This council meeting includes:
- Discussion of the American Hill landmark honoring the invention of hydraulic mining on American Hill in 1853 by E. E. Mattson, Chabot, Madison and Miller using a 40‑foot hose, monitor, hydraulic derrick with its lasting environmental and economic impacts, framing it as a pivotal yet destructive era.
- The meeting shifts to a contemporary issue: an proposed 80‑unit residential project on American Hill that critics say would overwhelm Nevada City’s character, traffic (600–800 daily trips; need for a Pine–Broad signal), water supply, and public services.
- The document flags CEQA concerns: alleged planning commission errors, variances lacking required findings, inadequate initial environmental review, and failure to submit the initial study/negative declaration to the state Clearinghouse, with references to state historic preservation input.
- Perspectives from Friends of Nevada City and others stress three fatal flaws—procedural mistakes, incomplete environmental review, and unsubstantiated variances—and urge a restart of CEQA to protect the town’s historic character.
- It adds procedural details from the May 14, 2001 Planning Commission process: claims of rushed approvals, incomplete information, pressure to approve changes, and debates over whether modifications were substantial; a timeline dispute about grading plans persists.
- The speaker defends the process, acknowledging a mistake and explaining CEQA handling (possible shift from mitigated negative declaration to an Environmental Impact Report); notes three years of site work, revised traffic studies, and efforts to integrate CEQA early, while acknowledging public-noticing hiccups and staff/procedural concerns.

Full Transcript of the Video:

There's that 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 and West identifies that as a site where hydraulic mining was established.

The geologic guidebook along Nevada along Highway 49 this year in Goldbelt, the California Gold Rush-- Gold Rush Days in Nevada City by HP Daily, the origins of hydraulic mining in California, and hydraulicing by Bob Wyckoff, Charles Woods, and David Osborne.

I'll point to this site as being the place.

Mr.
Wyckoff in a letter to me which I asked him to write says, "American Hill in Nevada City is located in the general area of West Broad Street, across from the Northwest 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.

"
And he didn't think too much about the comment about the clamp.

Bob has written a lot of flax, including the one for Robinson 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.

Daly in his book, Gold Rush in Nevada City, that came across the plains together.

One was Antoine Chabot.

And Chabot was really good at piping things.

And he developed a process, a place called Buckeye Hill, which was called ground-sloosing.

And he had a hose.

And the first hose was made out of hide with hair still on it.

It's 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 Light Company.

They named a lake and a college after him.

He was the person that brought water to the city of San Francisco for the first time from Los Lobos 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.

And he was a tinsmith.

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

Madison, who not only invented the monitor, he also invented the hydraulic derrick, which he did patent and manufactured after his gold mining days on the corner of factory in 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 AP Caldwell to go to work on the American Hill site.

And what Madison did was-- 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 order, Paul.

No one encourages public input more than I do.

My curiosity is, to which appeal are you addressing?
Sequo.

You're addressing Sequo?
Yes.

I thought we had completed that appeal.

We had not.

I'm sorry?
No, we had not.

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

Well, 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 an associate of his used the remaining time.

So they banked time.

Mike.

Is that issue tied, or they were not under Sequo?
No, I was curious which of the seven.

I thought we were ready for misgivings.

So I was kind of curious which of the seven you were appealing.

We are on the Sequo 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 quote 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 from us caving considerable.

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

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

This danger impaled me to put my theory into practice.

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

And with this invention-- here was his invention-- he tapered this device to increase the pressure over what was being used by Shabo in the ground listing 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 bills, which were $153 a week in Madison's time.

And one of his big concerns was the water bill was going to be so damn high, he wouldn't make any money on the gold money.

But the four partners, Caldwell, Madison, Miller, and Shabo, made a profit according to Madison of $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 became-- began at 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 it somewhere else in 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 of 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 mean is Edward A.

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

By this process, the hills of oriferous gold, whose stubborn sides are and will forever continue to be impregnable to the puny assault of the spade and pick, have been made to discourage their millions of long-hidden wealth.

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

"
We say this is a very historically significant site.

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

So thank you very much.

I would like to now defer it to you, Gail.

(audience applauds) - Thanks.

Still under Z-book, council and staff.

I'm Gail Fox.

My husband and I, Jean, live at 115 Cottage Street, and I'm a realtor with Good & Company at 424 Broad Street.

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

I'm not going to have as much fun as Paul did with the history, and 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 have used to keep our town a town, and not a series of large developments.

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

It is out of 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 a 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 plan ever approved in Nevada 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 to service the 20 houses that are due to be built on the adjoining property on American Hill.

Traffic to and from cement hill on the Rood Center flows up and down Broad Street.

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

This project will add to the commute impact within Nevada City, as others will use Broad 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 trying to enter 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 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 to 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 upheld?
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 town you have planned.

- Thank you.

Okay, and we have the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the tentative lot merger, approval of the variances, steep slope and seasonal stream setbacks, and approval of tree removal, architectural review, and negative declaration.

Abigail? - This appeal was put in by-- - Need to come to the microphone, please.

- I'm Abigail Givens.

I'm president of the Friends of Nevada City group, and we've elected, and Joseph Reistorf has graciously agreed to deliver this appeal coming from the entire group Friends of Nevada City.

Thank you, Joseph.

- Good evening, my name is Joseph Reistorf.

I live at 122-88 Gale Lane.

I'm not a long-term resident of Nevada City, so I can't really speak with the passion and the emotion that probably a lot of the other speakers have, but perhaps I can provide a little bit of perspective.

In my real life, I work as an environmental consultant for cities and counties around the state, primarily on various types of recycling projects, but I also work for some private developers who are interested in developing different types of recycling and composting projects.

And in that capacity, I've spent a lot of time on this side of the table in various planning commission meetings, public hearings, city council meetings, and it really gained a perspective of what it takes to get a project through.

I think it was Gary and his comments mentioned when he was discussing the variance issue, talked about how cities and counties typically make it very difficult to get a variance for the very simple reason that they're trying to preserve the integrity and the character of their communities.

That's been my experience, and I've had several opportunities, occurrences where I've had to tell clients that I advise them not to proceed with that variance application because the bar was just too high, that no matter how much they wanted it and how much they thought they could make their case, it didn't meet the criteria set in the city zoning code, and that's the case here.

But before I go on, I just wanted to kind of back up a little bit.

First of all, thank you for providing this series of meetings for the next three nights, and also agreeing to go ahead with the hearings tonight despite the fact that your legal councils advise you that there might be a different alternative and a different approach.

But when you look around the community, it's clear that the view and your predecessors and the people that have lived here for the last 50 to 100 years have really taken good care of this community.

They've worked hard to preserve its character to make it really stand out.

I've sent postcards, copies of videotapes, and so forth to relatives that I have in other parts of the country, and they've just always been amazed at the beauty and the character of this place and how it stands out from a lot of other communities.

But when you, given that though, when you look around and see how well a community has been preserved, it really raises the question, well, how did we get here tonight?
How did this project get this far in the process?
And I think there are a number of serious flaws that have occurred up to this point that have allowed that to happen.

In preparing our appeal, we spent a lot of time going through the documents and the record, looking at the process, looking at the procedure, and we really saw three primary reasons why this project should be denied.

The first is that there are a series of procedural errors that in total make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Planning Commission to have made and reached an informed decision about the potential environmental and community impacts of the project.

The second is that the environmental review conducted by the city was inadequate and failed to consider all of the potential environmental impacts of the project.

And the third primary reason is that the Planning Commission approved variances for the project without making any of the necessary findings or determinations required by the zoning code and without complete details in the project's scope, design, and layout.

These are all fatal flaws, and I hope you could consider all the arguments that have been made tonight.

I think everybody spoke quite eloquently, and I'll attempt not to be repetitious, but maybe just to highlight some of the things that I think are some of the most significant issues that you should consider.

With regard to the procedural errors, the CEQA guidelines, and in fact your own policies that you've established for processing CEQA documents, are fairly clear about how projects should be analyzed and processed.

It talks about a pre-application phase, an application phase, and then an analysis phase.

And what's really happened here, and I think this is probably a characteristic that can be applied to everything that's happened up to this point, and that was really a rush to judgment.

There just seemed to be a lot of impetus to move this project forward before all the details of the project were known.

And that, I think, can be evidenced by the fact that on the very night that it was presented before the Planning Commission for final action, new site plans, new changes to the design were still being presented.

And even though the Planning Commission approved architectural review, there really weren't any architectural details to be approved.

They simply deferred that decision later to a committee, and that is simply not good planning.

Moving, approving decisions, making decisions, and granting approvals when the details are to come in the future just almost always leads to bad decisions.

It was just amazing to me to see how much, how far the project had moved forward in the process before an application had even been filed.

Again, your own guidelines and the CEQA guidelines talk about very specific events that are supposed to occur in the process, one of which is the actual submittal of an application.

And that's actually a significant event because it sets a couple of clocks in motion.

The amount of time that a city or a county has for issuing a letter of completion, for completing the initial study, for actually, the grant then eventually coming to a decision on the project.

That event never occurred.

There was the advisory review committee made a decision on the type of environmental document that would be required before even receiving an application from the applicant, and before many of the supporting documents and studies that were to go along with the project were presented.

There was actually no basis for making that decision and that early in the process.

(paper rustling) During the planning commission meeting, several issues were brought up that were addressed partially in some of the documentation up to that point.

Traffic, water supplies, adequacy of public services.

And many of those issues, it was clear that there weren't any answers yet.

It was amazing to me to see the planning commission in direct conflict to some of the advice given to them by the city staff approved the project.

The city engineer made it quite clear that he didn't believe that there was adequate water pressure to meet the needs of the project, and it couldn't determine at that point what impacts that the project would have on the water supply for the surrounding communities.

Yet the planning commission simply ignored that advice and moved forward with approval of the project.

Those I think are some of the serious flaws of the approval process.

We hope that you will certainly consider the advice of your legal counsel and recognize that the environmental review of the project was inadequate and that you really need to kind of go back to the beginning and start over.

But I think you have to kind of look at what, if you go through the process, where will you end up?
What should really be done at this point is have the developer present to you the final design and details of the project.

Up to this point it's been a moving target with details constantly being changed and new submittals being given throughout the process.

Once that's done, then a comprehensive and thorough initial study using the checklist in your own guidelines should be completed.

At that point there's no doubt that the likely decision will be to do a full EIR.

The EIR will be prepared subject to public review, comments submitted, and so forth.

And then we would be back here where we are tonight, which is still trying to see if a project that is incompatible with the character of the city too large for this site should move forward.

And that gets back to the final point of the-- I think of our argument, which is that the variances which were provided by the city-- which were approved by the Planning Commission were approved without any of the justifications or findings made that are in the zoning code.

This morning I picked up a copy of the approval letter that the city recently sent to the developer after the Planning Commission meeting.

That's the letter dated May 14.

In the initial staff report on the sections that dealt with the variances, there really were no attempt at all was made to provide any type of justification.

That area of the staff report was simply left blank.

The wording that was provided in the approval letter based on the Planning Commission's action that was sent to the developer stated that special circumstances applicable to the property include the topography due to previous use as a hydraulic mine site.

And that to apply a strict standard to this applicant would reduce his utilization of the property from a potential of as many as 80 units down to 24, creates a hardship, which is inordinate compared to other people's properties, and would preclude any type of affordable housing.

There's no justification for that statement.

And in fact, it applies that as the city's responsibility to guarantee developers full utilization of their property regardless of what it takes to achieve that full utilization, in this case, massive grading, construction of retaining walls, and encroachment on seasonal streams and wetlands.

That isn't what the purpose of the zoning code is.

And that comes nowhere near providing any type of justification.

Several of the other speakers have indicated the topography of this area consists of a variety of slopes, 30%, some greater, some natural, some man-made.

And we live with those slopes.

That's the character of the community in which we live.

We construct homes.

We construct buildings, roads, and so forth to deal with those.

We don't come in and level them and then try to maximize-- just so we can maximize use of the property.

That isn't a right of any property owner.

And it's not consistent in any way or supported by anything in the zoning code or the general plan.

The same has to do with the variance granted for the setback from the seasonal stream.

Again, no justification or substantiation was provided in the staff report or in the planning commission's findings.

So the net result would be that if you decide that the project really needs a thorough environmental review, which it has not had up till now, and that you submit it to that, we could be back here.

And you'll still have a project that will require some significant variances to be approved.

And the findings for those will not be there.

No information is going to come forward that will substantiate that.

And it's all likelihood that during the course of conducting a full environmental impact report, additional environmental flaws and significant impacts of the project will be identified.

We just heard a very interesting presentation regarding the historical impact of the project.

One of the things that was not done with the initial study and proposed negative declaration for the project was that it was not sent to the state clearinghouse.

There are the characteristics of the project because it has impacts that fall into the jurisdiction of various state agencies require it under the guide under the CEQA statutes that it should have been sent to the public clearinghouse.

It's a very convenient way of making sure that the projects that have regional significance are reviewed by the appropriate state agencies.

If it had been sent to the state clearinghouse, a letter that was received from the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks and Recreation dated May 21, after the planning commission hearing took place, would have been received and put in the record so that it could have been considered prior to anybody making a decision on this.

And this letter pointed out several significant factors that should have been considered regarding the historical impact of the site.

And I'll just quote briefly, and this is a letter from Dr.
Knox Mellon.

He's a state historic preservation officer.

He says, "The 1988 amendments to the CEQA guidelines also include a stricter definition of what constitutes substantial adverse changes to historical resource, and therefore what constitutes a significant effect on the environment in relation to historical resources.

The guidelines now state, quote, "substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, re-location, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings, such that the significance of historical resource would be materially impaired.

"
That describes exactly what the plan is for this site.

In summary, we encourage you to take the advice of a legal counsel and recognize that the environmental review that was conducted for this project is woefully inadequate.

It left many issues unaddressed.

The traffic issue, while the impacts were identified, there was absolutely no mitigations provided.

That issue was just dropped and left there.

As other speakers have pointed out, by approving this project, you're increasing the population of the city by over 10% with one simple approval.

There's really been no analysis of whether the city's infrastructure and public services can accommodate this.

And thirdly, the variances that are required to make this project happen cannot be substantiated.

There's no evidence in the record.

There's no indication that even if you did a full environmental impact report, it came back four to six months from now, that any new information would come forward that would help you substantiate the granting of the variances.

So we ask you to overturn the planning commission's approvals of this project and to help maintain the character of our community.

Thank you.

Joseph, are you aware that the letter you referenced from the state was in response to an inquiry on a residential piece of property, not on this project?
It's not clear in there what actually prompted the letter.

However, I think that the tone of the letter and the way in which he characterized the impacts was certainly applied to this project.

But just so everybody is clear, that's not a letter sent from the state in response to any inquiry on this project.

And in fact, I was with the city planner when a call was made to that office to clarify that point.

That inquiry was made relative to private residences on Boulder Street.

Thank you.

And my point of bringing it up was the fact that if the negative declaration for the project had been submitted to the state clearinghouse, this type of letter probably would have been serviced as part of the normal review of the project.

You mentioned a letter from the city on the justification for the final approval.

What was that again?
I was quoting earlier from the-- Letter from the Commission.

Yes, it's the standard approval letter that the Planning Commission sends to the developer after action by the Planning Commission.

And stated May 14, 2001.

It includes the final findings that were adopted by the Planning Commission.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Before we start with the rebuttals, let me take about a five minute break just to stretch our legs.

We will-- we'll-- Everything.

We'll-- we'll-- Everything.

If I don't know it, I'd make it up.

That's my motto.

Well, I'd like to commend the eight-- eight appellants.

It worked out to exactly two hours, which is what the designated amount of time was.

So thank you very much.

We will now then hear the rebuttals.

So Victor, are you speaking for-- Gary.

Gary.

OK.

And again, the-- and you're going to be speaking in rebuttal to the-- site plan.

OK.

Keep in mind that the 15 minute is still in effect.

Gary Johnson, 210 Drummond Street, Nevada City.

This will be brief because the reasons for-- the reasons for the rebuttal are very simple.

The site plan was not approved by the Planning Commission because the city engineer, the Planning Commission, and the public never had a chance to review the plan that was put before the Planning Commissioners for a vote.

So further, this site plan was not in the Planning Commissioner's packets, nor was it available for study by the city engineer in advance of the May 10 meeting.

I believe that it was received at the city on May 7.

That was after the packets were sent out.

And it just wasn't available.

So it seems presumptuous on the part of the developer to even expect the passage of this document with no review.

I was amazed that it seemed like they just waltzed in here and dropped one in front of each Planning Commissioner with the expectation that it would be approved.

Further, after a full-size site plan of which-- I'm going to ask Victor to hold up.

After a full-size site plan was submitted for the required amount of time, one that you can actually lay out on a table and read, they came in with this, this little 11 by 17-size, reduced-size document, and dropped it in front of everybody, and had the expectation that they would be able to vote on that.

So it just seems incredible that we could even consider that that approval could even-- that the developer could even consider that the approval could possibly happen.

And what in fact actually happened is that the site plan wasn't denied.

What happened was that the modifications to the previously submitted site plan were not approved, because that's what the new site plan was, was modifications to the site plan that they had reviewed.

So how could they approve a site plan that they hadn't really seen?
They certainly couldn't approve it by looking at it for a couple of minutes.

So I urge you to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal.

Thank you.

And if there's anyone else who wants to use some of this time from our group to add any additional information, then I will defer the rest of my time to them.

Thank you.

I would just to even make more clear what Gary's talking about here is that the developer came up and spoke earlier during their appeal and said they don't understand what they're really supposed to point at, because there was no recommendation.

Well, that's really because they were putting heavy pressure on the Planning Commission not to ask for continuance for another two weeks, because then they'd missed their June 15th deadline.

And what the Planning Commission really should have done was said, we don't have enough time, not enough information, to look at this new site plan.

So let's have a continuance.

But of course, if they'd done that, there goes their funding.

And so Harry Stewart and the other commissioners, in a sense, didn't pass it, because there wasn't enough information there.

And really, what they should have done was just ask for a continuance.

But that's not something the developer would have wanted.

[END PLAYBACK] I do have one more brief comment that I forgot to mention.

And that is that the developer got up a few moments ago, Mr.
Span or the developer's representative, and said that the changes to the new site plan were minimal.

That was his word.

And he also said that they were not substantial.

We went from 50,000 cubic yards of grading to 18,000 cubic yards of grading.

I would call that substantial.

Thank you.

OK, thank you.

And there was no grading plan with that new site plan.

Thank you.

OK, Mr.
Span, would you like to issue a rebuttal to the-- Which one?
Actually, number two is actually the city planner's rebuttal, I believe.

Oh, that's true.

I'm sorry.

My mistake.

I guess, yes, I guess this is to the temperature.

Well, I did write, council members, a memo to you in which I discussed some of the issues that were mentioned by Mr.
Pemperton.

I think one of the concerns that I've heard this evening, the greatest concerns, was the processing of the CEQA document and whether CEQA was followed or not, and the sense that there was a rush to judgment.

We had a preliminary application meeting in December, and that was with the full staff.

And we decided to go to the mitigated negative declaration route at that point in time, and that's what we did.

We heard this evening from council that a project of this type, or what's been disclosed since then, looks like we might be in EIR territory, and that seems to have come as a result of this.

But at that time, we had spent three years working on this site.

We had already approved two projects on this site, parcel map on this site, road alignment on this site.

Our knowledge from the staff point of view was pretty thorough about this site.

There was some things we didn't know.

We asked for a large group of studies to be done.

Studies came in.

They were reviewed.

They went back for revamping.

For instance, the original traffic study used a model of six trips per unit and per day, and we changed that to 10 trips per day because we felt that would be more realistic.

So we made an attempt through our peer review to have real good objective studies.

There is a lot of question-- there is question about the January 22nd ARC, and I can understand that.

And there's been some quotations of the CEQA guidelines.

And I do understand that when an application comes in, a clock starts ticking.

You have to have a CEQA document done by a certain amount of days that's required by a public agency.

I'm not sure we have a CEQA expert here, or you can jump in any time.

But what I read in CEQA is that you can begin the CEQA process earlier, and that's what we were attempting to do this to make a better application than what we thought we were going to receive.

In my memo, I did quote what I was relying on.

That was CEQA guidelines section 15004B.

And I've got that here in front of me.

And so you can-- this was what the decision was based on for that January 22nd ARC.

CEQA guidelines say this.

"Choosing the precise time for CEQA compliance involves a balancing of computing factors.

EIRs and negative declarations should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project, program, and design, and yet lead enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment.

With private projects, the lead agency shall encourage the project proponent to incorporate environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design, and planning at the earliest feasible time.

"
That's what we were attempting to do.

And we made a shot at it.

The results are what they are.

The CEQA document that the Planning Commission approved, as has been said before, is not that document.

It was a document that was prepared and approved by ARC after the application was deemed complete.

So I think that's probably enough on that.

Now, to some of the specifics of Mr.
Pemperton's appeal, question of whether staff was working on behalf of the applicant.

Well, the file speaks for itself.

And on that score, he mentioned a letter that was written to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.

That's a letter that was never sent out.

It was shelved.

It was a zoning verification letter that was requested.

It was shelved because of the September meeting that the city council had.

So we were waiting until you made your decision on whether to send that out.

It was never sent out.

The letter to the home administration.

That was the letter-- it was an informational letter that was requested.

Now, as city planner, I provide letters all week long to anyone who asks for it that concerns public information.

And on request, I send letters verifying zoning and project information and planning procedures.

And they go to title companies and public agencies and developers and all kinds of people.

And where I get my information is from our ordinances, our resolutions, our planning processes, and the project information that applicants supply me with.

Now, at the time that letter was written, we had not received our preliminary site plan.

We had not received our application.

So I asked Mr.
Spann what his application would involve.

And he said it would involve site plan and architecture approval.

And there'd be no discretionary approvals asked for.

No variance is requested.

That's what I put in that informational letter about the zoning.

This is what the project is going to be or will be.

I put in a future text, Ted's.

When I read the letter now, I go, well, in retrospect, I should have been clear about where the information came from, but that explains what that letter is, because that was something that had come up.

There's a letter about a revitalization zone.

That letter I'd never seen before a couple of weeks ago.

It was never circulated to staff, at least not to me.

And it never was on the city council agenda.

So that was news to me that that letter was in the file.

But I do remember Mr.
Spann calling me and asking me if I would be-- he expressed the ideas in that revitalization zone.

This was several months ago.

And I remember advising him that it was extremely unlikely the city council would want to have a revitalization zone for a project that has not even been approved.

No application has even been submitted yet.

And so I suggested that if you wanted to pursue this idea to contact some other land use planner, I suggested Nevada City Engineering was on retainer at that time.

And their land use planner, Andy Cassano, might be one person you might consider, since they were involved in this project at that point.

And then I immediately told the city manager about that conversation.

So that's all there is to that letter.

There was a question about the ARC meeting.

As you know, as I mentioned before, we did have a public noticing snafu.

It was the first week in the new city hall.

And we didn't even have the agenda board up.

But that doesn't justify a mistake.

The mistake was made.

And to that end, I have had discussions with the city clerk.

And we discussed how staff procedures can improve.

So a mistake like that would never happen again.

There was a question about Brown Act discussion at the ARC meeting on January 22.

And what that was, when I do recall that conversation, when Commissioner Stewart left the meeting, and he left the meeting for several reasons.

And I went to-- I caught Jim Anderson.

He was in the building.

I asked the city attorney if the chair could make a substitution without a violation of the Brown Act.

He said he could.

So Ruth Bolter stepped in, took his place.

And that's what we were talking about when the tape started.

Let me see.

Question of the fees being collected is another question that's come up.

On December 7, I wrote to AHDC that this is a quote.

"The submitted application must include the application fee.

Based on the preliminary site plan, the application will require environmental review for a 13-acre site, $1,050.

"
Now, in the move from the New York Hotel to the City Hall, this is the only thing I can think of.

With all that was going on, we didn't collect it in a timely manner.

But before the Planning Commission agenda was set for April 26, we reviewed all the fees at the staff level.

And certain fees were due, and that was the fee that was due.

And Mr.
Spann wrote a check for the amount.

And since then, I've discussed with the city manager and the city clerk and office clerk how we'll improve procedures there so that we don't let a mistake like that happen again.

But if it was a mistake, that's what happened.

And I would say that's about it.

Mr.
Pemperton brought up the American Institute of Certified Planners.

And yes, I am a member, and I do subscribe to their code of ethics.

And I do believe that if you review the record that-- if anybody reviews the record, that it'll show that I've tried to process this application in the interest of the public good and to bring it in front of the decision makers and have to make the decision and done my job as professionally as it called for.

And so that's pretty much my statement on those issues.

OK, thank you.

I have one quick question if I could, Kerry.

We had a letter from Mr.
Spann to the city that was never distributed and asked Lee how he got it.

And he said he asked for everything and he got it.

Did I hear you say correctly that Lee has made reference to a letter that you never even mailed?
Yes, but it was in the file.

You made reference to the letter, to the tax.

How did you obtain a letter that was never mailed?
The original was in the file because I never mailed it, so I never made a copy.

I just stuck the original in there in case it was going to be used someday.

Question for the city attorney, you don't have to answer immediately, but at what point does a document become a public document?
At what point is it a contemplated public document?
I don't think I'm going to give you a good answer on that one.

Basically, the rule is if it's still in a draft form and it's being circulated, it's not a public document, but I've never gotten into this permutation of it's a letter that never got mailed.

I'm not sure whether it's a public document or not to tell you the truth.

I'd be interested in a-- not tonight, but I'd be interested in your opinion at some point on that, Jim.

All right, it's a signed letter.

Did I get a chance to comment?
If that was a rebuttal to me, do I get a chance to comment?
No, I think that you had your say and now he had his say.

No, I think there was some discussion you think about, wasn't there?
No.

Maybe with the others?
No.

No.

There hasn't been.

We're all set.

OK, thank you, Paul.

Now, Mr.
Spann, representatives from AHDC.

Oh, I see.

There are a number of appeals.

What order am I rebutting first?
Or do we take them one at a time?
What's your pleasure?
Are you planning?
Do you think you'll need 15 minutes on each one?
Probably not.

Maybe a little longer on some than others.

Well, then, if you have a copy of the agenda in front of you.

Yeah, I can just go down it as a reference addendum B, the variances.

No?
Oh, yes, add B, right.

Yes, you started.

In response to addendum B variances, there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property.

The 30% slopes are man-made, not natural.

No other property in the vicinity of the site has this unique man-made feature.

This sets this site apart from all other natural slope conditions.

The same variance was applied for by a prestige care facility on the subject property using same hardship justifications and was approved by the city.

A significant portion of the site will be lost to development if a steep slope variance is not approved.

With regard, in addition to that, the issue regarding variances is such that this site has two streams flowing through it.

And without the ability to cross those streams, virtually-- well, I'd say over 50% of the property would be unattainable.

You can't get to it.

You can't develop it.

Now, if that's the city's pleasure, then there's your decision.

But it clearly hinders anyone's ability, whether it's for affordable housing, or for high-price housing, or multifamily, single-family, commercial, whatever.

If you can't get to the land, you cannot develop it.

And that's clearly a hardship on whoever-- whether you own it, or you're in contract to acquire it, or whatever the case may be.

If you can't get to it, you can't develop it.

So clearly, there's a hardship right there alone in just being able to reach the property.

And just to reiterate the 30% slope issue, I heard someone say that they have a similar situation.

I cannot dispute that.

I don't know if it was a mining site as well.

But I know that we are on a mining site, and that these conditions were man-made.

And I don't think that that was the intent of the ordinance.

I believe the intent of the ordinance was to protect the hillsides.

This is a devastated piece of property.

I know there's history behind the mining operation, but the results of the mining operation obliterated this land with regards to addendum C, tree removal permit.

Though some trees are being removed, they will be replaced two to one, leaving the site with more trees after development than exists now.

Special attention will be given to tree placement to provide maximum screening to neighboring properties.

Scenic corridor.

Our project design and landscape plan have focused specifically to comply with the scenic corridor ordinance.

Low single-story structures have been utilized to minimize any visual effect on the corridor.

Tree retention and heavy landscape screening along the corridor are incorporated in our landscape plan.

In response to procedural issues, addendum E, number one.

City staff-- actually, what I prepared was response to the items as they were indicated in the appeal.

So with regards to procedural issues, I felt that the city did need to respond to some of the questions that were asked, and I think Paul has pretty much addressed those.

But I did want to indicate that we did pay an initial fee of $560 in October, and additional fees were paid upon request by staff.

A mitigated negative declaration was granted on the basis that sufficient documentation was provided.

Mitigation conditions have been placed on the project that will assure that the identified environmental issues requiring further investigation will be analyzed and mitigated prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit.

Revisions to site and grading plans were minimal.

At the May 10 meeting, what was submitted in terms of the changes to the site plan I had addressed and responded to previously, there were very minor changes to the footprints of a few buildings to remove them from the streambed setback.

As a matter of fact, at this point, the only portions of the development that affect the streambed setback is one corner of a parking lot area in just one location, and the bridge crossings over the streambeds.

And in the case of those bridge crossings, they will be free span.

There will be no structures, no disturbance to the creek bed whatsoever.

But those bridge spans will be crossing over the 25-foot setback area.

The adjustments are beneficial to protect the sensitive nature of the seasonal streambeds.

By making these changes, the only encroachments of the streambeds are the two bridges, which will be free span and spanning and will not have an impact on the streambeds.

Though further studies and reviews are being required at later dates, the importance of these studies will not be diminished in any way.

Unless a city concurs that all conditions have been met, the project will not receive a grading and/or building permit.

The purpose of deferring these studies is a common practice in the development of real estate in California.

The intent of the practice is to allow the project to receive ample review and conditional approval, then to allow the developer to secure project financing prior to paying considerable expense for engineering, working drawings, and other studies that will ultimately require the city's approval.

Addendum F with regards to housing element.

The city's housing element is not in substantive compliance with the state of California.

Anyone can call the Department of Housing and Community Development to verify this fact.

Nevada City does have a responsibility to promote adequate housing opportunities for all segments of the community's housing needs.

We would not be taking the financial risk involved in developing this project if there wasn't a need.

Our marketing information reflects a need far greater than the proposed 80 units.

In response to the Friends of Nevada City Appeal, here again I'm going to address as the items were identified in their appeal, A through N.

A.

Hardship justification for steep slope variance was provided to the Planning Commission.

The proposed site, the steep slopes are man-made, not natural.

Mine tailings left over from past mining operations have devastated the site's topography.

Development of the site at any reasonable density will require variances to the steep slope ordinance.

It should be noted that the previously approved Prestige Care Facility received the same variances on the very same site.

This is not a similar site or a similar piece of property that a variance was requested on.

This is the very same site.

Placement of the water tank has been altered prior to the Planning Commission hearing.

The present location is screened by existing vegetation from Highway 49 and Broad Street.

The addition of landscaping will add to the screening of the water tank.

No visual impact will be caused by this improvement.

Permission for clearing natural vegetation has been given in the form of mitigating measures pertaining to site distance visibility from Highway 49 on to Broad Street.

The project site has proper zoning and general plan designation.

The allowable density far exceeds the density proposed for the project.

Seeking variances does not negate the project's consistency with the city's general plan.

D, trees being removed will be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one.

This is a replacement factor generally found acceptable in most other jurisdictions.

Furthermore, thinning of thick, dense stands of Ponderosa pines is thought to be a good foresting practice, which enables selected trees to thrive.

The project can be served-- E, the project can be served by the city's water system.

We have proposed mitigation measures to adequately address water and sewer system improvements that will more than adequately cover the project's impact on these systems.

What I mean by that is that we have recently written a letter to the city manager and asked for it to be distributed to the city council, offering our contribution to make improvements to off-site water and sewer line improvements in the city.

These improvements have recently been communicated to us as a need by public works director.

And upon hearing those results, we have made this offer.

And we have also made-- the offer is twofold.

One, dealing with sewer.

And that is that through the process of the application, we had paid for Cramner Engineering to give us a report on what kind of off-site sewer improvement needs would be required for the project.

And they had indicated that a gravity flow line would be required to be improved and to the extent of roughly about $100,000 of cost.

At that time, that was the chosen way to go, and is still the recommended way to go in the mitigation negative declaration.

The letter that I had submitted to the city manager reflected that there is an alternative.

And that would be to pump sewage up to Broad Street and make improvements to Broad Street.

Those off-site improvements for the Broad Street connection is far, far less than what the other improvements would be required that was identified in the Crammer Report.

By our now being required to put in a sewage holding system, which will require a pumping station and emergency generator in case of blackouts, this now opens up the alternative to pumping to Broad Street and saving perhaps as much as $70,000 in off-site sewer line improvements.

The offer that I made to the city manager was that if the city chose to have the Broad Street improvements made as opposed to the other gravity flow improvements, that we would contribute to the city the difference of that savings, that approximate $70,000 presuming that that is the number, to the city to make improvements in other sewer lines throughout the city that may be causing infiltration of storm water into the sewer system.

So we felt that that was a very fair and adequate way of dealing with some of the problems that the city is dealing with in their sewer system at this time.

We also agreed to make a contribution of up to $50,000 for off-site water improvements.

And this is over and above all the improvements and all the work that we're going to do on site with regards to the-- what's the water-- - Pine Street? - No, the pump-- or the-- - Hydrogen.

- Hydrogen.

- What's the storage tank? - Right.

This is in addition to putting in the hydromatic pump station on site and enlarging our water holding tank as required or as discussed with the city manager previously.

So we think that we're making ample contributions to the city system to deal with existing problems that go beyond the need of our complex.

- Excuse me.

- Bill, before you-- because you're going to be there a while before you move on.

When was this letter sent to the city? - This was sent, and I just asked-- gave copies for distribution.

The date was June 2.

- I'm sorry? - June 7.

- June 7.

- Oh.

We don't-- it's being just-- - I've indicated I gave that letter to-- - Just here.

- I don't think you-- oh, that letter is in your packet.

- Yeah, no, it was just put on-- - It's just your mic.

- It was put on our desk.

- I gave the letter to the city engineer.

- Oh, that was one time.

OK.

One tonight.

OK.

Take it.

Item number F was referring to will serve letters.

And to my knowledge, the city staff has not requested or required that we collect will serve letters for the project.

G, it is common practice to grant mitigated negative declarations on projects that require studies and documentation.

As long as the needed studies and documentation are provided and approved by the responsible local government agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit.

The material provided to staff in the planning commission was sufficient for them to make a decision on the project's architecture.

All items requested by the planning commission were provided, enabling the commission to make a knowledgeable decision.

I.

The review of the environmental impact is a separate action from the planning-- from the site plan review.

Denial the site plan review has no bearing on the adequacy of the environmental review process.

Consultants prepared all of the environmental studies for the project.

The applicant prepared none of the studies.

J, the environmental document is adequate for this project.

Cultural, historical, biological, and water resource studies have been provided.

And mitigation measures are in place to assure that if necessary, further review and studies are required prior to issuance of a building or grading permit.

OK.

It was being asked that on-site traffic safety studies be done.

And I asked why should this be done?
This is something I've never heard of before.

I've been developing apartments for 16 years, and I've never been asked to provide such a study.

So I'm a little more curious than anything.

Are there accident reports or any other information that supports such an on-site traffic study analysis?
Site distance mitigation measures from the April 25, 2001 Caltrans letter was incorporated in the mitigation-- in the mitigated negative declaration.

L, we have agreed to make off-site infrastructure improvements required by the city.

Such improvements will correct existing problems that will be beneficial to the community for many years.

M, traffic impact on Broad and Pine Street intersection was adequately addressed in a traffic report submitted to staff and discussed regarding the project's potential impact on the intersection was explained by the traffic engineer to the Planning Commission prior to the approval of the mitigated negative declaration.

Cultural and historical significance.

Historical value of the site has been determined in a report submitted to the staff by a cultural resource consultant.

The report reflects the historic value of the site to be minimal.

There is little evidence that a historic act took place at the site.

Mitigation measures assure that areas of the hillside will be preserved, and interpretive signage will be provided for public information.

Basically, the way that it was explained to me that the value of historical sites has a great deal to do with what is left to be viewed.

Well, in essence, what's left to be viewed here is a torn away hillside.

And to the-- there is no equipment.

There is no foundations.

There are no structures evident or existing that has any historical relevance.

We all agree that a historic act took place at this site.

And we agree, as in the mitigation measures, to preserve the hillside by clearing out the brush, leaving an interpretive sign, leaving an area for the public to view, and walk up to the site if they choose to.

So we agree to all those conditions.

Water and sewer.

Mitigation measures have been provided for sewer service issues.

We have maintained that we are willing to work with the city on needed improvements to infrastructure impact caused by our project.

Whether or not there are hazards associated with the on-site contamination will be determined prior to issuance of a grading permit.

The potential impact from the closed city burnedum and the possible presence of asbestos on the site will also be determined prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

Wildlife impact was discussed and analyzed.

The site is essentially the final piece of land to be developed.

The site is essentially surrounded by existing or planned development improvements.

Habitat patterns have been adjusted to the development in the area of the site and will adjust to our development as well.

There is no known critical habitat existing on the site.

And adequate provisions have been made in the approved mitigation-- mitigated negative declaration to assure full environmental clearance of all identified project impacts.

In summation, the mitigated negative declaration has several conditions that must be met prior to issuance of a grading permit.

The project is consistent with the general plan and the scenic corridor regulations.

In conclusion, I feel that we've been involved in this proposal since last summer.

We made initial applications in October.

We paid initial fees at that time.

We had numerous staff meetings.

We've had several ARC meetings.

It wasn't until the April 6 ARC meeting that the city engineer indicated to us that our grading plan was unacceptable.

It was at that time that the modifications to that grading plan were made and a more stepped approach was adopted.

And it was at that time that the retaining walls were-- the majority-- or more retaining walls, I should say, was added to the plan.

April 6 is a long time from October 23 when we made this initial application.

It's a bit frustrating to find out that you have to make those kind of adjustments so late in the process.

But we did.

And we have addressed those issues.

And we've responded to everything that staff has asked of us.

I never attended the April 6 meeting.

Well, nevertheless, our plan, our submittal, and our documentation had been with the city up until April 6.

And also, on the May 10 submittal in reference to the different size of the plans, we had submitted the site plan on the 7th.

And we had provided what was requested of us in the size of the plans.

The reductions were provided so that the planning commissioners could have that size in front of them to view during the meeting rather than having a big 24 by 36, each of you folding it out.

It was a convenience.

It was not a trick.

It was not trying to conceal anything.

The whole purpose was to show that the modifications could be made and that we could remove the buildings from the setbacks.

We thought it was a good thing.

Had I known it was going to create such an uproar, we would have left it alone.

Everything we've done throughout this process has been a good thing to try and make this a better project.

We've modified the building elevations.

We consulted with local architects.

We think that we've come up with a better plan.

And every time staff mentions something or brings something up, we address it and we respond to it.

As far as the mitigating negative declaration, there are still items in here that shouldn't be in here.

I understand council's review.

I don't know why there are conditions in here to pay a fee related to annexations.

I think a lot of this could be cleaned up.

I think this mitigated negative declaration, we could sit here in the next couple of nights and we can go through every item and we can correct it and we can make the proper findings to approve this project.

And I think we would certainly appreciate that.

We think that we've done a lot.

We've certainly addressed just about every concern.

And if there are concerns that we haven't addressed, let us know.

We'll address them still.

But we would appreciate the cooperation in making the proper findings to this document so that you can make the right decision.

I have a question.

We need to clarify this.

We don't anybody leaving here with any bad impressions about the process.

You indicated that you were advised by the city engineer on April 6 that the grading plan was unacceptable.

The city engineer's indicated he wasn't at the meeting on April 6.

Can we resolve when did you, Bill, indicate to Mr.
Spann that his grading plan was unacceptable?
Grading plan is dated April 13.

So I don't think it existed on 6.

We didn't have it.

Well, it even narrows it down even further.

But did you recall, Bill, when you advised Mr.
Spann that the grading plan was unacceptable?
I didn't recall that date.

I know that the one we're talking about, the first one I saw.

People mix up the site plan and the grading plan.

We had a site plan.

We did not have a grading plan.

I'm just trying to get-- Mr.
Spann has indicated that the advice from staff that the grading plan was unacceptable came late in the process.

And so I'm just trying to determine when did it arise, how late in the process.

I'm sorry, Mr.
Mayor.

My name's Gary Horn.

I'm the civil engineer for the project.

We did have comments at the ARC meeting regarding the grading plan.

One of the comments was that there was too much dirt being moved.

The initial grading plan that we did that was considered at the ARC meeting had a volume of about 50,000 yards of excavation.

And we received the comments at the ARC meeting.

We went back and revised some aspects of the site plan.

We also revised the grading plan and resubmitted those for planning commission.

The second grading plan showed yardage of about 18,000 cubic yards of dirt to be moved.

The last minute changes to the site plan-- and I agree they were made the week before the planning commission hearing to mitigate the encroachments into the stream setbacks-- were sent to the city with the full intention on our part for them to be in the packet to the planning commissioners.

At that time, we did not revise the grading plan to reflect those minor movements.

So we have tried to respond to all of the comments and to address those and do the best we can to meet staff concerns.

So that's my recollection of the history.

And I skipped over responses to Mr.
Pemberton's appeal.

And perhaps I can just take a couple of minutes to explain my position and some of those issues.

Dating back to last summer, I did approach the city manager about requesting to ask the city to work with this on making a home application.

And in moving forward with that thought, I started working with Mr.
Cogley from the planning standpoint, researching the property, determining whether or not it would be suitable for our plans.

And in that process, I explained that in order for the city-- if the city were to be interested in making the home application with us, it would require-- not require, but it would improve our competitive score in the home competition if the housing element was in substantive compliance.

And this is where I admit an error in judgment.

And in my zeal and exuberance to see this happen, I felt that this is a good thing for the city.

And I took it upon myself to engage a consultant in reviewing the housing element.

Now, this was done in some cooperation with staff, because I did receive the documents from staff.

But in hindsight, I wish I never would have done that.

But facts are, I did take that on.

With regards to the revitalization zone, I did approach staff.

I did approach Paul Cogley and ask him if he would be interested in working with me in creating a revitalization zone to present to the city.

Knowing that Mr.
Cogley worked part time for the city, knowing that he had an extensive background and understanding of the city's makeup, I felt who better than he to write a revitalization zone or work on it.

My intention was not to do anything devious.

It was simply because he was, in my opinion, the best person for doing that kind of work.

Time's up?
No, no.

I-- Yeah.

We're-- We missed the last-- I mean, whatever it was just saying, but it's-- All right.

We're back on-- back online?
Mr.
Cogley was kind enough to quickly tell me that it just wasn't appropriate.

So it stopped there.

But to explain, the reason for the request to form a revitalization zone had everything to do with improving our competition for tax credits.

Had nothing to do with the home program of a housing element, but yet it was another segment, another competition, that we were seeking to finance the project.

And I apologize if it's caused Mr.
Cogley any problems.

And I just want to express to Mr.
Pemberton, it was by no means an intent to try and sway votes in any way, shape, or form.

It had everything to do with trying to improve our chances of seeking financing.

Great.

That's about it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Here's the request.

We're done.

Can't go further than what we said we were going to do tonight.

I have a question.

We can do anything we want.

Jim?
Mr.
Arnett, can I ask you a question of the law?
Just a clarification.

Is just the CEPA section that you quoted, 1508?
Jim, a question for you when you had given us the legal counsel's opinion earlier this evening.

The question that I had was, is the council able to take a vote at any time prior to Wednesday evening on any issue?
Yes, I think that legally, given the advice you've received, that if you wanted to go in that direction, you could go there at any time.

Just on that item or-- I think on that item, that yes, because of the advice we've received, if the council at some point wanted to feel that they've had enough input and wanted to follow the advice, that they simply could do that and not need to go into the full public hearing if that's what you want to do.

Because if we do have further environmental impact reports done or environmental studies done, the whole matter will come back up before the council, assuming the applicant wants to go forward.

It will all come back, and we'll do this all over again, probably.

So it's not like they won't get a chance to say something at some point.

Plus, as I understand it, if the consultant was hired, I would assume he or she would get input from the public before coming back with a report to the council.

OK, well, I guess I just want clarification on the point that if-- and just throw this out as a what if-- if sometime before the end of Wednesday's meeting, the council feels that it's prepared to make a vote on something other than the CEQA, is that allowable?
Or do we need to wait until the end of the-- I think for any other motion-- in other words, if you're going to approve or deny the project itself, I think you need to get the public input, because that would conceivably be a final result where they wouldn't get a chance to speak again, versus if you go back and all we're going to do is review the environmental impacts, everybody's going to get a chance to speak again in the sense it will be.

The consultant will take testimony.

They'll come back to the ARC, which will be notified.

Everybody gets a chance to speak.

And then presumably, the project will go to the Planning Commission and perhaps another appeal.

So everybody would have their day in court, so to speak.

But if you decide to approve the project or deny the project before you've got public input, that's basically the end of it, and people didn't have a chance to get their input before that was done.

OK.

Thank you for that clarification.

Then it seems that we're finished for this evening.

And like who wants to be a millionaire, we're on three nights this week.

So we will see you again tomorrow evening at 6.

30.

Thank you very much.

This council-- oh, are we going to do executive session