled as exhibit A in the City Resolution 93-01, which is effective March 8, 1993.

Again, CEQA guidelines stating that the environmental review process should not even have commenced prior to the complete application being accepted.

My concern here is that the significant activity logging into the project over several months in advance of fees, and in fact the application itself.

This suggests that the HDC has been a bit fishery of staff who put in developing this application while being subsidized by the City General Fund for the project needs.

The city's published practices require fees in advance for recovery costs and processing and applications.

This is certainly a standard practice for submitting agencies.

An amended applicant abandons the project that prevents the agency from being out of pocket at any expenses incurred during the review and processing period.

Certainly CEQA provides a pre-application consultation, but with the courage during the HDC application process, it is highly questionable and worthy of discounts to be served.

In focusing on the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the basis of my appeal, I have to question the completeness of the document.

Many of these held project commandments there.

In particular, the site plan has still been questioned by the May 10th Planning Commission here.

There have been too much reliance on future approvals and modifications, too many contingencies that need to be addressed for a project of this magnitude.

The Planning Commission chose to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated variances.

I question that decision as far as my concerns swell.

Without the variances, the project site cannot accommodate the proposed density.

The matter of variances is an important element in the public's concern regarding the project.

Overall, the basis for my appeal is under the process by which the Mitigated Negative Declaration will prepare the squad and the document itself and the decision to accept the document's squad.

This project should be denied.

I contend that a significant gap in time using the commencement of the pre-application of our number of new activities, payment of fees, and submission of myelabicational fees, calls to question the legality and legitimacy of the document.

The Planning Commission decision is similarly flawed.

I won't state that I have been skimming with the entire process, however.

The City Engineer's presentation of the May 10th Planning Commission hearing regarding the potential water and sewer impacts associated with this proposal was extremely credible and professional.

I review the available public record associated with this project by the staff of the Corps of State in March 20th from the City Engineer and Office Operations Public Works Police.

In general, there is where I consider an appropriate level of concern raised as the impact of the proposed project.

I also found the letter to the City Manager and City Attorney David March 28th titled, "In consistency between the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared from the ARC meeting January 22nd to the current period.

"
This was also from the City Engineer, which addresses, among other concerns, the sequence of events.

Quote, "Medigation Declaration issued January 22nd, application fees received March 21st, 2001.

"
I want to note that Mr.
Falcon is here later to state March 2nd, but I have copies of the invoice.

Nothing was received for payment on the 21st.

This is a possible typo.

The other one of the questions I keep coming back to is why the apparent inconsistency between how the City Planner has advanced this project, contrary to other staff concerns.

Examples would be letters written by the City Planner and State funding agencies, the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee on September 21st, and the HOME Program Administration on October 16th.

The letters provide support for the aging project by verifying its general plan, zoning, and seeking compliance measures for the other day.

In particular, the late letter dated to October 16th addressed to the HOME Administration, the City Planner makes the statement, quote, "The project can be built under current development standards, uses of the Mine is not the only appeal of concern to secret compliance.

There are others concerned with thelette process project on the basis of mitigating any declarations as opposed to an EIR.

Since I brought up a matter of significant public concern on the board, there is a point worth making at this time.

California courts rule that the existence of serious public controversy concerning environmental effects of the project in itself, indicates that the preparation of the EIR is desirable.

At this point, however, my belief is this application is so flawed, it should be denied as proposed.

Preparation of the EIR was evident and never given any serious consideration by the city planner, and it is too late in this process to be a feasible action.

I've had 25 years of experience in land use planning and development project management, and I can't think of the situation where fraudulent.

Surrounded as this one is, with so much public concern, our key city staff have raised significant questions as to the city's ability to serve the proposed complex, as well as potential impacts to existing citizen customers, as at least this stage of the approval process without any significant changes being made in the original proposal.

The 80-unit footprint design that's associated with the benefits of the EIR is substantially the same as original percentage.

There have been minimal concessions granted by the applicant.

The certainty of raising the question, how many of these ADUs would actually be managed as both affordable and in turn to the law, and how many would become market rental units?
The appearance is that the ACC wants to maximize the unit density to the exclusion of their concerns.

This being said, there are some other concerns I have based on the activity of the applicant.

I'm thinking in terms of tactics project proponents commonly use.

One such tactic is to get the review and agency involved in the project.

AHC attempted to get the badassization applied to the home administration alone, which would effectively make the city a partner in the project.

It is difficult to be critical and objective when you're in principle of labor.

The city wise and chose to decline.

AHC was also very aggressive in its attitude toward the city while promoting this project.

Specifically, AHC had a new housing old prepared in the city general plan.

This document would have been supported and proposed using the Western Cross Area Council and needed to be certified by the state and more to put the city in the flag of home funding.

Again, the city declined.

The current housing element is compliant from the state of Washington until 2002.

At the very least, AHC's action for the presumptuous, more critical interpretation to be that AHC was intentionally placed in undue pressure on the city to concede to its limits.

AHC was seeking funding that it could not apply for itself and needed a partner such as the city to make the application.

AHC made an update view of it at the September 25, 2000 City Council meeting.

It was at this meeting that the applicant wanted the city to pass a resolution to make the application for home funding and to approve the applicant version of the city housing element.

Reviewed in the minutes from that council meeting, we revealed that Council and the trail had spoken to the official of the state housing.

The official of Mr.
Angel had the impression that Spain had a closer relationship with the city than fully existently equipped.

That impression had to have an actual basis, whether through the letter to the city planner or contact by the Warren Associates, incorporating the consultant prepared for the proposed housing element for AHC.

In a letter to Bill Spain from Raul, Florida, and Castro of the Warren Associates dated September 7, 2000, Mr.
Castro refers to a phone call he had received from Mario Angel and Adams in housing and community development.

The draft housing element had been submitted to AHC on August 25, a full month before the September 25 council meeting.

Among other things, AHC required before finding the applicant to vote certifiable was "specific information on the West Broad American Hill project, how many units are allowed for current zoning, and how many additional units would be allowed with density bonuses.

"
The appearance of proposed housing elements needs specifically tailored to support the AHC's project.

AHC has pushed hard to approve or have pushed hard to get approvals in order to make the November 13 funding deadline.

Now, AHC is pushing the city council tonight to approve this application to make the June 15 funding deadline.

It is simply not the city's obligation to concede to AHC's agenda that disregards the significant concerns that have been demonstrated by members of the city staff and public.

Although it appeared pushy to describe actions on the part of AHC are fairly routine practices on the part of the fund.

There is one action by the applicant now that I find surely questionable.

On January 15, 2001, Mr.
Spann sent a letter to the city clerk requesting an appearance before the next city council.

Mr.
Spann wanted to ask the council to support a plan to perform a revitalization center and plan for the city.

Further, he wanted to hire the city planners to quote "services outside of his responsibilities to the city" and end quote to work with AHC during this plan.

I believe this would be a highly questionable proposition because it is difficult for me to believe that Mr.
Spann, with such a request, did not already discuss the terms and conditions of such a arrangement of the plan.

To my knowledge, nothing happened.

The city apparently disregarded the applicant's offer of a revitalization plan.

But the applicant would make such an offer when the city was in the middle of processing the event project as highly suspecting.

The city planner had been in principle city contact with AHC throughout the course of this application.

At the very least, such an arrangement would have compromised the appearance of objectivity on the part of the plan.

It is simply a highly questionable event and an ask to flock during to this application.

One week later, on January 22, a most significant event in the application process occurred.

This is the day of the first ARC meeting.

At the December 14, 2000, planning commission meeting, the city planner stated that he needed an ARC appointed for the Native Union project to focus on what is brought in.

An ARC consistent with commissions rose and overroads over bowls with the commission leader as an opportunity to postpone a form.

The January 22nd ARC meeting is critical in the result of the Medicaid amendment deck as the city planner prepared to come to the underlying CQI document and recommends approval for the A-Unit project.

The planning commission subsequently approved a mitigated deck deck as a May 10 meeting, following the second ARC meeting, April 6, just the principal cause of this appeal to the city council.

I cannot find any evidence opposed to the public evidence in advance of January 22nd.

The evidence of the January 22nd ARC meeting and the city's agenda files.

The Brown Act is clear on public noticing of such meetings.

I also listened to a partial tape of that ARC meeting where there is discussion between the planning commissioners in attendance that the city attorney said, "They were okay regarding the Brown Act.

"
What a discussion if there wasn't a question.

What was the question?
I also have a copy of the city planner's report.

I also have a copy of the city planner's parts of the complete hand-written minutes of January 20th.

This document indicates that the president decides to find out what the commission restored at the roads making of the ARC, as well as very foreign Bill Spann representing the applicant.

The city planner's note indicates that the commission of culture also joins the meeting at 11.

30am.

I believe that's 8.

Joins the ARC.

My understanding is that at some point the commission was still reflecting the need, possibly because there were enough commissions for the president to make a core on the Brown Act violation.

Commissioner Oberholtzer had excused herself as a commission because of the potential conflict of interest, but was in attendance and made a presentation sponsoring the need for an EO algorithm.

Commissioner Weaver was the alternate of the experimenters and other contenders.

So the ARC ended up consisting of commission's culture and roads.

This ARC made the original decision to proceed with the project on the basis of mitigating their debt.

The application processed throughout would be characterized as being fragmented and incomplete.

And the apparent rush pushed this project along in second ARC meeting, schedule 486, because the first meeting addressed an earlier site plan and numerous subjects were not covered.

This overall half-hearted process resulted in continuing provisions to recourse from part of HTC and some consultants.

Up to and including another revised site plan being submitted on night of maintaining another planning commission meeting at least 2 hours into the meeting.

I don't believe it's all clear what the planning commission's basis findings are.

I want to re-emphasize this entire sequence of activities based on there being no formal application being submitted by HTC and fees paid to March 21, 2001.

I have a question of legitimacy of the two ARC meetings and the ARC recommendations because of incomplete applications and questionable legal notice to the public for comment for EO.

There is still a question of brown hat violation of the January 27 ARC meeting because of the number of planning commissions you are intended to.

This places the entire decision making process regarding the project in general, in particular its compliance with CEQA, in question below.

I also want to state that all four board comments and concerns are based on information I have researched with CZ records and typed with tape records and I have copies I will share.

I just want to remind all the persons who have been involved in this process their responsibility to apply their involvement in planning the decision making process and who it is they represent.

The basic principles involved in making land use determinations are issued in public safety and accountability and that the actions take place in public form and full awareness of the public interest interest.

The American Institute of the Certified Planner, which is the city planner's member, has a code of ethics in professional conduct.

In that code it states, quote, "A planner's primary responsibility is to serve the public interest, and that a planner must accept the decisions of a client or employer concerning the objectives and nature of the professional services being performed, unless the course of actions be pursued, involves conduct which is illegal or inconsistent with the planner's primary obligation to the public interest.

"
In this incident it is clear that the city of Nevada City and the citizens are applying to this project, not ABCC.

In conclusion, there is a large continuum of conservative citizens who like myself question this project on very little different grounds, please listen to what we are saying and deny this project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you Mr.
Chairman.

We have a question here.

How about you?
Could I ask you a question?
Also, and this would be for all of the opponents.

If you're reading something and you've got something, hopefully a computer somewhere or something and I can copy on a copy, could I get copies of everything that's read?
It's really difficult for me to take everything in.

Do you want to copy a copy of it?
It's a soft copy and words.

We just, a quick question, one comment, quick question.

You've quoted me a couple times, so once tonight, twice in the memo, and I want to say you've quoted me exactly correctly, but not completely.

It is absolutely true that I did call the state to discuss Mr.
Spann's relationship with them and with Warren Associates.

I also did indicate that I didn't see how we could apply for a million dollar grant and something we've never seen.

But at the conclusion of that, I urged Mr.
Spann to go to City Hall, pay the opening fee, which I think is $500, or something in that ballpark, or $500, and begin to process this project through the city, not through his own associates and his own consultants.

That's just why I didn't complete the picture.

I was absolutely opposed to the approach, but I did urge him to do it according to our policies and procedures, which he later did.

I was just trying to tie the famous arrangement together from your comments to the letter that I had.

It was the same result.

Absolutely, that's what I said.

I just wanted to give the complete picture.

The other is you made reference in the verbally tonight and in the appeal to a letter about a revitalization zone letter January 15th, and you said apparently nothing happened relative to that letter.

And apparently it didn't.

I don't recall it ever being in a packet.

So I'm wondering how you obtained a copy of a letter that was never circulated.

I asked for anything associated with the ACC project when I made a official records through the sequence.

That is one letter you came through.

Thank you very much.

And just to remind the council, the negative declaration that we're concerned with is the one done in April.

Does that supersede the one in January?
It's a format that has a rebuttal since a lot of those are due at the end.

So we are proceeding with this.

Next.

The next appeal is architectural review procedural and so it's been suggested.

Thank you.

I was having the right to call.

I would defer Mr.
Madsen for just a very long period of time before I begin.

Thank you.

I'm actually going to borrow some time from the lot like merger appeal.

There is a group of us that have submitted five appeals.

And the reason we submitted five was that there are so many things wrong with this project.

It couldn't be addressed in a single appeal.

We appreciate the three days the city council is giving the public and the applicant to review this decision.

We think it's very important and we are grateful for the efforts that you've made.

Two of you have served on previous city councils.

I have served with some of you and the tradition that has made the city so great is the type of care and meticulous work.

Evidence by Mr.
Lon Cooper, John Rankin, Bob Payne, Nelson Barnard, myself, yourselves, Carol Friedrich, Kathy Barnes, all the council people and planning commissioners that have gone before.

And there are five appeals from us because we don't think this applicant has any understanding of that level of commitment to Nevada City.

And the problems with their project are so deep and so many that we're not asking you to prepare an AIR.

We're asking you to deny the project.

And our people are J.

Lon Cooper.

He will be addressing the architectural review issues.

Gary Johnson will address the variances.

The lot merger issue will be Sally Harris.

The mitigated negative deck speakers will be Victor Krusack, myself on history, Gail Fox on traffic and growth.

And the final speaker, if it's okay, with the chair would be John Daly on the tree cutting aspects of this project.

So we ask you, we are all Nevada City residents, every member that has appealed to any one of these particular issues.

We ask you to stand with us at the conclusion and unanimously deny this project.

It is not us.

It is not the type of project that has demonstrated anything near the level of excellence that is normally demanded by the city of Nevada City.

With that, I'd like to introduce Mr.
Cooper, who will be leading the first appeal on the level of architecture.

I'm speaking about architecture.

I think that's kind of appropriate to a family member who's had a number of years and focused very much on that issue.

With the T.

K.

M.

leader tonight, I'm sure he's glad that I am.

Mr.
Pemberton provided a lot of objective information.

I'm glad to hear that tenor in his presentation because he's not someone that you need to discuss for some sort of public, some sort of private or personal conflict with anyone sitting here tonight.

I'm taking a different approach.

I couldn't begin to produce that kind of quantity of information.

So I'm taking a time of time to take a quality approach to my presentation.

And I think that's an instinctive architecture.

I want to ask all of you who are sitting here tonight, how many of you have been recalled the first time that you drove into this town of Nevada City?
What you saw, what you thought of it, what it meant to you, what it's meant to you since then.

What impressed you about it?
I'll tell you what impressed me about it when I was 14 years older.

I wasn't wanting to leave town as soon as I could get out of here.

I wanted to stay.

The architecture, the history, I'd seen nothing like it.

My family had gone up and down Highway 49 for many years on vacations by antiques.

But I'd never seen anything like this town.

Never.

And I'll tell you something, there isn't anything like it that I've seen this state.

Maybe other towns in the east coast, but this is early.

It's a treasure.

It's a treasure and that's why I'm focusing on architecture tonight.

I've also focused on process and my previous appearances before this group.

And I'm going to have to focus on it again.

My appeal, if you have read and considered it, and I did file this time and I didn't just give this to you tonight in case you noticed it.

My appeal indicates a strong emphasis on procedure.

That's not to say that there isn't a substance problem with this project in terms of contents of the architecture.

But it almost becomes secondary when you look at the process problems we have here.

And here's my big process problem.

I just listened to the developer's presentation through the Planner City Attorney, which I'm sorry it was Mr.
Spann.

I'm mistaken.

I believe it was Mr.
Spann who spoke for one of his representatives and said there were, on the subject of architecture, there were steep pitched ropes, particle board of high quality, replicating the appropriate historical period of materials, covered porches and entries, multiple pane windows, multi-pane windows, and so forth.

And then Mr.
R, who's our local architect here, I have a lot of respect for hearing R.

He indicated that there were modifications by Mr.
R that made this project even more architecturally appropriate.

Well, let's go back now and look at the file in this case.

I'll try to move along since I know that time is of the essence here.

The applicant, as far as I can tell, their application for architectural review was filed on March 2nd this year.

I found it in front of me.

I'm sure you have it in your files.

As I said in my appeal, it's an interesting combination of inadequate information, grossly inadequate information, grossly, grossly, grossly.

And the information that's in there does not substantially comply with the standards that you find in our designing guidelines for this city.

Not by long shot.

And if you look at the -- sorry, it's not big on the graphics, but for the people behind me, and you have this in your file, if you look at the photographic or computer replication of what this project would look like, which is part of this is a fashion I presume, I do not see big offenses.

I do not see bonky-pane lenses.

I see somewhat steep slope ropes.

I do not see -- I can't see color because it's a black and white.

That's a problem, but it is a copy.

In short, this is not an adequate graphic simulation of a project that down the line gets approved with, to my knowledge, no other graphic simulation.

This is not -- this isn't San Jose -- I'm glad to hear that it's not San Jose here in Nevada City, but this is not in Nevada City.

Not even close.

I understand that outlying areas do not have to comply with the historical district standards.

I understand that very well.

But this doesn't even approximate being in sync with the standards that we have in our own design guidelines.

We are supposed to approve things that have sensitivity to those standards and concerns.

This doesn't.

This does not.

Now, back to process.

When I hear tonight that we should all be grateful that Mr.
Harrer modified some of these things, my question to that is, when?
When did that modification occur?
Did the night the planning commission sat down?
Was it the night that they sat down that that was put in their packet?
When was the modification that provided all these great features?
When did that occur?
Did anyone have any reasonable opportunity to review it?
Due process applies to Nevada City's planning commission just as it does to the court system that I work in.

And we have not experienced it in the process of this applicant's application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let us then do the very special hearing.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

There it is.

Thank you.

I'm Jerry Johnson, 210 Drummond Street, Nevada City.

Good evening, City Council members.

I'd like to begin with a brief discussion about the property and why it relates to the need for variances.

As we will hear, this site is the location of the invention of hydraulic mining, which is a very integral and important part of the California Gold Rush.

There are many similarities with Malecov Digging State Park a few miles from here.

This site has the same steep slopes, ravines, and vertical hydraulic faces which contain the ancient gravel beds that hold the illicit gold.

Because of these features and the high density of units the developer wants on the site, we're brought to the subject of variances.

First, they would like to mass grade the site and build both build and grade slopes over 30%.

Second, they'd like to build permanent structures in the seasonal stream setbacks.

The seasonal stream setbacks are 25 feet, which is just a little more than here to the wall, maybe from here to the wall behind you.

And on the latest site plan, I see carports, parking, bridges, and walkways that aren't shown, but I see stairways that run right down to those setback lines.

But the walkways are not shown, so I think there'd be walkways also in those stream setbacks.

Next, I'd like to define variances.

A variance is a permit that's granted to a landowner to engage in actions that are not normally allowed.

Essentially, it allows the terms of the zoning ordinances to be bypassed in favor of the developer.

Because of this, obtaining a variance is intentionally designed to be a difficult process, not something that should be easy.

You can't just waltz in and ask for it.

And, see, I wanted to need it and therefore get a variance.

It's supposed to be difficult.

Variances can only be granted in certain closely defined situations.

They are when the property owner has unique circumstances or there's a hardship, but they can never be granted as a special privilege.

So let's look at the requirements to meet these criteria.

I'd like to read to you from Longton's California Land Use, which I understand is someone known as the Planner's Bible.

This is not just advisory information, but it refers to precedent-setting court cases.

So the first situation under which variances can be granted are special circumstances or unique circumstances.

The basic standard under the state zoning law is that a variance may be granted only when special circumstances applicable to the property exist.

At best, only a small fraction of any one zone can qualify for a variance.

In other words, the plight of an applicant for a variance must be due to peculiar circumstances and conditions, and it must be special or unique in contrast with that of other property owners in the same district.

Well, in regards to 30% slopes, we have 30% slopes all over the city.

They're right behind us in the Deer Creek ravine.

They're all over.

As a matter of fact, as we get into talking, I guess the most important thing is that it's just peculiar circumstances and conditions, and unique in contrast with that of other property owners in the same district.

Well, I have the adjacent property to the subject site.

It has the same zoning, and I have 30% slopes.

So I'm not sure how the developer can say his situation is unique.

In regards to hardships, it should be pointed out that the economic or financial hardship must apply also to a unique condition of one's property and must not pertain to the uniqueness of the plight of the owner.

That's the Cazian versus City of Sausalito, 1972.

It says, "This is proper in that the variance runs with the land.

"
That's Allen v.

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, 1966.

Further, it says, "It appears to be an established rule that self-induced hardship affords no grounds for granted variance.

"
That's Town of Atherton v.

Templeton, 1961.

And I believe this could only be called self-induced hardship since the developer or the applicant doesn't own the property yet.

It's a choice he's making.

Should the developer try to use the tactic that similar variances have been granted in this city in the past, I would like to respond in the following way.

"A property owner seeking a variance may sometimes argue that the variance should be granted, because similar variances have been granted for the same purpose in the same area, and to deny the grant of variance to the subject property would be unfairly discriminatory.

Such arguments are generally to no avail.

For instance, in Hill v.

City of Manhattan Beach, 1971, the Supreme Court held that there was no merit to plaintiff's claim of discrimination, in that each situation is unique.

"
Coming back to the cited question, on May 10th, the Planning Commission granted steep slope variances based on the fact that these slopes, or most of them, are man-made.

But nowhere in the ordinance does it differentiate between natural and man-made slopes.

I believe that was an arbitrary decision, and it was based on opinion only, opinion of one or more of the Planning Commissioners.

The allowance to build in the stream setbacks was based on little on the small 11x17 site plan that was brought in and dropped.

On the table here, that night, no one had seen it before.

Usually you look at a 24x36 site plan that at least you can read without a magnifying glass.

But the City Engineer hadn't seen this site plan.

He was handed one, and the Planning Commissioners were handed one, and then they were asked to vote.

And actually, I'm not sure that they even looked at that site plan.

If they did, I'm not sure that they could have read it in this light and without a magnifying glass.

At the Planning Commission meeting, Mr.
Spann encouraged approval of the project, comparing it to the already approved 60-unit extended care facility using the 60 units or 62 units that were on the extended care facility with the 80 units on the apartment site as a comparison.

That's correct.

This is the developer's site plan with the extended care facility that was previously approved, superimposed onto it.

The black represents the paving, the red represents the building.

Okay, if you'd set that one on the easel and bring up the other one.

The next site plan you'll see is the developer's site plan for the 80-unit apartment building, showing the coverage of roads, buildings in red, detention bases, swimming pool, and water tank in blue, and carports in orange.

I don't think there's much comparison between the two, and I don't think an argument can be made that these are similar-sized projects.

To the point of order, I mean, we're going to be here a long time, Gary, but everybody's going to get a chance to talk about anything they want to talk about if they're wrong.

But I thought I wanted to work.

You were addressing various steep slope areas.

This is why we need, this is why the applicant needs variances, is because of the mass grading and the extensive site coverage.

I just wanted to show that difference, because if we were coming in with a smaller project, and I'll just move right on here quickly, by the developer's own words, Mr.
Spann said that if he wasn't granted variances, he could only build 24 units on the site.

I would like to, I'd like to support him in that, and I think that maybe that's all the parcel should really have.

If we had 24 units on the site, we wouldn't have the coverage, and we wouldn't have the need for variances that we do have.

And hopefully in the long run, maybe, well, I'm assuming that these variances are going to be denied, and I'm hoping that we can have some affordable housing that won't require variances that can possibly be 24 units.

I'm sure that after the property owner gets the message that this property won't support 80 units, the price might come down and someone will be able to come in and build, not only affordable housing, but something that's affordable to build.

No half a mile of retaining walls, no bridges, no water storage tank, no sewage storage tank, and the grinders and pumps that go with it.

Let's build something that fits the site and our town.

So in conclusion, the difficulties with the site regarding topography are common to Nevada City, and the hardship is self-imposed.

Therefore, there really are no grounds to grant variances.

I request that you overturn the Planning Commission's decision and deny the variances for this project, and continue the City Council's legacy of promoting appropriate development in Nevada City.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Sally Harris, and I live at 625 Spring Street.

My great-grandfather came to Nevada County in the 1850s.

He was 16 years old and he was seeking misfortune.

He didn't strike it rich and bold, however, he fell in love with the area and he stayed.

My paternal grandparents were both born here.

They raised their five children here.

My father graduated from Nevada Union High School in 1922.

I chose to come back to Nevada City because of my family heritage, because of my fond childhood memories of the area, and because of the fine job people here have done to date to preserve and protect this beautiful and unique place.

Before specifically talking about the Lot Marge appeal, I would like to commend and thank those of you who have been here and have done such an excellent job.

This project and consideration tonight is not in keeping with those past efforts.

It simply does not fit in size, in architectural design, or in retaining the natural beauty of our town.

I come from asking that you deny this inappropriate development project.

With respect to the Lot Marge and request by the developer, I specifically request that you uphold our appeal and deny this merger.

One large lot encourages inappropriately large development, while leaving it as three smaller lots would encourage smaller projects that are more suitable to our community.

Merging the lots will result in more brooding, more tree removal, and less open space.

The transfer of the zone and density from the American Health 20 Lot Project to two of the three lots in question is adopted by the City Council of Nevada City on April 24th of last year, which applies only to the two smaller lots in question, not all three.

These smaller lots together total approximately four and a half acres.

By including the third lot of eight acres, the total parcel almost triples in size.

So, briefly I'll show you that.

I can point those out if you want to keep, see if they're mine.

So, just up there, just above Chief Kelly Drive, are the lots that actually have the zoning transferred to them, not all that big space below.

Also, I wanted to interject at this time that earlier, Paul Cogley mentioned that there was a mandate for affordable housing on the subject property that's not perfectly accurate.

As I just explained, if there is any mandate, it has to do with those two smaller lots, not the entire lot grooving of three that includes that eight acre piece.

Mixing the zoning would be a mistake.

Please keep it only applicable to the two smaller parcels.

The project's density cannot be achieved without the merger, and that is a good thing.

The proposed density is out of scale to our town.

I understand that the largest development previously approved to construct it was approximately 36 units.

Eight is just too big.

Personally, I am for affordable housing.

I would like to see us have more affordable housing, perhaps on one of these lots.

Perhaps we could actively encourage developers to propose projects appropriate in size, density, and design to our town, and I would be glad to work on a project like this.

In closing, I urge you to vote against this project and respectfully ask for your support in overturning the law-b urging decision of the Planning Commission.

Thank you.

Okay.

The entire tree will be able to permit.

I think Victor was going to be there.

We wanted to switch the order.

Is that okay with you?
As Paul had said, we split it up because legally we have to file several key alerts.

Well, I just didn't stick to the degenerative way it's printed if it's not a major inconvenience.

That's all right.

I would just note collectively the speakers have used up only about 25 minutes.

Okay.

Good evening.

I'm John DeLeac with the 302 government street.

I have my water with me because you can talk with my voice.

I may have trouble speaking tonight.

As you can see, there are lots of people here tonight, and you already have been listening for quite a while, and we appreciate the time that you're giving us to speak about this issue.

It's very important to Nevada City and to Nevada County, and I ask you to understand that there are a lot more people concerned than just the ones who have managed to show up tonight.

I'm here to speak about the very important issues of traffic.

Excuse me.

I'm sorry.

I'm not here to speak about the very important issues of traffic impact, the negative admiration, slope variances, architectural design, lot mergers, and the many other concerns of the people who feel this is not an appropriate project for Nevada City.

I'm here to talk about trees.

Now, that may sound simplistic, even tree hugger and all that, but it is indeed important, and it is a vital component in the process to deny this project.

So I am here to talk about this project's effect on various aspects of tree removal and the effect on the environment at the proposed site.

The main concerns have to do with the number and percentage of trees to be removed, the grading needed and its effect on tree removal, the scenic corridor, and compliance with the Nevada City General Plan.

The first of these issues I would like to address is the amount of trees to be lost to this project.

At the public hearing, the site plan had been changed, and there was a disagreement between the city engineer and the developer on the number of trees required to be removed.

There has been no clear conclusion related to the impact of tree removal in the negative declaration, and the Planning Commission has added them.

The figure we seem to be working with is approximately a hundred and ninety trees to be cut down, and these are trees that are at least eight inches in diameter at our chest height.

These trees, these are trees that are, excuse me, some of these trees are more than fifty years old and some over a hundred feet tall.

You can't replace them once they are gone.

This is a massive tree removal for so small a site.

The developer has offered a landscaping plan with new trees planted, but this is not the same thing.

You cannot compare a large pine, oak, or cedar that has been growing for fifty to a hundred years to a five to ten foot tall ornamental tree.

You do not come anywhere near the same coverage.

If you look at the developer's plan, you will see rows of trees along the entryways and driveways.

What you cannot tell is that those proposed trees, in some cases, are located where the retaining walls are.

You can see it on their plan over there, which is now covered up.

The question is, how well will trees survive if they are planted next to retaining walls or on top of retaining walls?
The plan over there just shows the trees.

It doesn't show the retaining walls.

If you look at other projects like this, you will find that there is not a good survival rate for trees planted in parking lots surrounded by buildings.

Nevada City has a long history upheld by this council and guided by your predecessors for the last twenty to thirty years of closely reviewing all projects and making their decision on preserving the city's wooded environment.

In the negative declaration, it was noted that tree removal will affect the tree cover essential ambience of the visual quality of the site.

That's a quote.

But there is no conclusion as to the overall significance of this fact.

I think the overall significance is tremendous.

You will not be able truly to understand the impact of the tree removal until the site has been cleared and then it is too late.

This issue alone is enough for you to deny this project now.

The second issue that I would like to talk about is grading.

Well, grading, what does this have to do with trees?
What happens to the site when it is graded and scraped?
All the trees that are in the way are mowed down.

That's from the smallest seedling, which is, you know, one inch little cedar tree.

You don't even notice them when we walk through the forest.

To many trees that are under the eight inches in diameter requirement, the seven inch, six inch, four inch trees, those are not important.

How many of these trees will be lost?
Many more than the hundred and ninety of the larger trees.

With this added to the nine hundred ninety figure, we see that about sixty percent of the trees on the site will be destroyed.

And once it is graded over, it will be built on and paved under.

One of the key policies in the conservation and scenic resources section of the general plan clearly states, "Prevent soil erosion and hillside scarring through control of grading, restriction on removal of vegetation, and limitation of development on steep slopes.

"
Nevada City has never allowed or even contemplated a mass grading of this size.

Have you considered the rampant environmental degradation that will follow this grading?
Have you considered how it will affect the streams in the area once those trees are gone and the ground is moved?
We've already experienced this.

Do you remember the grading done for the Elks Lodge next door to this site?
That caused the washout one winter of American Hill Road.

What a surprise.

We don't want another surprise.

This issue itself alone is enough for you to deny this project now.

The third issue I'd like to bring to your attention is a very important one, the scenic corridor.

Section 5.

03-01 of the zoning ordinance is the scenic corridor ordinance.

I quote, "These roadways are generally entryways to Nevada City which were recognized in the general plan as being particularly important to protecting the essential character of Nevada City, namely that of a small, compact, historical town surrounded by green, wooded hills, by hiding development from view from the highways, and preserving the existing tree cover to the greatest extent possible and assuring visually pleasing corridors through design control.

"
This is very clear and the attempt of this ordinance has not yet been met and the project has not been reviewed for compliance with this ordinance.

Have you gone out to the site to look at how this will affect the scenic corridor?
Have you considered what you will be seeing as you drive into Nevada City if these trees are removed and there is an 80 units of apartments on the site?
The project will be visible from Highway 49 and from West Broad Street.

No attempt has been made to ensure maximum tree screening.

This is a key entry point into Nevada City.

In the past, this has always been a strong emphasis for other projects in the scenic corridor, including the previous approval on this site.

The scenic corridor is not just to make our town attractive for tourists.

The reality is that it is mainly for us, but people who live in Nevada City and Nevada County, we are the ones who pass in and out of the city on a daily basis and we are the ones who appreciate the beauty we have here on a daily basis.

We are the ones who provide the economic basis for our community.

We are the ones who should have a say about protecting and preserving the wooded entryways into our town.

The preservation of the scenic corridor should be paramount for the City Council.

There is no other California foothills town that has the beautiful and natural ambience of Nevada City.

Really, there is no other town in California.

It's not Placerville.

It's certainly not Auburn.

It's not Sonora.

It's not even Carmel or Mendocino.

We have been working for more than 30 years to preserve a heritage we have in this town, a heritage that is not just the buildings, but also the trees and the hills and the streams.

It is vital that we continue to protect our community.

This alone is enough reason for you to deny this project now.

The final issue I'd like to address is the Nevada City General Plan and how it pertains to and protects Nevada City from the kind of tree removal this project requires.

This project does not comply with the Nevada City General Plan in any of the areas I have just discussed.

The removal of trees themselves, the grading and vegetative degradation that will result, and the impact on the scenic corridor.

As I've stated before, but it is worth repeating tonight, the General Plan says that it is particularly important to protect the existing essential character of Nevada City, namely that of a small, compact, historical town surrounded by green wooded hills, by dividing and hiding development from view from the highways and preserving the existing tree cover.

That says it all, doesn't it?
And we already wrote that.

Does this project protect the essential character of Nevada City?
No.

Does this project comply with us being a small, compact, historical town?
No.

Does this project hide development from view from the highways?
No.

Does this project preserve the existing tree cover to the greatest extent possible?
Again, no.

The intent of the General Plan has not been met and the project has not been adequately reviewed for compliance with the General Planning in any of the areas that have been addressed tonight.

These are all valid reasons for you to deny this project now.

As many of you know, I am a realtor and have been in Nevada County for 21 years.

I have probably helped well over 500 families find the home and property they have dreamed of, and the majority of those families have moved here from outside of Nevada County.

I can categorically say that 100% of those people I have served and worked with have moved here because of the beautiful surroundings we are blessed with in Nevada County.

This is our heritage and it is our treasure.

You, the City Council, for the City of Nevada City are facing a landmark decision.

What types of projects are we going to approve for Nevada City now and in the future?
How are we going to handle the inevitable growth?
What are we going to do for our citizens who need affordable housing?
How are we going to protect our natural environment?
There are alternatives.

We have three parcels and each could be developed separately with a lot less environmental impact.

We can have affordable housing.

We can have an heavily-care facility and we can have the beauty of the area preserved.

The decision you make this night, this week, will have long-term consequences for the direction we will go in the future.

This is a precedent-setting decision and you must make the right one.

If we follow the guidance of past City Councils, if we follow the guidance of the General Plan, and if we follow common sense, we will understand that this is not the right project for Nevada City now or ever.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Jack.

[applause] Jack, do you want to take a quick DV break here and change your tapes at this time?
Hello, I'm Victor Prusak at 234 American Hill Road.

My wife always yells at me after I speak in between saying that I can yell at the microphone.

[laughter] And I'm finally bringing that up because as opposed to John Daly, who's trying to kill him with his voice, my voice is fine.

I may be 10 years a middle school teacher used to projecting my voice without a mic, so I'm speaking to loudly audience members, council members, give me a little signal or something and I'll pipe down.

First off, I want to say that you've done a great job in the past, and previous City Council members and planning commissioners have done a great job with decisions they made in Nevada City.

And the evidence for that is what.

.

.

Excuse me, that was me Victor, I'm sorry.

[laughter] I don't have a wife among the elders.

[laughter] That was me.

It's an incredible place to live and it's why I'm assuming we all live here and it's why I live here.

I'm here to help and in helping, I want to do that by rather than supporting the Planning Commission, I'm here to help people return their decisions, their core decisions that they made.

There are many environmental concerns with this project all involving public health and safety, and these have not been addressed adequately by the developer.

The Planning Commission approved a negative declaration against the pointed advice of their own city staff.

Sewer and water issues have not been addressed adequately and CEQA policies have not been followed.

City staff, as of the last Planning Commission meeting, have not received adequate assurances that the health and safety issues covered in the negative debt have been or even can be satisfactorily mitigated.

As evidence of that, we have two documents, so to speak.

We have the draft of the minutes of that meeting and I'm assuming that that's the only written record that we have of the Planning Commission meeting.

Those minutes have not yet been adopted by the Planning Commission because the Planning Commission has not met since their last meeting.

And then we have the videotape of the meeting, which I attended.

It's the videotape which for now at least has to be the only true record of that meeting, certainly until the minutes are adopted.

And I'm not certain if members of the City Council have all had a chance to view that very long and very surreal, as I said a few weeks ago, Planning Commission meeting.

So I will actually quote from both the written documents, the so-called minutes, and then do a little comparison study, just of one section of what actually occurred at the meeting.

And this has been quoted from the videotape.

On page 15, paragraph 6 of these draft minutes, Mr.
Stewart, I'm quoting now, asked the City Engineer if the revised plan meets the mitigation set forth in the proposed mitigated negative declaration.

Mr.
Fauconi responded simply, "No.

"
The minutes, again, which I hope you're not using as the public record at this point, add the line of "and that it needs to be modified," as if he's saying that if there's a door open there, he thinks maybe it can be modified.

The true version of the events from the videotape differ.

On the videotape, as it states, Harry Stewart asks, "We have this proposed negative declaration in front of us.

"
Correct.

Bill Fauconi responds with "right.

"
Stewart continues, "What I'm asking is, does the plans that have been submitted address the issues in that proposed negative declaration?"
Bill Fauconi responds simply, "No.

"
Harry Stewart then says, "I'll ask the same question of the Public Works Director.

Notice there's no mention of 'it needs to be modified.

'"
Vern Taylor responds with "for my portion, I would say no.

"
Harry Stewart then pushes further, asking him, "Can you tell us where?"
Harry Stewart then tells him, "I'm not sure what the material is, but I think it's probably fixable, but it's a gut reaction, and that's not good enough right now.

"
Mr.
Stewart, along with Commissioners Poulter and Rose, chose to ignore their paid professionals, whose business it is to make these recommendations, these the people who've done the work, and know when to say yes and when to say no.

The commissioners ignore their advice.

Commissioner Stewart stated that he was ignoring them because the city did not respond to the plans of AHDC in a timely manner.

Maybe the city staff didn't, maybe they did.

That's irrelevant as to whether or not to grant somebody a variance.

It has nothing to do with a negative declaration.

The project of this scope, 80 units and up to 324 people, not the 100 and something or the 200 or something that we've seen float around in the union, has never been dealt with by our city before, nothing of this scope.

And therefore it raises a host of issues regarding public health and safety, which we do not know the answers to.

If you look in our appeal, in Addendum A, all eight pages, there's mentions of the various problems with the negative debt.

One of these is CEQA.

The project is out of compliance with state law on over 10 issues, including just the following three.

Inadequate public noticing, it should have been 30 days and not 20.

Inadequate noticing to lead state agencies, including Fish and Game, Department of Transportation and BEPA.

Inadequate project description, those are just three of the many.

Sewage, another major health and safety issue.

Storage tanks, pumps, grinders.

Have we heard the word blackouts?
The developer is not aware that in our town, and I've only lived here three years now, in those three years, every single winter we've experienced extended blackouts, including in downtown Nevada City.

I've heard from local residents that while they sometimes last only a few hours or a few days, they've also been known to go on for a week.

I hate to think what is going to happen to that sewage when the storage tank no longer has pumps to pump into it.

Toilets start backing up and the like.

The health and safety issues could be potentially devastating, not just for the residents in the 80 units, but for those of us living downhill off of Roger Williams Ravine, which is where the sewage will head and eventually into Deer Creek.

The City delivery system, again, of the sewage system, we've heard from City staff that while they're short of the plant, can handle the increase in sewage.

They're not sure that the delivery system itself can handle it.

The Spear of Influence plant calls for gravity flow for large projects.

It specifies that, and the Spear of Influence plant does not make any reference at all to pumps, grinders, and storage tanks.

Water flow demands.

Many residents came up at the Planning Commission meeting to the mic that's usually behind me and talked about how there's already inadequate water pressure through much of Nevada City.

Imagine what will happen when we suddenly increase 10 percent usage on that water system that's already being taxed.

Just yesterday evening at 6 p.

m.

, we went out to water our few perennials that we have in our lawn on American Hill just below the project along Roger Williams Ravine.

There was barely enough pressure to have one spigot on to just water about a six-foot radius to get some of those plants wet.

Again, imagine what will happen when we add 324 people doing their laundry, washing their cars, and the like.

Detention basins.

That's something which I never thought I would even know what it was, but yes, I got online and did a little research.

These massive water runoff storage facilities take numerous forms.

Some mitigate environmental hazards and public health and safety issues, better than others.

What will the ones of AHDC do?
We have no experience in dealing with detention basins in our town.

It's all new.

And yet, the Planning Commissioners have no problem in just approving them.

These are simply assembling dozens of issues and concerns regarding public health and safety new to Nevada City that a project of this scope raises part of a great community.

And I urge you to overturn the Planning Commission and to deny this project.

Thank you.

I will ask you one more time to please refrain from applause.

Thank you.

Again, my name is Paul Madison on North Pine Street.

And one of the many issues that really glossed over by the applicant was the history of the site.

And basically, not being an expert on CEQA, I do know that what really CEQA wants to see happen is that, you know, those funny little plaques you see where in 1849 on this site nothing happened.

That's kind of what CEQA is looking for.

And the consultant that was hired said basically two things.

You know, the clampers, you never know about the clampers.

There's a little plaque up there.

And there wasn't much written about the project.

Well, I have been able to find six things that were written about the project.

The history of Nevada County by Thompson West, it identifies that as a site where hydraulic mining was established.

The Geologic Guidebook along Nevada, along Highway 49 is here at a Gold Ball Belt.

The California Gold Rush.

Gold Rush Days in Nevada City by H.

P.

Bailey.

The origins of hydraulic mining in California and hydraulicing by Bob Wyckoff, Charles Woods and David Osborne.

All point to this site as being the place.

Mr.
Wyckoff had a letter to me which I asked him to write.

It says, "American Hill in Nevada City is located in the general area of West Broad Street, across from the northwest, by Cross from and northwest from Pioneer Cemetery.

It was here in April of 1853 that E.

E.

Mattson, M.

A.

T.

T.

E.

S.

O.

N.

, a miner from Connecticut, made the first successful attempt at hydraulic mining.

In a land where we honor superlatives, the site of the birth of one of the three principal gold mining methods is significant and worth preservation.

"
He didn't think too much about the timing of how the clampers either bothered or the law of blacks, including the one from the province of the plaza here in Nevada City.

Secondly, I'd like to just tell you sort of what happened.

There were three men according to H.

P.

Bailey and his book, "Gold Rush into Nevada City.

"
They came across the plains together.

One was Antoine Chabot.

And Chabot was really good at piping things.

He developed a process, a place called Fuck Eye Hill, which was called ground sluicing.

And he had a hose, and the first hose was made up of hide with hair still on it, about 40 feet long.

And the soils were washed in a rapid fashion into a sluice, and the gold was extracted.

Mr.
Chabot was kind of a big deal in his own right.

He went to Oakland and formed the Oakland Gas Life Company, the name of a lake in a college after him.

He was the person that brought water to the city of San Francisco for the first time from a close localist creek.

He established the water company at Portland, Maine, and the water company in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

So he was kind of good at piping things.

And another man, Eli Miller, was with them.

He was a hidden swivel.

And then the third man, of course, was Edward A.

Madison.

Not only invented the monitor, he also invented the Hyper-Lucking Derek, which he did patent and manufactured after his gold mining days on the corner of Factory Mill Street here for several years.

And it was a machine powered by water that could raise heavy equipment up and down from the mines.

So they were hired by A.

P.

Caldwell to go to work on the American Hill site.

And what Madison did was, and I wish this was a gift, it has ribbon around it, but I can't really give it away.

Excuse me, Mr.
Chairman, just a point of work, Bob.

You know I've, no one encourages public input more than I do.

My curiosity is, to which appeal are you addressing?
C-book.

You're addressing C-book?
Yes.

I thought we had completed that appeal.

We had not.

I'm sorry?
No, we had not.

Were you making the time?
Well, we're all listed on the appeal, actually.

I just want to make sure that we're following the format that was described by the chair at the beginning when there was a request to divert from it.

He said, no, we will stick to the format as written.

Well, Mr.
Spann did not use all of his time, so the associated kids used the remaining time.

So they banked time.

Right.

Is that issue tied or not under C-book?
No, I was curious what you said.

I thought we were ready for misgivin.

I'm curious which of the seven you were at the end.

We are on the sequel issue, which was, we believe that the history of the site was completely blown off in this process.

And so what Madison did, she took Chabot's hoes, which had a 40-foot drop, and Madison, if I may explain him, for one moment, he didn't like the idea of these hillsides caving in on him all the time.

And one bank was pretty high, he said, and the danger was caving considerable.

One cave nearly caught me wrenching a pick from my hand.

I spoke to my partners about using the water against the bank under pressure.

This danger told me to put my theory into practice.

I constructed a hose four inches of diameter, 40 feet long, out of raw height with the hair of the outsides open, and so on.

And with this invention, here is his invention, he tapered this device to increase the pressure over what was being used by Chabot and the Grouse-Lussie message, and was able to create these tremendous jets of water, which would just dissolve the soil around a big boulder and have it come tumbling down with very little manpower being required.

We know it was 1853 because of the Rock Creek Water Company bill, which were $150 a week in Madison's time.

And one of his big concerns was that the water bill was going to be soon to be MRI'd, it wouldn't make any money on gold mining.

But the four partners, Caldwell, Madison, Miller, and Chabot, made a profit according to Madison, $50 a day each.

So that is what he did.

He tapered this thing, Miller wrapped this steel pipe around, this is bronze up here, and everybody started using it because it was so inexpensive, so powerful, and so much work could be accomplished with so few people.

Now, was the site significant or not?
I think it was tremendously significant.

The whole hydraulic history of California came, if you head to that site, the proposal here is to remove 15,000 cubic yards of dirt, which is about 8,000 dump truck loads, on the cut side, and then put somewhere else, 14,000 cubic yards of dirt on the fill side, which is a little less than 2,000 dump truck loads.

So we think it's really going to be mowing down this site as this, of itself, is significant enough evidence to deny this project.

One more quote here from the hydraulic press of North San Juan, September 15, 1860.

"There is a man in this country of Nevada who, by one boldly inventive stroke, has done more to increase the wealth of California than all of California's governors, senators, congressmen, and legislators put together.

The man we meet is Edward A.

Madison, who invented the hydraulic mining process, and be pleaded to his fellow workers without fear reward, or without even asking for a patent right for it.

By this process, the hills of a rich or a scull, whose stubborn sides are and will forever continue to be impregnable to the killing assaults of this baited pick, have been made to discourage their millions of the long-hidden wealth.

His labors, like the magic of Aladdin's lamp, have broken into the innermost caves of the mountains, snatched their imprisoned treasures, and poured them in golden showers into the lap of civilized humanity.

"
We say we're an historically significant site.

This device here was from the site, from a collection of H.

P.

Davis.

So thank you very much.

I would like to thank you for your support.

I'm Gail Cox, my husband and my chief lived at 115 Covey Street.

I'm a realtor with Good & Company at 424 Broad Street.

So I have a personal and professional interest in Nevada City.

I'm not going to have as much fun as Paul did with the history.

I'm not going to be able to entertain you as much.

But I do have some rather heartfelt remarks to make very briefly.

First of all, thank you for the planned growth that you've used to keep our town to town, and not a series of large developments.

I ask that you follow your own advice and deny the current proposed project.

It is on a scale for Nevada City.

The proposed project, as you've heard, would increase our population by 10% overnight, which is slightly over half of the increase that has been enjoyed in Nevada City in the last 10 years.

Grass Valley recently resisted pressure from the developer to meet its short timeline and denied approval for an 81-unit apartment complex because of traffic, noise, and infrastructure considerations.

And that was next to the freeway in an area of apartment complexes, not downtown.

If approved, this 80-unit complex would be the largest residential plant ever approved in the city.

As Sally Harris pointed out in the past, 36 has been the maximum number of units approved at one time.

In this project, traffic would increase by 600 to 800 car trips a day, much of it down Broad Street.

There is no egress from the project directly onto Highway 49.

Broad Street or American Hill via Chief Kelly Drive, then Bennett or Pine, are the points of entry and exit from this project.

Chief Kelly Drive will be put through also the service of 20 houses that are due to be built on the adjoining property on American Hill.

Traffic to and from Semin Hill and the Root Center flows up and down Broad Street.

Many people are currently brought through Nevada City, up and down West Broad, to access Highway 49 because of the difficulty of the intersection of Highway 49 and Highway 20.

This project will add to the commute impact within Nevada City, as others will use that street to go to and from work.

The developers' advisors suggest a stoplight at Pine and Broad Streets.

We don't have a stoplight anywhere in Nevada City currently.

The same consultants advised against a stop sign going up-broad at Bennett Street, noting that it would back traffic up into the Cottage Street/T intersection.

The other day, I drove up Cottage, where I lived, to turn left onto Broad Street, in front of Grand Mears.

And there were six of us, Pine and the inner Broad Street, in front of Grand Mears.

Two were coming up the hill from commercial and Broad.

Two were coming down from east and west Broad, one at Bennett, and me from Cottage.

And there we were.

There were also a couple of pedestrians trying to negotiate Broad Street, and that wasn't even the morning of the schoolchildren walking to the bus stop.

With a little jockeying and humor, we all made it through with no accidents.

But picture an added 600-800 car trips a day on Broad Street and beyond.

There will be more appropriate designs for affordable housing on this property.

The haste to approve this project will not serve Nevada City well.

There is no compelling reason to approve this lot merger and variances for the benefit of the developer.

I ask you, using John Daly's rhetorical technique, is CEQA being uphill?
No.

Are the health and safety issues satisfactorily resolved?
No.

Have we considered the history of this site?
No.

Are we ready for a large increase in our traffic and a 10% overnight increase in population?
No.

I ask you to uphold this appeal and deny the project.

We can do better to make Nevada City the Superb 10 U.

S.